Looking For A Steal

June has arrived with rain which can only mean one thing: we’re once again on the verge of Murray mania. As the world’s elite prepare to descend on the lawns of Wimbledon in the coming weeks, we can be quietly confident that once again the nation’s optimists – from north and south of the border – are preparing to descend on the grass of Murray Mound, ready to cheer on their champion elect.

We can be just as sure that the nation’s cynics are also making their preparations. If you listen carefully you can already hear them sharpening their pencils and jostling for position to be the first to tear Murray to shreds, ready to scapegoat him for the failure of a generation and to castigate him for his careless handling of the nation’s hopes year after year. God forbid he should actually win – how disappointing that would be for the hacks when they find they cannot just copy and paste from yesteryear’s articles.

In fairness, when it comes to tennis there does seem to be a perennial sense of déjà-vu. Although – in fairness – much of that stems from the majestic tennis that has been played over the past decade by a new cohort of stars who have combined pace and power with a deft touch and a vision of the game that had seemed to elude their immediate predecessors (the match-up in the final this weekend just gone a case in point). There were of course stars in the 90s; players who rose to become not just giants of tennis but of sport as a whole. Together they introduced a new ferocity to the sport, exemplified by serves of awesome power that pushed titles out of the reach of previous champions who had triumphed through a more delicate, perhaps craftier style of play.

But today, a new breed of tennis player led by Messrs Federer and Nadal can claim to have brought the craft back – only with the power still turned up to ten. The sport’s headlines may have become somewhat predictable with the near strangle-hold that Roger and Rafael have placed upon the Grand Slam events in recent years, but the action itself has remained captivating and anything but routine.

Andy Murray should rightly be considered part of that cohort that has rekindled levels of interest, beauty and excitement in the men’s game. He’s not been right at the forefront, admittedly, but has certainly played more than a bit part in the drama which has unfolded in recent years. The tag of precocious talent ready to upstage the masters may be shorn, but his credentials as a serious player remain intact and he will almost certainly have further opportunities to steal the show on the main stage.

‘Steal it’ is what you feel he will need to do – certainly the company he keeps at the top of the game renders the unbridled optimism and expectation placed upon his shoulders rather unfair. It’s not going to be handed to him on a plate. Equally, that same esteemed company makes the regular criticism he faces seem somewhat unreasonable too.

Somewhat unreasonable. I dislike the lazy journalism that loves to make a story by waiting for someone to trip up and then shoot them when they are down and I am an admirer of what Murray has managed to achieve so far – but I do wonder, as a lot of the criticism seems to focus on, whether he has it within his character to go out and ‘steal’ a major title.

We’ll have another chance to find out over the next month. I may not be taking my place with the faithful fans on Murray Mound, but I do know who I will be cheering for. Come on, Andy!

The Backlash Begins: Why Are The Knives Out For Andy Murray?

Andy Murray has lost his third Grand Slam final. The dust has barely begun to settle and the predictable criticisms have started to emerge from whatever dark cavern they were hiding in during Andy's progression to the final.

For the past two weeks the interest in The Australian Open Tennis Championships has slowly built amongst the British Media and online forums, as people who don't normally show much interest in Tennis, outside of a couple of weeks in July, suddenly realised there was the possibility of a first British winner in the Open era. A lot of those same people appear to be more than willing to stick the boot in now that those hopes have been dashed.

It is a well established fact that the British press like to build up sporting heroes, and then take a great deal of pleasure in knocking them down again. However, some of the more vitriolic criticisms - the Scotsman newspaper's mean-spirited article apart - is appearing on online forums from so called fans. Have the British public really become so dumbed down that they now show the same blind, sheep-like qualities when reading sports headlines that they do when reading sensationalist, scaremonger headlines in other sections of the press? Is Britain turning into a giant version of the Daily Mail? If so, it may be time to dig out the passport.

The usual media pastime of knocking sporting stars always seems to be carried out with increased fervour when it is directed towards British tennis players. I don't know what it is about tennis that attracts this reaction. Perhaps it stems from an embarrassment that a country that hosts arguably the leading tennis tournament has been unable to produce an individual good enough to win it for so many years. Perhaps it is a perception that tennis is normally played by the privileged in this country, and knocking the privileged adds spice to any journalistic piece. Or perhaps it is just that we got so used to supporting the plucky loser in tennis that in a twisted mentality we rationalise turning successful players into losers in order to feel that we can continue to support them. Whatever the reason, our tennis players have not had the easiest ride in the press in recent years.

It is not as if tennis is the only sport in which we produce individuals who almost make it to the very top. However, some other examples of these nearly men have maintained a level of respect that is not as willingly given to the likes of Andy Murray or Tim Henman. Stirling Moss never managed to win the World driver's championship, yet he is rightly still treated with great respect and loved by the press. Jimmy White famously lost all six of the World Snooker Championship finals he contested, yet Jimmy is seen as the people's champion, adored to this day. The best example of a non-world champion taken to the nation's heart is probably that of Frank 'know what I mean Harry' Bruno. The pantomime boxer failed in his first three attempts at gaining world champion status before he finally managed to climb that final step to world champion. Ironically, Frank's popularity was probably at its height before he became world champion. So why is this not true of Tim Henman and Andy Murray?

My own, very much uninformed, opinion is that those other sports have had alternative stars to look to for glory. They were not representing British hopes for glory on the same level as falls upon our tennis stars. Motor racing has had a rich history of British winners. Boxing has always been a sport full of British heroes, even if the heavyweight division did suffer a lean spell before Bruno. And as for snooker, well it was virtually a British monopoly until recent times. This theory can be backed up by the fact that Greg Rusedski never came in for the same level of stick as Tim or Andy. That could well be because we were never really sure how British he really was. Its is not about the players. Its all about British tennis.

This is an incredibly unfair and unrealistic approach to take. Tennis is an individual sport. It is not the fault of current, or recent, players that they have been left alone to represent their country's hopes. When they step onto the tennis court they do so in their own pursuit of excellence and glory. To add to that the hopes of a nation's sporting welfare serves only to add a pressure that will hinder any possible success. We should back them for what they are - talented individuals.

To put their achievements into perspective, Tim Henman gained a career high ranking of world number four. He was the fourth best player in the world. Andy has been as high as number two and currently ranks (prior to Australia) as the fifth best player in the world. I do not think I am even the fifth best at anything in my street! Are you?

When Andy took to the court on Sunday he was facing arguably the best player in the world on current form. Novak Djokovic was immense, as he had been throughout the tournament. Some of Andy's play did not look as good as it had in previous rounds. However, you cannot quantify how much of this was down to Novak's play as Andy was forced to play more and more aggressively as he sought to match the Serbian's game. On the day he was not as good as Novak Djokovic.

In other sports we don't knock people for not being the best in the world. We recognise them for the skill that they have. When Ryan Giggs runs down the wing we admire his wizardry. We do not say "yeah, but he's no Lionel Messi." When Andrew Strauss scores a century we don't criticise him for not having the averages of Sachin Tendulkar.

Andy Murray is not the best player in the world. However, in time he might be. Even if his peak turns out to be fifth best player in the world, and he manages to have made it to three grand slam finals, take yourself back in time twenty years and think how much we would have given to have had a tennis player that good. So well done on a very god tournament Andy. You are an incredible talent. I, for one, salute you for that.

It Wasn't A Sicky! I Have Genuine Aussiesportitis!

The winter of 2010/2011 has been a genuinely tough one. No, not all the snow and cutbacks. Its the sport! How are we meant to keep up with compelling sport through the night and work the next day? Its a hard life.

It all began way back on the 25th November, unless you are a true die-hard and watched the warm up games. However, even for us armchair pundits it seems like a lifetime ago. England were about to face their great nemesis, Australia in Australia. The usual optimism filled our heads as we anticipated the upcoming battle. However, memories of our last visit were still fresh enough to provide a get out clause for the inevitable dilemma of juggling a need for sleep with a desire to follow the team.

The advantage of being a true armchair pundit is that as soon as things start to go wrong, as they inevitably do, we can console ourselves in the fact that it doesn't really matter and we're not that bothered anyway. The rest of life's demands can be taken back out of the cupboard we had hidden them away in and life can continue in its usual drab routine. There's always next time.

Sure enough, three balls into the first over of the first test and Strauss was out for a duck. Although you have to keep watching because its the first day, Peter Siddle's hat-trick later in the day provided enough peace of mind that we could forget about the cricket and work would not suffer. How wrong we were!

Despite conceding a 221 run first innings deficit, something happened during England's second innings that changed the winter for all armchair sports fans. The series got compelling. Bleary eyes, pounding heads and a desire to fall asleep no matter how important that business meeting was meant to be became the order of the day. It became impossible to do the sensible thing, turn off the TV and go to bed. There was too much happening.

Record after record fell as the England Cricket team began to do what many of us had forgotten they could do. They were annihilating the Aussies. At one point I even think they broke the record for breaking records. I couldn't switch off. Even the lulls in the action were broken by the Barmy Army entertaining us so loudly that the TV sound guys couldn't prevent the banter working its way across the airwaves. Who can forget their wonderful rendition of:

"He bowls to the left, he bowls to the right.
That Mitchell Johnson's bowling's sh*te"

Never mind the bodyline series. This was the bodyclock series. It destroyed mine.

No sooner had the Ashes tests finished than the 20/20s came along and then the one-day series began. This was going to kill me. I was seriously sleep deprived. There are only so many excuses you can come up with for not working. Luckily for all armchair pundits England went back to form. They were crap. We could console ourselves with the fact that its the Ashes that matter, not these silly limited over games. Ahhh, I forgot how comfortable that pillow was.

But wait! What is going on? Not only have England re-discovered how to win a one day match, but some Scottish bloke has come along and started winning tennis matches. That's just not fair. He wasn't meant to do that two years in a row. Doesn't he know our jobs are on the line?

At least we can console ourselves that the remainder of the action is at the weekend, and due to it being a nighttime match we only have to forsake our weekend lie in. All crumbs of comfort are gladly accepted in this tough winter of sport.

Don't get too comfortable though. Later this year we have the Rugby World Cup in New Zealand. Add to that the fact that this Murray bloke looks like finally progressing from nearly-man to Grand Slam winner, and being around for quite a few years to come, we may have a few tough winters ahead of us. On top of that, it was announced today that the next Ashes series to take place in Australia has been brought forward to 2013/2014 to accommodate the cricket world cup in Australia in 2015 and so it seems there is no end in sight.

I know that winter nights are meant to be longer, but this is getting ridiculous.