MURRAY HAS EARNED THE RIGHT TO BOW OUT ON HIS OWN TERMS
If anyone deserves to play on for as long as he likes, it’s Britain’s greatest sportsman
FITNESS concerns aside, there is only one question that needs to be asked. Namely, does Andy Murray want to carry on playing professional tennis?
If the answer to that is yes, then nothing else matters. And no one has any right to begrudge him so much as one more stolen moment on court.
Former world No 1 Mats Wilander knew what he was doing when he questioned Murray’s continued involvement in the game’s biggest tournaments following his first-round straight-sets defeat to Stan Wawrinka at the French Open on Sunday.
Wilander, now a talking head for Eurosport, understood that he would cause a stir when he declared: ‘I think Andy Murray needs to stop thinking of himself and start thinking about who he was.
‘Does he have a right to be out there taking wild cards from the young players?’
With all due respect, Mats should shut his yap. Attempt to gain a little perspective. And recognise that Murray is entitled to carry on for as long as he damned well pleases.
As the greatest British sports person of all time, Sir Andy has earned a little leeway.
That applies if he harbours genuine hopes, given the right conditions, of once again going deep in the Grand Slams.
But it also holds true if Murray’s ambition stretches no further than carrying on playing for as long as he’s mobile enough to suit up on tour.
The weekend loss to No 16 seed Wawrinka hurt Murray, definitely.
Given the grim and cold conditions in Paris, the odd and heavy new tennis balls, and the 33-year-old’s general lack of match practice, though, it hardly represented some catastrophic collapse.
Not every loss has to mean something.
It’s important to be aware, too, of how Wilander’s comments on the Murray loss were influenced by his own experience of coming back out of retirement at the age of 28.
The Swede has called that decision ‘the biggest mistake of my career’, adding: ‘There were a couple of years I played and should not have taken up the space where there were younger, more motivated players who were better than me.’
A couple of points. Maybe that was the wrong decision for you, Mats. But Andy? Well, he’s a bit different.
It’s only a couple of months ago, remember, that he was beating 23-year-old Alexander Zverev in the second round of the Western and Southern Open.
That’s the same Alexander
Zverev who went on to meet Dominic Thiem in the US Open final in New York earlier this month only to lose in five sets.
The idea that Murray is being uniquely selfish in taking up a place at a tournament, meanwhile? Do us a favour.
Being self-centred is an essential personality trait among high achievers in individual sports.
Sometimes, it’s the toughest ‘skill’ for young athletes to acquire.
To reach even the foothills of the ATP or LTA Tour, a tennis player has to look after number one. First, last and always.
Their entire support network — often starting with family — is in place purely to serve their own needs.
So the last thing they should be worrying about is whether they are preventing a potential rival from getting a leg up.
It’s literally every man for himself out there.
Oh, and if you’re on the wild-card committee at Roland Garros, Flushing Meadows or Melbourne Park, never mind the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club, there simply isn’t an argument to be made against Murray’s involvement.
If he’s fit enough to chase a forehand down the line, he’s in the draw.
Because you know Novak Djokovic wouldn’t fancy facing him in the first round — and the TV audience for that match would be through the roof. Wild cards are meant to enliven and energise the format of a Slam, putting seeds in peril. And there will always be someone questioning whether they’ve been allowed into the tournament on merit. Those of us old enough to have been on duty at SW19 back in 2001 can vividly recall Goran Ivanisevic — a broken shell of a man, some insisted — being forced to defend the decision to grant him a place in the Gentlemen’s Singles draw. And we all know how that worked out. Which begs the question: Is Murray chasing that same kind of dream, pursuing some desire to be carried out on his shield after one more big result? Or maybe reaching the last eight — or even last 16 — at Wimbledon would be enough. He could leave his playing days behind with his head held high. That’s going to be tough, to be honest. But, even if Murray can’t compete in five-set matches into the second week of a Slam, he’ll still be good enough to win ordinary tournaments.
And so what if even that proves beyond a player with three Grand Slam titles, two Olympic gold medals and the Davis Cup in his collection of personal honours? Michael Chang spent the last four or five years of his career chasing nothing more illustrious than the odd early-round win at one of the game’s majors. The former champion carried on because he loved the sport. Plenty of greats have done the same.
And, as everyone knows by now, Murray’s Twitter bio famously reads: ‘I play tennis.’
This is the only thing he’s ever known. Life after the sport will hardly be a struggle. He’s got business interests, including a sports management agency.
As every sports person understands, though, you’re a long time retired. If you totalled up all the regrets accumulated by athletes down the years, the final tally probably puts quitting too soon just ahead of carrying on too long.
The good news is that Murray has always been single-minded. He has never paid much attention to the critics.
That applied when he was being deemed ‘too dour, too grumpy and too angry’ to ever be truly loved by the traditional tennis fan, whoever that might be. And the same applies now.
None of us has a right to demand that Andy Murray carries on, of course.
When he decides to call it a day, the only appropriate response will be to thank him for his efforts and to wish him well.
But actually telling him to quit? Convincing him that he’s some sort of sporting bed blocker, unfairly preventing the Slovenian No 6 from getting experience in the first round at Wimbledon?
Good luck with that, Mats.
Murray has never paid too much attention to the critics