Australian Open 2011 – 3rd time unlucky for Murray

So Andy Murray has lost his 3rd Grand Slam final, defeated 6-4 6-2 6-3 by a brilliant Novak Djokovic at the 2011 Australian Open, meaning he hasn’t won a set in any of those finals.

Still, you gotta say he’s an unlucky sod. In those finals he’s managed to play Federer twice, and then a guy in the same form that beat Federer in straight sets in an earlier round. Bit like Botham continually captaining against the West Indies.

Against that, he is also a miserable tosser. If he weren’t a Brit he’d be my least favourite player. Fed and Nadal by contrast are true gentlemen, legends of sport on and off the court. And Djokovic has a sense of humour too.

Murray in comparison? Hmm. He makes Mansell sound interesting. And when is he gonna improve his serve? His 1st serve was under 50% today and (I haven’t checked, and tennis is a difficult sport to check stats in) my suspicion is it was similar for his two finals against Fed. Serving is in your mind, it’s the one shot you’re in complete control of. He can serve at 130mph, get 70%+ of those in and he’ll win a Slam Final.

Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.


  • Hurls  On January 30, 2011 at 11:28 pm

    He’s as overrated as Lleyton Hewitt was in his prime. The difference is Hewitt managed to win a couple of slams when the opposition was poor. This was Murrays best chance with Fed and Nadal out and he still hasn’t the nerve. He’s clearly got some talent but I wonder if he has the heart to stick it out when things don’t go his way. Djokovic looked to be choking at the end of the second set and halfway through the third. Thats when a Fed or Nadal would take over but Murray still seemed to wait for it to happen for him.

    Is it a coincidence that he and Hewitt both have scary looking mums constantly following them on tour? Maybe explains their petulance…

    • JP  On January 31, 2011 at 12:13 am

      I’d agree with a lot of that – Murray probably is about as good as Hewitt, and the difference in their records is mostly down to quality of opposition.

      I do think Djokovic was playing so well he would have beaten anyone – Murray didn’t play his best, but his best wouldn’t have won anyway.

  • JP  On January 31, 2011 at 1:49 pm

    Sage comment from a blog commenter:


    Think that generally folks are getting a bit carried away with Murrays ‘failure’ to win any of his three slam finals thus far. Two he lost to Federer – probably the greatest player to pick up a racquet. So yesterday was his first really good chance and, credit to Djokovic he just played some unbelievable tennis.

    The media are generally very negative. Djokovic played brilliantly against Federer, yet folks look at ‘why did Federer lose? Is he losing it?’. Djokovic beats Murray, and the media are ‘why did Murray lose? Is it his mentality? Can he ever win a slam?’. The fact is Murray is currently the fourth best tennis player in the world.

    If he’d lost to Ferrer, Soderling, Verdasco, Roddick, Tsonga etc in the final then we could begin to wonder if it were a mental issue. He lost to a player ranked higher and who had won a slam before, and who played the better tennis. Yes, Murray is capable of beating Djokovic on the right day, but to do so, Djokovic probably has to let his level slip a tiny amount and Murray play to his full potential.

    Yesterday, Djokovic played some of his best tennis and that was too good for Murray. Andy has to (and will) improve and so that his best is better than Djokovic’s best and then he will go into these matches as favourite. THEN we can wonder why he isn’t winning them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: