Andy Murray deserves another slam

Sure, Andy Murray has had some lucky breaks at the Australian Open. The world number two’s main threats in his side of the draw appeared to be former Australian Open champions Rafael Nadal and Stan Wawrinka, but Murray did not have to face them en route to the final.

Lady luck also conveniently intervened during his semi-final against hard-hitting Canadian Milos Raonic. The Scot was in a major dogfight against the 13th seed and fell behind two sets to one, as an upset loomed.

Raonic was playing arguably the best tennis of his career, fuelled by a high-octane game complete with a booming serve testing Murray’s renowned defensive abilities.

But Raonic unluckily succumbed to a leg injury in the fourth set, and was clearly hampered during the lopsided fifth. A ruthless Murray capitalised to seal his fifth Australian Open final berth where he’ll meet long-time nemesis Novak Djokovic.

It is undeniable, Murray has had some good fortune during this tournament but not even the cruel hearted would begrudge him a healthy dose of this. After all, Murray has the misfortune of being the fourth wheel of men’s tennis’ absolute elite.

Some harsh analysts detest the “big four” moniker believing Murray, a two-time major winner, should not be amid the rarified realm of Djokovic, Nadal and Roger Federer, all of whom are in double digits in grand slam victories.

In basically any other era, Murray would have won many more grand slams. Murray has been essentially a top-five player for the past eight years, displaying outstanding consistency throughout despite playing amid the daunting shadows of the big three.

Watching Murray’s brilliantly put together game, where he has essentially no weakness, you would naturally assume he was in the range of a four-to-six time grand slam winner. Truth be told, Murray probably would have been if he was born maybe a decade earlier.

Murray has won the same amount of slams as Lleyton Hewitt and Marat Safin, players who hit their primes in the early 2000s and capitalised on the post-Pete Sampras, pre-Federer era when majors were being generously shared around.

Few would argue Murray is a far more complete player than Hewitt and Safin but he has been stonewalled by three of the greatest players the game has ever seen.

Murray hasn’t even had the honour of being world number one despite having such an indefatigable career, which at one point included 18 straight grand slam quarter finals appearances.

On Sunday, Murray will contest his ninth major final, meaning his conversion rate is a woeful 25 per cent in deciders. One can’t point the finger at Murray struggling on the big stage because all of his six losses in grand slam finals have been to Djokovic or Federer, where he’s essentially been the underdog.

It’s been an unfair predicament for Murray, who could easily have given up toiling years ago. Some would have become disillusioned continually hitting the ball against a brick wall. The bar had seemingly been set too high for Murray.

Compounding matters, Murray was burdened with rescuing British tennis from the abyss after a prolonged period of being a punchline.

The intense expectations had long suffocated prominent British tennis players, notably Tim Henman, but Murray was clearly a different breed.

Murray’s innate characteristic is his competitiveness. This stems from childhood when he used to often lose to his older brother Jamie, who will be competing in the men’s doubles final.

Most wrote off Murray’s chances of legitimately competing with men’s tennis’ legendary elite but his confidence was unwavering. Well, that may not be entirely accurate as Murray did lose his first four grand slam finals, infamously joining Ivan Lendl – who once coached Murray – with that unwanted record.

Murray famously broke through at tennis’ unofficial ‘fifth slam’ winning a gold medal at the London Olympics and followed that with his major breakthrough by memorably beating Djokovic in a marathon US Open final.

Murray then ended a long-running hoodoo by being the first British player to win at Wimbledon when he defeated Djokovic in the final there in 2013.

This was in the midst of Murray’s best patch of his career, when the “big four” moniker legitimately started to stick. But Murray hasn’t won a slam since, as injuries, a rejuvenated Federer and, most notably, Djokovic transforming into a demigod has consigned him into the backdrop.

A consistent season in 2015 ensured Murray finished the year ranked second for the first time in his career. But his standing had taken a slight battering. Federer, despite his advancing age was perceived as being better while the gulf with Djokovic had never been wider.

Murray only made one grand slam final last year but spearheading Great Britain to Davis Cup glory was seen as a potential catalyst for a highly successful 2016. So far, with a few breaks, things have started well.

Some highly astute judges, such as tennis legend John McEnroe, believe Murray is set for a career year.

It’s easy to be swayed.

Apart from perhaps a susceptible second serve, Murray has no weakness. In many respects his game has probably been underrated. He’s not as technically correct like Djokovic or aesthetically beautiful like Federer.

Conversely, Murray’s style can be awkward and grinding. Djokovic may play like a tennis robot in his ability to continually hit shots, while Murray, able to do almost likewise, looks more like a malfunctioning robot due to the exhausting demands of his game.

He can often lose the plot seemingly out of nowhere, gesticulating and cursing to his team in the box. No player’s box has copped as much verbal punishment than the Murray camp.

Murray moves jarringly but no one covers the court better. He’s intelligent and can dictate so ruthlessly because of his awareness. Despite the injuries, and his body looking like it could break down at any moment, you sense Murray relishes nothing more than long points and matches.

In many respects, he’s reminiscence of Hewitt – only a bigger, stronger and better version.

Ultimately, Murray will be judged on how he stacks up against Djokovic, who has taken men’s tennis to profound heights. Most pundits believe it is nearly a forgone conclusion that Djokovic will win the calendar slam.

Murray looms as the player most likely to seriously challenge Djokovic’s overwhelming domination on a consistent basis. You feel Federer probably can’t do it regularly, Nadal is too banged up, and dangerous players such as Wawrinka are simply unreliable.

Murray has beaten Djokovic twice in major finals, although he boasts an underwhelming 0-3 record in deciders at the Australian Open. Murray has often been compared to Djokovic because the pair have similar styles and eerily are born just one week apart.

But it feels like Djokovic is probably 10 per cent better than Murray at all facets of the game. If this gap can’t be closed, it is unlikely that Murray can add to his tally of grand slams any time soon.

That is the brutal truth.

Luckily for Murray, he has an opportune chance to re-write the script on Sunday and, finally, win a coveted third major.