Andy Murray: Does Monte Carlo 2011 Signal the Resurgence of the Scot?

While Rafael Nadal's praises are being sung, in the wake of his seventh consecutive triumph at the Monte Carlo Masters, we shouldn't yet forget the match which really determined the winner of this tournament—his monumental semifinal against Andy Murray.

With no disrespect to David Ferrer, it was pretty clear to most people that the winner of the battle between the world No. 1 and No. 4 would have very likely been the hot favourite in the final the day after. As it turned out, the world No. 1 won—someone who was coincidentally the six-time defending champion, and, just as it happened, the best player on clay in our era (possibly ever).

What is more remarkable about the match was just how close Murray actually came to winning it. Yes, it was sadly reminiscent of the match between Nadal and Djokovic in 2009 (which went by the similar sounding score of 6-3, 2-6, 6-1), with vintage Nadal sets sandwiched by aberrant, albeit temporary, setbacks. Scores of 6-2, however, do not exactly encourage the notion that Nadal's domination on this surface is as it once was.

Well yes, he did lose that bagel to Federer at Hamburg in 2007, but he was tired, and he was playing Federer, after all. But for Murray to have won a set by a double break against Nadal on clay is quite remarkable. It suggests several things: that the Scot does have, after all, a game suited to all surfaces and that the game of tennis is in fact slowly transcending the surface differentials that used to exist.

At any rate, Murray's performance was ballistic. We've known for years that it would take a great two-hander to adequately challenge Nadal on clay, and Murray provided us with just that shot, which Federer will never, purely from a physical and technical perspective, be able to hit: the crushing backhand crosscourt.

Often the Scot would probe Nadal's backhand, and where the opportunity arises, thump his supersonic backhand into Nadal's forehand corner. I mean, those backhands were just rockets—the sort of pace that maybe only the Scot can generate.

More impressive, of course, was Murray's adept variation of the rallying patterns; instead of opting just for the hit-hard-into-his-forehand tactic, which has been a mainstay for years, Murray, tried some of Nadal against the man himself—loopy forehands into his backhand corner, which elicited some nice openings for him.

Overall, his forehand that day was the really impressive shot, only in that it hasn't typically been seen as much of a weapon of his. When he does flatten it out, it doesn't quite have the purity of authority of Federer's, but quite the same effective pace.

His big serve helped, of course, and often he was play one-two punches, the sort of play which one is used to seeing morphed into long grinding rallies by Nadal's retrieving ability alone. No, however, the Scot was not to be denied. His game plan worked out wonderfully for much of the first two sets.

Maybe it's what we saw in that disappointing third, which might draw some negativity—what with sagging body language, and his crisply executed game plan reduced to rash, impulsive shot selection, but this sort of lapse is to be expected, one supposed, against Nadal. It wasn't as if Murray, of course, had been living his whole life for this match; indeed, ankle problems had surfaced only hours before it, raising questions even over his participation in it.

His performance, then, must be double praised. He played very much within himself, and demonstrated much of that tennis artistry and touch which we have waited for for three months to resurface.

Indeed, for much of the first two sets Nadal was hardly a clear superior, and he wasn't playing badly. He did hit his monster forehands, but more often that not Murray managed to neutralise, with deft defence and clever rallying, the ferocity of the Spaniard. The Scot managed, for moments in the match, to in fact outclass the king of clay.

That he did lose 6-1 in the decider is a non-issue. The real moment is, that Murray may just have found his old self back. Whether the ghosts of Melbourne still plague his self-admonishing thoughts is to be seen. Nonetheless, for nearly three hours he managed to compete with, and came close to actually beating, Rafael Nadal, the undisputed king of clay of the last six years—and all, playing just as he can.

What we seemed to see that day was what everyone had been wondering about the Scot.