Andy Murray is a Hall of Fame tennis player. This was true before Sunday's win at Wimbledon, and it would have been true even had he lost the Wimbledon final to a more Hall of Fame tennis player in Novak Djokovic. Andy Murray could have easily had a Top-20 level career by winning a few more hardcourt majors, retiring in 2019 or so with about 4 or 5 slams on hardcourt and a slew of other finals. However, that iteration of Andy Murray's career, however great it may have been, would have been incomplete. It would have felt like a career well played, but with one giant hole in it. A hole larger than Sampras' o-fer at the French or Federer's same o-fer until 2009. No, this would have been a hole the size of Great Britain, as Andy Murray's career would end without a Wimbledon title.
I don't think any tennis player has faced the pressure that Andy Murray has faced at Wimbledon. This is the sports biggest tournament, and a home-grown talent hadn't won it since the 30's. Tim Henman was the first player, I believe, to seriously challenge that title drought, but Henman was never really talented enough. He wasn't as good as Sampras or Agassi, wasn't as good as Patrick Rafter, and wasn't as good as Goran Ivanesivec in 2001. Murray was different. He was as good. He was as talented as the other top guys (or at least as talented as Federer in his past-his-prime career and Rafa when he's hurt enough to lose to Steve Darcis). He first challenged the Wimbledon curse with a spirited run to the Quarterfinals in 2008, until he was unceremoniously blasted by Rafael Nadal in straight sets. At this point, Murray was a wire-thin player and he entered that match coming off of a five set grind against Richard Gasquet. After the loss to Nadal, Murray admitted to being tired, and after that match he started getting fit. How fit? He was able to make Novak Djokovic look decidedly the slower player on Sunday.
Murray and Djokovic should be tied together in history like Federer and Nadal. Of course, the Nadal-Djokovic rivalry has been played more than either of those two and is about as great, but Murray and Djokovic are truly scarily similar. They were born one week apart. They were really close coming up the ranks. They both have similar games that have always featured a great backhand and a once-flighty forehand. They both are insanely fit. And they both weren't as good as Federer and Nadal. Novak broke through first, making five straight semifinals from the 2007 French Open through the 2008 French Open, during which time he won the 2008 Australian Open. He was brash, but also a bit strange. One week he would claim that his win over Federer spelled the end of the King, the next, he was retiring from Grand Slam matches. But he was insanely talented with what looked like a technically perfect game. He was far ahead of Murray. Then, a strange thing happened at that 2008 Wimbledon. The same one where Murray made his first major quarterfinal, Djokovic was shockingly beaten by Marat Safin in the 2nd round.
What followed was a two year period where, despite similar performances, Murray was suddenly touted as the greater of the two players. Djokovic's act got tiring (mocking the NYC crowd at the 2008 US Open, retiring because of Heat Stress from the 2009 Australian Open). Murray was constantly being touted as the guy coming into slams hot and ready to pounce, while Novak was being constantly criticized as the guy coming into slams cold. Some of this is true, as through the 2009 and 2010 seasons, Murray did pass Novak in the rankings for some period (getting to as high as #2, partly due to Nadal missing Wimbledon in 2009), and Novak spent most of 2010 with more double faults than aces. Still, in the 2009 and 2010 seasons, their slam performances were similar. Both lost one final (Novak to Nadal at the '10 US Open, Murray to Federer at the '10 Oz Open). They both made two additional semifinals. Murray did lose early more often, losing before the quarters three times to Novak's one, but Murray was still seen as the better player.
Coming into the 2011 season Rafael Nadal had won the previous three majors, and Novak Djokovic was on the brink of passing Federer in the rankings for #2, and both Djokovic and Murray played great tennis during the 2011 Australian Open, and they met each other in the final. Because of their constant place at #3-4 over the previous years, they had rarely ever met, and Murray was the slight prematch favorite. Of course, Djokovic crushed him in straight sets. Djokovic finally won his second straight slam springing him forward on one of the dominant seasons in tennis history. Murray lost his third grand slam final, and had the dubious distinction of being the first player to lose each of his first three finals in straight sets. The loss to Djokovic did propel Murray in a way as well, it made him motivated.
It was that 2011 Australian Open Final that first made me (as well as many others) ask the question, "Is Murray just not good enough to win a major competing against Nadal, Federer and Djokovic?" Djokovic's brilliant 2011 season just made the gap between Murray and the then 'Big Three' seem that much greater. For everything Murray could do, those other guys could do better. Djokovic was basically Andy Murray, but better in every single way. Better forehand, better backhand, better return, more fit, faster, more flexible, more durable. Andy Murray had a good 2011 season, making the semis at the next three slams, but was beaten by Nadal each time.
2012 was really the best year Murray's had. He kept working to get as good as those guys, and for one year he was. He barely lost a thrilling five-set semifinal to Novak at the 2012 Australian Open (which was totally overshadowed by the more memorable six hour final Novak and Rafa played two days later). He made his first Wimbledon final, where he lost to Roger Federer. After the loss, Murray cried, and unlike when Federer bawled like a child after losing the 2009 Australian Open final to Nadal, everyone understood what Murray was feeling. He had all the pressure in the World. The two guys that had dominated him in recent years (Novak and Rafa) were gone. All left was Federer, a man he had a better than .500 record against, and he even won the 1st set, but it wasn't meant to be.
Murray did end up winning the Olympics, beating Federer in the final (and Novak in the semis) on the same court where he lost the Wimbledon final, and then won the US Open, his first major win after four losses in finals. Even after pretty quietly losing the 2013 Australian Open final to Novak, Murray was seen as a guy who was obviously talented enough to win a major. He was close to topping Federer for #2 (a position that he holds dominantly right now - despite not playing the French Open). Djokovic was still the sports' best player, but outside of his inhuman 2011 season, he has yet to win a slam outside of Australia. En route to his 2013 Australian Open runner-up finish, he beat Roger Federer for the first time at a major, crossing that off his checklist as well. The only question left was the biggest one, the cause of his whole career to begin with: can he win Wimbledon?
Despite not having a traditional grass court game (who does, anymore?), Murray always performed well at Wimbledon, and his clinical performance in the 2013 Wimbledon final was how it should be with him. His whole career had been seen as a disappointment heading into 2012, but in reality, he was following a normal curve. He was getting better each year. Murray wasn't Djokovic, breaking into the scene by making five straight semis at 20. No, it took Murray a while to get going. In 2008 he was embarrassed by Nadal 6-3, 6-2, 6-4. Well, in 2009, he made it one round further at Wimbledon, losing to Andy Roddick in the semifinals. Murray was the favorite, and that probably was his most disappointing loss at Wimbledon, but Roddick played out of his mind. In 2010, it was another step up. Although he was beaten again by Nadal in the Semifinals in straight sets, the sets were closer, Nadal was in the midst of his most dominant run of his career, and Murray this time wasn't the favorite. In 2011, it was another step up, this time he took a set off of Nadal in the semifinal. In 2012, he finally won a semifinal (beating Tsonga, not Nadal - still the only real hurdle for Murray to cross) but fell to Federer in the final. In 2013, it was the final step, the final grade, winning it all.
After Djokovic's tiring win in that brilliant 5-setter to Juan Martin del Potro (how great is it to see him hitting those forehands again), and Murray's easy path to the final (strange vintange Verdasco performance aside), it was easy to see Murray winning. It wasn't easy to see him winning in three sets, but he did. It was clinical. It was efficient. It was great tennis. It may be the best Murray can play, but it was good enough to say the opposite of what I said about Murray after the 2011 Australian Open final loss to Novak. He was too good. He was everywhere. His strokes worked perfectly. He served incredibly against one of the best returners ever. Andy Murray made Novak Djokovic look slow.
Finally, let's get to the English aspect of this. To me, I think Murray felt relief more than anything. Murray cried after losing the final last year. He was near tears after winning the US Open last year. Sunday's celebration was more visceral, but less emotional. There was no tears, no watery eyes as his national anthem plays (I'm looking at you, Rafa, from four weeks ago), only pure joy and exuberance. Andy Murray did what many thought was never going to happen and didn't luck into it. He played the best tennis had to offer him, and he clinically broke Djokovic down. It was wonderful to see. It used to be grating to have the tennis world pump Murray up in the 2008-2010 years when he really didn't deserve it. But lost in all the talk of Federer's slide to #5 in the world, to Novak's dominance the last three years, to Rafa's incredible start to 2013 in his comeback (stunning stat, despite not playing in the Australian Open and losing in the 1st round of Wimbledon, Nadal still has earned more points in 2013 than anyone else), was Murray's ascent to the sports most consistent player. He's made the final of the last four slams he's played (and five of the last six), winning two of them. Throw in a Olympic title, and he's the best player in the sport right now. He also ended a drought that lasted since before WWII. As a person who loves a great story, the latter one is more interesting, the local hero finally conquering Wimbledon, but as a tennis fan, it is the former. There is still time for Murray to end up with the better career than Novak that so many were predicting in 2009, and with his slow climb in greatness, it just may happen because there isn't too much higher he can get.
