Andy Murray's Future

The 2007 Rogers Masters in Montreal saw the return of Britain's Andy Murray to the ATP Tour after being on the sidelines since May with a wrist injury, and the results were decidedly mixed. The young Scot managed to squeak out a victory versus American underachiever Robby Ginepri in the first round before being humbled by Italian qualifier Fabio Fagnini, 6-2, 6-2. Obviously, this wasn't the return to form that Murray hoped for in Montreal and if anything, his poor play begs more questions. Is his wrist healed? Is Brad Gilbert the right coach? Can he ever win a Grand Slam title? Well, Murray's performances in Montreal were uninspiring and they have to give his fans pause when considering the future of Britain's number 1 player.

Another question on the mind of Murray fans after the loss to Fabio Fognini was, how did he lose so badly to the 139th ranked player in the world? Well, andymurraynews.com has a clinical explanation for that one.

As we've seen lately, Murray rarely loses to a lower ranked players [sic] so, either Fognini is a rising star, or Murray was struggling with fitness when he lost 2-6 2-6.

It seems so simple, doesn't it? Let's dispel the first part of the explanation that Fognini is a rising star. He isn't, and to suggest that he is is quite simply comedy gold. As Kenny Banya would say on Seinfeld, "That's gold Jerry, that's gold!" If Fognini was so good, he probably wouldn't have needed three sets to dispose of Canadian junior Peter Polansky in the first round.

Struggling with fitness? Possibly, but the temperatures in Montreal weren't that warm and Murray's match versus Ginepri didn't appear to be all that taxing. Presumably, Murray has been practicing and training, so he can't be too out of shape. Plus, doesn't Gilbert have him working out with various NFL strength coaches? Struggling with fitness seems like a lame excuse. No, the explanation for Murray's quick exit in Canada is more likely a lack of match play combined with mental discomfort over the injured wrist. Since Murray's game is more cerebral than physical, a return to form may take a few weeks of playing so Murray fans will have to be patient with the player.

In the meantime, let's ponder the question of Brad Gilbert and whether he is the right man to coach Andy Murray. The results so far appear to be rather neutral. From a physical standpoint, one immediate difference that's notable is Gilbert's influence on Murray's approach to the first serve. The young Brit is hitting big first serves all the time with no regard for first serve percentage. The American coach's belief is that the first serve percentage will gradually improve over time and that it is necessary to have a big bomb for a first serve if one is to make it into the top 5 in the world.

Other than the serve, there don't appear to be any other stroke changes in Murray's game due to the new coaching relationship. He's always been fairly solid from the ground so there wasn't much need to change anything there. His excellent return of serve has been helpful in handling big servers like Andy Roddick. How about tactics? If anything, Andy Murray's made his living on being a good tactical player, save for his over zealous love for the drop shot. Murray has always been adept at mixing up speeds and placement, and generally keeping his opponents off-balance. Gilbert's influence in this area isn't apparent at the moment. If one looks at Gilbert's results with Andre Agassi and Andy Roddick, the one strategic piece of advice that both men seemed to take from their relationship with Gilbert was to outwork and grind opponents into the ground physically by being stronger and by being aggressively consistent from the baseline. Agassi became a master at this style of play by running his foes ragged until they had nothing left to give. Roddick added a monster serve and a first strike forehand to the Gilbert mantra and rode that to his first and only Grand Slam title at the US Open in 2003.

Does Andy Murray have the tools to play the Brad Gilbert way? Perhaps a better question is, does Andy Murray want to play the Brad Gilbert way? Let's face it, both men are strong personalities and appear to be rather stubborn. Often times, Murray berates Gilbert from the court when things get tough in a match, and in general has a dour attitude while playing. He appears to be absolutely miserable on the court. While there is no prerequisite that one have fun while playing tennis, it does probably make for a longer career in the sport. And Murray's negative attitude can bleed into a letdown in his competitive spirit on the court as it did in the 5th set of his Round of 16 Australian Open encounter with Rafael Nadal this past January. After losing a competitive 4th set to Nadal, 6-3, Murray simply disappeared in the 5th and went down 6-1.

If there is one area in Murray's game that Gilbert must address in order for him to be a Grand Slam champion, it is that on-court attitude. He must convince the Scot that the negativity only distracts from the focus of winning and is therefore unproductive. He simply hurts himself. Can Murray learn to do this or is his on-court behavior just a matter of who he is and he'll never be able to change? If he doesn't change, British tennis fans will suffer several more years without a home-grown Grand Slam title winner.