Andy Murray: What's Stopping Him from Being as Successful as His Contemporaries?

In his much acclaimed autobiography Open, Andre Agassi discusses the "finish line at the end of a match." He explains that this "finish line" is a paradox, which contains "twin forces" and "contradictory energies."

Agassi writes that one force is "pulling you" and "you can use it to get across" (winning), and that the other is "equally strong, pushing you away" (in other words, losing).

Is it this peculiar finish line phenomenon the obstacle that Andy Murray cannot seem to overcome?

The Scot must undoubtedly be included in a list of the most elite tennis players in the world, yet this man has been unable to win any Grand Slams. While three of his contemporaries (Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, and Roger Federer) have been extremely successful in terms of major trophies, Murray isn't considered as great as them due to his inability to cross that certain finish line.

At this point, it doesn't seem like there's a major flaw in his technique itself, because all of his strokes have pace, spin and are among the best in the game. Maybe his forehand isn't as good as those of Nadal and Djokovic, but his backhand is better than both Federer's and Nadal's.

His serve can't be a big issue, because in 2011 he had 494 aces and won 75 percent of first serve points. Sure, the stats of just 80 percent of service games won and 149 double faults aren't ideal, but those things aren't bad enough to have prevented this man from winning a slam.

On the other hand, Murray is an excellent returner, having won 36 percent of return games and 44 percent of return points in this past year. The only negative thing that stands out in his return game is the fact that the 24-year-old was only able to convert 46 percent of his 637 break point opportunities, which may show some struggling under pressure.

The mystery, however, is that even with those two negative statistics combined, they're not enough to keep a Grand Slam from him.

If it's not something in his game, it must be psychological.

Stats show that after winning the first set, Murray has more than a 93.5 percent chance of winning. However, when he loses the opening set, he has less than a 35 percent chance of winning. This shows that when he goes down, he needs to be stronger mentally in order to win a match.

Leaving stats aside, you can even see the frustration on his face after he is losing, and he even lets out screams when he misses a shot, contrary to Nadal's poker face, no matter the situation. Murray should learn to mask his emotions at crucial parts of the game, because better opponents like Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic feed off the adversary's frustration.

In 2010 and 2011, Murray went 1-5 against Nadal in Grand Slams, his only win coming in the quarterfinals, with all the losses in the semis. The only time Murray defeated the Spaniard in a Grand Slam semifinal was in an impressive showing in the 2008 US Open, where he went on to lose to Federer in the final.

Another stat to back up the claim that Murray plays worse under pressure in Grand Slams is the following. Murray knows how to beat Federer, having won eight out of their 12 total encounters in non-Grand Slams. However, Murray is 0-2 in Grand Slams—both matches were Grand Slam finals.

Like many players, the Scot has a tendency to let his nerves get the better of him (or "choke"). Despite the fact that choking is common, it rarely happens to the best players, namely the top three. Those guys get better, become fearless, and hit harder in later stages of matches.

With that said, it's appropriate that Murray should hire Czech superstar and eight-time Grand Slam winner Ivan Lendl. According to Brad Gilbert's book Winning Ugly, Lendl may have been "the best there is at staying ahead when he gets ahead." As mentioned previously, Murray is good at staying ahead, but this line about Lendl also shows that he performs well under pressure.

In conclusion, I think that it's not his game that Murray needs to work on, but he must internalize some ideas. In the three Grand Slam finals that he has reached, he has not won a single set, which is very telling.

In addition, the British media has been absolutely ruthless about Murray not having won a major yet, and in my opinion, that certainly does not help matters.

Of course, Murray plays in the same era as many great players, but he is technically as good as them, and if he doesn't win a Grand Slam, it will be a real disappointment for him, because he knows that he is just as good as some of his contemporaries.

With the Australian Open looming large, Murray fans will hope that their idol has gotten the mental aspect of his game together and if he has, he is one of the biggest contenders for Grand Slams in the future.

Please leave your comments and feedback.