In rugby there's a world of difference between a goal-kicker missing a couple of penalties in front of the posts and from the touchline 40 or 50 yards out. Yet the statistics only record two misses.
The statisticians tell us Roger Federer made
52 'unforced errors' in that tremendous Wimbledon final. Perhaps he did, though determining whether an error is unforced is a matter of judgment rather than fact. But even if you accept the figure given as accurate, it doesn't necessarily mean Federer was playing badly or below his usual level. You should also consider his opponent. Rafael Nadal's ability to return shots that, against any other player, would be winners means his opponent has to take more risks, aim to hit the perfect shot close to the line even when the court seems wide open. In other words, Nadal forces errors other players don't. Despite which, that error may be marked as "unforced".
There are plenty ready now to say Federer's time is up. Perhaps it is, though I wouldn't myself go further than to say he is unlikely to dominate the game as he has for the last three or four years. Nevertheless if I was a betting man, I would still be prepared to back him to retain his American title at Flushing Meadow. This is not only because Nadal's record there so far is poor – he hasn't gone beyond the last eight – it's also because I suspect the surface of hard courts does something to negate the extraordinary top-spin he puts on the ball, which makes returning even his best shots that bit easier. That's my hunch.
After his thumping defeat at Nadal's hands, there were some ready to say that Andy Murray will never win a Slam. Bit hard to be written off at 21, I'd say.
Admittedly, Nadal represents a formidable barrier, all the more because he is only a year older than Murray. Physically, however, he is several years ahead of him, and Murray himself has said he is unlikely to reach his peak until he is 23 or 24. Admittedly too, there is Novak Djokovic, whom Murray has not yet beaten, and there are several good younger players already snapping at his heels.
But Murray is still improving, and he has a more varied game than most. This is a disadvantage as well as an advantage. On the one hand, it means he is likely to have more poor matches when he tries things that don't come off than a more mechanical player will have; on the other it means that on other days he will produce sublime tennis few can match. He's a touch player and touch players like him , or indeed Richard Gasquet, are likely to be less consistent than less ambitious players. In rugby terms Murray and Gasquet are like Gregor Townsend rather than Craig Chalmers.
I'll be surprised if Murray doesn't win a couple of Slams in his career, but even if he doesn't, he should not be written off as a failure. There are some very fine players out there who have never won a major title – in tennis as in golf.
Because for a very long time we have not had more than one British player of world class, we tend to be harsh in our judgment. There are plenty of people happy to dismiss Tim Henman as a failure, despite reaching four Wimbledon semi-finals in each of which he was beaten by the eventual champion – Pete Sampras (twice), Goran Ivanisevic, and Lleyton Hewitt.
There are four players ranked above Murray this week who have never won one of the Slam tournaments – David Ferrer, Nikolay Davydenko, David Nalbandian and James Blake. They may never do so, but that does not mean they should be regarded as failures. We ought to keep a sense of proportion.
We ought to keep a sense of proportion too about some of the criticism directed at Murray by some in the London press and by others in the letters pages. Murray is the sort of player, the sort of character, who is always likely to divide opinion, just as Ilie Nastase, Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe and Boris Becker did. He's demonstrative and rubs some people up the wrong way. It's a question of manners and behaviour, on court and in interviews.
It's not an English/Scottish thing. I doubt if my mother would always have approved of Murray's manner, just as she disapproved of the way Connors and McEnroe conducted themselves.
Even if it was an English/Scottish thing, so what? We are often ridiculously sensitive, and sensitive in the worst way: that is, we are sensitive to our own feelings and indifferent to those of others. Many Scots who bridle at some English criticism of Murray saw nothing wrong in having a go at Henman. Pathetic, really. It's time we grew up – as Murray himself is doing.
The full article contains 846 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
