2011 Australian Open: How Andy Murray Can Transition to Grand Slam Champion

Andy Murray played in his third Grand Slam final and second Australian Open final today.  His opponent was Novak Djokovic of Serbia; in his other two Grand Slam finals, his opponent was Roger Federer. Unfortunately for Andy Murray, the result was the same—a straight sets defeat.

Before last year’s Australian Open final, I was quite excited about the prospect, because Murray had played well throughout the whole tournament and looked ready to win his first major title. 

However, I was left feeling deflated due to Murray’s lack of performance or grit in the first two sets against Federer.  The third set was much closer but the damage had been done.

This year, I was not very optimistic about Murray’s prospects, because I had the nagging feeling that Murray had not improved his game or tactical thinking sufficiently to claim that elusive major title.  And that’s the key word here—claim. If you want to win the title, you have to claim it; the opponent will not give it to you. 

I remember before the 1994 European Cup final when AC Milan played Barcelona, then Milan manager Fabio Capello said his team was coming to “claim the cup”.  Barcelona were favourites going into that match but were thrashed 4:0 by Milan. The way Murray has approached his three major finals, it seems that he’s hoping his opponent will miss many shots, and he could slowly grind his way to victory

Let’s look at the tactics of the two men in the final.  Djokovic had a clear game plan; that plan was to get a high percentage of first serves in, then attempt to dictate the points by hitting hard, deep into the corners, going for winners and being bold from the baseline.  Djokovic also showed incredible defense and athleticism and was often able to turn defense into attack with stunning results.  Those tactics served him well in the semifinal where he thoroughly outplayed Roger Federer.

As for Andy Murray, I have to admit I’m not quite sure what his tactics were throughout the match. Murray stayed with Djokovic but then lost his serve at the end of the first set and proceeded to lose seven games in a row.  Murray didn’t really go after Djokovic with his ground strokes, but also, Murray wasn’t able to mix up his game with serve and volley which he usually does to take the game to Djokovic.  Murray was not able to have a go at Djokovic’s second serve to make things happen. 

So all in all, it seems that Murray did not have a coherent game plan which was devised before the match with his team.  Meanwhile, Djokovic mentioned in the press conference that he had a clear gameplan, which he discussed with his coach before the match.

It also comes back to what I mentioned earlier about claiming the cup.  How do you claim the cup? By having a clear game plan or set of goals in what you want to achieve and how you are going to set about achieving it.  Of course, it doesn’t guarantee victory, but if you lose, it then becomes easier to understand why the plan didn’t work and what you must do to modify or improve the plan the next time.

And that’s why it appears that Murray hasn’t made much progress in major finals since 2008.  It seems to me that Murray played exactly the same way in the 2008 US Open final as he played in the 2011 Australian Open final.  Even more depressing for Murray, he’s yet to win a set in a major final.

So, what can Murray do to turn around the situation in major finals should he create another opportunity for himself?  The first thing Murray should do is analyse why he’s played the same way in three major finals and lost heavily each time.  Murray must realise that he’s going into finals without a clear gameplan. That might work in earlier rounds against lower ranked opponents, but that cannot work in a final against the best players in the world.

Murray must then assess what that gameplan should be.  Luckily for Murray, he’s extremely talented and blessed with athleticism, so he could consider taking a bit of pace off on his first serve but adding more slice and topspin for control.

I often find Murray hits the serve too big and too flat on the ad court, he doesn’t serve down the middle enough, so even though his serves are fast, the best returners can get them back and get themselves into the point where anything can happen. 

Murray’s first serve is currently too predictable. I also think Murray needs to improve his second serve further so it's not easily attackable; it needs more pace and spin and Murray needs to be more bold with it.

Murray also has to return serve better in finals; he needs to go after his opponent’s second serve more.  It’s all about making things happen, and that really is where Murray has suffered, he’s not making things happen or creating pressure for his opponent’s in their mind when they play him.  Attacking the second serve is one way to create doubt and pressure in the opponent’s mind.

The key to all of this also includes having a coach he can trust and someone he would listen to, because the memo is that Murray is his own man and likes to make his own decisions.  That’s fine if it works, but all the best players have coaches to exchange ideas and devise strategies for opponents. 

Murray is missing out here and needs to rectify the situation.  Murray would do well to hire a coach who’s played at the top level and understands what being on the tour is all about.

Murray could take inspiration from Kim Clijsters, who won the Australian Open for the first time.  Clijsters lost her first four major finals but is now a real force.  Both Ivan Lendl and Andre Agassi lost their first three major finals, but they lost close matches along the way before claiming victory.

Andy Murray can do it, but he must be true to himself and realise he needs to go into finals prepared in the future—prepared to impose himself on his opponent, and as Fabio Capello said in 1994, be prepared to claim the cup.