Andy Murray’s challenge has pushed me higher, says Roger Federer
• Murray ‘tangles you up in these rallies’ says Federer
• ‘[Winning] 20 slams was never a goal that I set myself’
Andy Murray and Roger Federer crossed paths at Melbourne airport tonight as they made their way back to Britain and Switzerland respectively, just over 24 hours after they crossed swords in the final of the Australian Open. While Federer and his wife Mirka ferried their twin daughters on to a flight home, Murray barely had a minute to himself as a steady stream of well-wishers came up to give him their best for the future and tell him how well he had done. It is one of the nicer things a world-class sportsman has to deal with, and Murray looked genuinely touched by their support.
Anything that helps reduce the disappointment of missing out on a first grand slam title will benefit Murray because if he maintains the level he showed over the past fortnight, then the chances are that he and the world No1 will meet again in a grand slam before long. Today Federer did the media rounds as the champion for a fourth time here, thanks to his 6‑3, 6‑4, 7‑6 triumph over Murray, who by virtue of the past fortnight has climbed back to the position of world No3, but he did so with a realisation that it is the Scot’s skills that have lifted his game to another level.
“Murray neutralises you very well,” Federer said. “He tangles you up in these rallies and you can’t do anything about it because if you play too aggressively you lose and if you play too passively you lose. You have to have this perfect balance, so for me to be able to come out and do it, when I’m well known for being hot-blooded on court sometimes and going after my shots time and time again, [the final] was a tricky situation. For me to come through those moments and prove myself over and over again over all those years is amazing.”
Federer’s victory extended his record of grand slam titles to an incredible 16 and on the form he showed against Murray he is going to be tough to stop at the next two grand slams, the French Open and Wimbledon, where he will be defending the titles. Any talk of him becoming the first man since Rod Laver in 1969 to complete the grand slam – Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and the US Open – was neatly sidestepped, but Federer said he feels like he is close to the level he showed in 2006 and 2007 when he utterly dominated the sport, winning three of the four grand slams in both years.
“I feel I’ve definitely improved and my movement has come back,” he said. “I think I lost a little edge in my movement in 2008-2009, and I feel like that’s all come around again. My backhand is where I want it to be, my forehand is back because that also left me a little bit when my footwork wasn’t at my best, and I had to press too much because I knew I didn’t want to play defence. I don’t do that too much any more and my confidence is back, so it’s a lot easier to play again now.
“But it’s hard to come up with performances like this over and over again. The competition has become very tough. It’s very physical, very demanding. That’s why I don’t like to think too far ahead. I want to savour the moment because it’s a big victory for me. [Winning] 20 slams was never a goal that I set myself. I’ll just try to go for the next one if possible. There’s still some left, I think, especially with the way I’m playing right now. I’m hoping for more.”
Roger Federer toasts Australian Open success and sets sights on Paris
• World No1 celebrates 16th grand slam by partying until dawn
• ‘I hope I can now defend my French Open crown’
Roger Federer drank champagne and partied until dawn in Melbourne as he savouring winning the Australian Open on Sunday, the 16th grand slam title of his career. The 28-year-old Swiss defeated Andy Murray in the final 6-3, 6-4, 7-6. Looking fresh despite only a few hours of sleep, the father of six-month-old twin girls said he has no plans to slow down and that he still has plenty to prove.
“I think I played some of my best tennis these last two weeks, especially against Murray,” he said. “The win was exceptional and the performance from my side, so it makes me very happy and eager to await what’s to come this year. As you grow older you enjoy the victories even more. You try to savour them as long as possible because you never know when it could be your last, even though I’m sure I have much more left in me.”
After celebrating with a few dozen friends at his hotel until sunrise, Federer was delighted to return to his room to find one of his daughters awake. “I quickly was able to see Myla. Even though she has got obviously no clue what has happened and couldn’t care less, I still felt it was a special moment to hold her in my hands, and in my arms, after what happened.”
Federer’s brilliant win at Melbourne Park quashed doubts about the world No1’s hunger for success and he rejected any notion he might take a break from the game, like Belgians Kim Clijsters and Justine Henin. “That’s not realistic or feasible for me,” he said. “Maybe [I could] take a few months off, but that doesn’t mean half a season off. I just think it’s too tough to come back after that. I don’t know, the men’s game’s different, I think. It’s brutal, the margins are so small.”
Federer has enjoyed a largely injury-free career and rejected concerns about his fitness as one of the older players on the tour, saying he understood his body “more and more” as time goes by. “I remember in the beginning here in 2004 when I won the first time, I couldn’t move the next day. I was so tired, the whole pressure. Now I’m like ‘it’s over, perfect, what’s next?’ Obviously with the family now and everything there is no time to be tired … I’m not allowed to show any fatigue!”
Although his triumph at Melbourne Park has set up the possibility of a calendar grand slam, Federer has no new goals. “I hope I can now defend my French Open crown obviously,” he said. “But first things first, vacation, practice and then the Dubai [Championships] again.”
Federer backs Murray to win a grand slam
• Murray moved to tears after another straight-sets defeat
• ‘He’s got the game to win a grand slam’ says Federer
For the second year running, the loser of the Australian Open let his tears do the talking, but Andy Murray’s lachrymose reflection on his straight-sets defeat by Roger Federer was at least eased by the winner’s prediction that it is only a matter of time before he wins a grand slam title.
Here in 2009, Federer cried uncontrollably after losing to Rafael Nadal, and the images went around the world – as did those of Murray on Sunday night as a packed Rod Laver Arena responded warmly to the Scot’s speech of touching self-deprecation. “I can cry like Roger,” he said. “It’s just a shame I can’t play like him … I’m done … sorry.”
Murray will go away, rest, then examine the good and not-so-good points of a highly charged final. The significant plus is the respect of the best player in the world. Federer, who now owns 16 slam titles, said of his own continued excellence: “That’s thanks to guys like Murray. They’ve made me a better player, because I think this has been one of my finest performances in a long time, or maybe forever.
“[Murray] is a wonderful mover, tactician, great backhand. He has got everything you need to win big tournaments. He’s extremely strong in his mind and I just feel like he’s got the game to [win a slam]. The question is when.”
The downside was Federer’s post-match view that Murray was still “a bit passive”. He did not capitalise on chances at key moments, especially after breaking Federer in the third set and again in an agonisingly long tie-break. Federer won 6-3, 6-4, 7-6 (13-11) and Murray, despite a decent start and a rousing finish, was rarely able to stem either the power or the ingenuity of the Swiss’s near-perfect game.
He did not feel weighed down by the expectations in Britain to end the 74-year drought since Fred Perry’s last grand slam win. He said: “Once you get on the court, it’s not what you’re thinking about. At all. I would liked to have done it for everyone back home, won the tournament, obviously for myself and for the people I work with as well. I had chances in the first set. He started to play a lot better in the second set. In the third set, I had more of the chances. I thought I deserved to take it into a fourth, but it didn’t happen.”
He said he cried because he had come so close to extending the match. “It was a complete blowout. If I had lost three, four and two, it probably wouldn’t have happened. That was why I was upset.”
Federer also beat Murray in straight sets in the Scot’s first major final, the US Open in 2008. “Tonight’s match was a lot closer than the one at Flushing Meadows,” Murray said. “I’m getting closer [to Federer]. To have the opportunity to play in these tournaments, in these matches, is pretty incredible in the grand scheme of things.” And Murray is still definitely in the grand scheme of things.
Andy Murray mislays spirit of daring in brutal defeat by Roger Federer
• Scot’s baseline tactics breed indecision in Melbourne final
• No sign that Swiss champion’s era is nearing its end
He finished in tears, with a hole in the toe of his right shoe and tugging at cycling shorts that were annoyingly tight, but, while there are nicer ways of putting it, there is no escaping the conclusion that at key points in the final of the Australian Open Andy Murray let himself, rather than anybody else, down.
He knows it. And he knows, too, that losing for the second time in straight sets in a grand slam final to Roger Federer should be cause for honest reassessment rather than disconsolate brooding.
Murray was not in the mood to speculate about where such an anti-climax leaves the start of his year, except to say he will rest “and see what I want to do in terms of my game”. In all likelihood he will fine-tune his wait-and-see strategy and, when he looks at the tapes, he will see there were several moments when he should have volleyed rather than extend the point, or risked moving Federer about more on his forehand, instead of banging relentlessly at his slightly weaker wing.
There were two Murrays at this Open: the aggressive, daring one whose calculating assessment of Rafael Nadal’s game brought his own tennis to near a pitch; and the Murray for whom caution against Marin Cilic resulted in his dropping a set for the first time. Federer got the Cilic Murray– without the bounce back. Murray conceded: “I had a chance at the beginning of the match and I had chances at the end of the match. It’s just the second set that didn’t go my way – not that any of them went my way.”
But any notion that he choked ought to be dismissed. Federer said he did not detect any sign of nerves in Murray, either before or during the match, and was quick to add (as a counterpoint to his pre-match mind games): “He’s a great player.”
Federer, none the less, was brutal enough to add: “He’s obviously a very patient man from the baseline.” He described it as Murray’s strength, which it is, but it also proved to be his weakness in this final because it bred indecision rather than calculation. There were few moments when Murray out-thought Federer.
There were worryingly long passages of play, certainly in the second set, when Murray’s feet were leaden, his movements stiff. The first step, so assured in his six matches on the way to the final, was hesitant. And his mind looked all over the place.
It was not a lack of courage, but of conviction that we witnessed in the Rod Laver Arena. This was a better fight than the first one he had in a major with Federer, at Flushing Meadows 17 months ago, but neither the Scot’s bravery nor his tearful and good-humoured public response to defeat should disguise the central failing of his performance: he did not totally trust his talent.
The mark of his valour was best witnessed in the concluding, desperate third set, which lasted an hour and 12 minutes and was rounded out by the longest tie-break in the modern history of finals at these championships, as Murray struggled against his own game and the superiority of his opponent.
There cannot have been a dispassionate soul in the house, or lover of sporting drama anywhere, who was not willing him to either capitalise on his break of service midway through that set, or convert one of the five set-points he held in the tie-break. His inability to do so was, he said, what led him to break down in tears when called to the podium to accept the loser’s plate, surely one of the most needlessly cruel trophies an athlete can have foisted upon him in public.
It is easy to see why those emotions exploded the way they did, taking everyone who either knows him well or from a distance by surprise. We saw him laid bare. He was not a machine, he was not cold. He was as vulnerable and exposed as he probably ever has been in his career. Murray had just come through a contest he had envisaged as an opportunity to frighten Federer, a challenge to his dominance that only Nadal has really provided in big matches in recent years. Having seen off Nadal, Murray felt entitled to believe his chances were good. Murray wanted to emerge from the chasing pack, to start his own era by defeating the king of this one. To get one up on Nadal, who destroyed Federer here last year.
That belief ebbed with each passing shot, with each refusal to volley. When Federer broke him early in the second set, it unravelled after Murray went to the net. His suspicion of risk-taking was reinforced. When Murray saved three break points two games later, he had stayed deep, waiting for a mistake; Federer netted a backhand. Again, Murray felt justified. But it was in the third set where Murray might have wondered about the wisdom of his conservatism. When he broke Federer to go 4-2 up it came in a blizzard of close-quarter ping-pong at the net, the Scot’s faith in his reflexes paying a huge dividend.
However, when he served for the set at 5-3, putting more muscle in his ground strokes as he detected, finally, some hesitancy on the other side, he netted a simple backhand then allowed Federer to regain the initiative with a brilliant cross-court winner. After battling through deuce, Murray again refused a volley and the conclusion to the joust was hastened with Federer’s exquisite pick-up return close to the net. Murray botched a backhand and the surge died on the warm evening breeze.
If there is an end to Federer’s reign in sight, it is hard to see it from Melbourne. “Tennis could end any minute,” the champion said, “and I’d still be a happy man. It’s a great start to the year; let’s see where it takes me.”
It was the voice of contentment and in stark contrast to that of the young pretender whose day, surely, will come. But it may not happen in Federer’s time, and that would be pretty tough to take. Murray’s goal is not just to win a slam. Even more so after two major defeats, it is to do it against Federer.
Murray must embrace his instincts
Scot will only win a grand slam final if he finally asserts himself and attacks against the best
Andy Murray had just captured Roger Federer’s serve to go 4-2 up in the second set, having grittily fended off the Swiss champion’s attempt to claw his way back from 0-40 down. The Scot was back in the match. The first point of the next game turned into a 21-stroke rally in which the extremes of geometrical precision and variation of tempo were tested by both players before Murray chased wide on to his forehand and, from beyond the tramlines, hit a crosscourt shot that screamed over the middle of the net like a tracer bullet and landed at the very optimum point, just inside the angle of base and side lines and well outside the reach of an astonished Federer.
It was a shot in a million, produced at a moment of the highest pressure, and it showed what Murray can do when he is on the front foot, taking the game to his opponent. And that, it must be said, is the only way he is ever going to beat Federer in the final of a grand slam tournament, gambling on his capacity to discomfort a man who, when things are going well, appears to be playing the game from inside a golden haze.
At least Federer was made to work for his fourth Australian Open victory and his 16th grand slam title in the seven years since he left Wimbledon having taken his first step on the road to eclipsing Pete Sampras’s record.
Today Murray erected a few speed bumps in his path, but for the Scot’s supporters there was always the uncomfortable feeling that the match was a contest between a man who occasionally reaches fifth gear and one who always has sixth in reserve for emergencies.
When Murray drops down to fourth, which he still does too often for comfort, he can look flat-footed as he uses his two-fisted backhand to manoeuvre the ball around the court. That was how he started today’s final, and although he managed to neutralise an early service break, he took so much time to warm up that Federer was able to establish his serene rhythm.
Murray’s cool judgment in such a blood-boiling environment was demonstrated by two successful line-call challenges in the first set. His guts were on display in the second, when, having lost his serve to love in the third game, he successfully fended off six break points in the fifth and seventh. But both sets rolled to what seemed like an inevitable conclusion, which was how the third set felt, too, despite its conclusive 24-point tie-break.
For most of the match Federer looked as though he had time to read the maker’s name on the ball before wiping his racket strings across it with that deceptively gentle gesture that usually spells bad news for the man on the other side of the net. At 28, he moves as smoothly as if he were playing on well-oiled casters.
Murray has six years’ advantage over his conqueror, which may be some solace as he contemplates his second defeat at the climax of a grand slam tournament. His critics will point out that the 22-year-old Federer was winning in Melbourne and at Wimbledon and Flushing Meadows, and that others to be found near the top of the world rankings – most notably Rafael Nadal but also Juan Martín del Potro and Novak Djokovic – have made faster progress in joining the ranks of grand slam champions.
But not everyone develops at the same pace, and British athletes very often take longer to fulfil their potential. For long periods today, as Murray engaged Federer in a game of move and counter-move, it was evident that the British No1 is still evolving and has yet to glimpse the limits of his physical and tactical potential.
What we saw was that he is not and will almost certainly never be a truly great player, if greatness is measured by the standards of Lew Hoad, Pancho Gonzales, Ken Rosewall, Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, Bjorn Borg, Andre Agassi, Pete Sampras and, of course, Federer. But plenty of players only half a step down from that level – the likes of John Newcombe and Arthur Ashe – proved able to win majors and earn promotion to the game’s hall of fame, and there is no reason why Murray should not eventually secure a place among them.
He has said, quite justifiably, that he expects his prime to come between the ages of 23 and 27. The equipment – the physique, the speed, the strokes – is finally in place. What he needs now is to draw the correct psychological lessons from today’s chastening but far from dishonourable experience, to abandon caginess and simply play every point against Roger Federer as if it might be his last.
No shame in losing to a tennis genius
Despite his tears, the Scot should not be too downcast. In Melbourne he faced a man playing simply brilliant tennis
When Andy Murray reflects on why he could not quite get over the line in the Australian Open final it will not take him too long to figure it out. His serve, which is such a weapon when it is firing, deserted him in the first set and a half, effectively giving Roger Federer a two-sets-to-love lead.
Considering that Federer has only lost once from that position in his career – and that in a Davis Cup tie – it was a tall order, but Murray can be well satisfied with how well he played in the third set, even if he will be kicking himself for not taking the match to a fourth.
Federer’s serve must be the most under-rated shot in the game. His forehand gets all the plaudits but his serve, when it matters most, is second to none. Every time he is in trouble, he finds a first serve. If you go back through the Swiss’s 22 grand-slam finals, you will find that more often than not he has out-aced his opponent.
• Kevin Mitchell’s match report from Melbourne
• In pictures: The best images from the final
• Read Scott Murray’s game-by-game report
• Five reasons why Andy Murray lost the final
It’s not just the aces, though. Time after time Federer produces a first serve under pressure and over the past five years, when he has served well, he has been nigh on unbeatable. It is only on the odd day when his serve malfunctions that he becomes vulnerable and cracks appear in the rest of his game.
Murray’s first-serve percentage ended up at 57%, which is not great (though not terrible), but it was a lot better than it had been in the first set and a half. In the first set, he found the mark with only 45% of his first serves and Federer took advantage.
In the third set, by which time his serve had picked up, Murray was playing well and having led 5-2 he should have closed it out when he served for the set at 5-3, let alone on the five set points in the tiebreak. He led it 6-4 but the forehand he hit into the net at 6-5 may haunt him for a while – if he had it again he may well have gone cross-court – but apart from a missed backhand volley the other three set points were saved by Federer’s brilliance. There was little Murray could do about them.
In their past two matches Federer has come out cracking winners, getting on top of Murray’s second serve and coming to the net regularly. Today he did none of that, instead focusing on playing controlled, near-perfect tennis, never making the mistakes that would allow Murray to settle.
Murray’s tears at the end showed how much emotional energy he had put into the fortnight and if he continues to play as well as he did here, then more grand slam finals beckon. It was his bad luck that he ran into Federer playing his best, but that’s not the first time we’ve said that.
Five reasons why Andy Murray lost the Australian Open final
From poor first serves to Roger Federer’s genius, the causes of the Scot’s second grand slam final defeat by the Swiss
1 A slow start on serve
Andy Murray knew that he needed to get a high percentage of first serves into court early on. For an hour, his first serve deserted him. His second serve, which has improved vastly in the past few months, held up pretty well but he was never able to get enough free points from his first serve to allow him to relax and play relatively carefree tennis. With Roger Federer barely missing a return, that put him on the back foot and though he began to play much better as the match wore on, beating Federer from two sets down was always going to be an uphill task. No one has managed it in a grand slam and only Lleyton Hewitt, in a Davis Cup tie, has ever done it anywhere.
2 Reluctance to move forward
This has to be taken in context because if you are going to approach the net against someone as good as Federer, the approach has to be right. But Murray was perhaps guilty of a little hesitancy, particularly when he did find a good serve, and he might have been better off taking some of Federer’s floated returns out of the air rather than letting them land deep. He hit several excellent returns, especially on the backhand side to the Federer backhand, which he could have followed in to the net. Murray had done it superbly en route to the final, but for whatever reason he didn’t feel able to do it in the final.
• Kevin Mitchell’s match report from Melbourne
• In pictures: The best images from the final
• Read Scott Murray’s game-by-game report
• Simon Cambers: Murray ran into a genius
3 Federer changed tactics
In their most recent two matches, which Federer won, the Swiss came out of the blocks quickly, attacking the Murray second serve and even chipping and charging at times in an effort to take control at the net, effectively bullying the Scot into making more mistakes than he normally would. Here he did the opposite, cutting down the risk in his game and reducing his unforced errors as a result. It was controlled, considered tennis and even if it did not throw Murray, it was something different. That is never a bad thing.
4 When the chances came, Murray missed them
Again, this has to tempered by what is coming from the other side of the net but Murray regretted not taking a break point that would have put him up 3-2 in the first set, an opportunity he probably should have taken by being more aggressive on his forehand. In the third set, in which he held five set points in the tiebreak, at 6-5 he made a mental error by trying to take a forehand down the line, rather than playing it back to the Federer backhand. His other real chance came when he put a backhand volley just wide, but the rest were saved legitimately by Federer’s good play.
5 Federer played superbly. Again
Sometimes you just have to admit that the other man played better on the day. Federer served superbly when it mattered, as he so often does, and never allowed Murray to settle. His serve has to be the most underrated shot in men’s tennis and when Murray managed to force an opening, it was invariably closed by a big first serve from the Swiss. For two sets he was near-perfect and though his level dipped ever so slightly at the start of the third, his overall consistency was so high that Murray had to press too hard at times. Had the match gone to a fourth set, who knows what would have happened. But on the day, Federer was the better player.
Australian Open: Andy Murray still pride of Dunblane after falling at final hurdle
Scottish town has party pooped by majestic Roger Federer as favourite son’s Grand Slam wait continues
It was a modest crowd that gathered in the Dunblane youth and sports centre to watch Andy Murray’s Australian Open final appearance on a giant screen, with residents at one point almost outnumbered by photographers and camera crews.
This small cathedral town just north of Stirling is not much given to Murray mania, preferring to maintain a fierce but quiet pride in their most famous son. But they were with the local boy every step of the way: a chorus of cheers greeted every winning shot; a collective groan with each mistake and chance missed.
Many of those watching know the Murray family well and they felt the loss keenly. “I’m absolutely gutted for him,” said Sue Lockwood, a trustee of the centre, who watched with her children. “Andy showed signs of magic there but Roger Federer is not No 1 for nothing. Andy will be back, though. This just wasn’t his time.”
Ian Conway, the president of the northern county association of Tennis Scotland and a Murray family friend, said despite the outcome no one should doubt his ability.
“What do you do when you have the best player in the world, someone who has been 237 weeks at No 1? Federer is on a roll and I don’t think anybody can beat him the way he played today.
“He has been in two grand slam finals now, he’s six years younger than Federer, so bring on the next slam. It is great for British tennis and we must be very proud of him. It is only a matter of time before he wins one.”
Conway said he was dismayed at Federer’s pre-match comments, but doubted it had affected Murray, who, even at the age of ten was a “tough wee character”.
“Federer has never criticised any of his peer players, however, he has with Andy,” said Conway. “Is there a threat there that he sees with Andy, that he will be the one to unseat him? Andy is as strong as anything. That will not have upset him. But if [Federer] continues with those mind games in future I don’t welcome it. It’s not tennis and it’s not Federer.”
As the game narrowed in the third set, the room fell quiet, necks craned forward and fists punched in the air with every point gained for the Scot. When Murray roared for reassurance, they answered him. “He’s feeling it here,” said one woman, pressing her hand to her heart. “Good man, Andy. Good man.”
Moira Cook, who owns a local restaurant and was preparing to hand out free champagne had Murray won, said: “It is just so great that he is at this level. This is not just a one off. This is someone great, and this is just the beginning for him. And it’s so nice to think you know his mum and his granny.”
Murray’s grandparents, Roy and Shirley Erskine, watched the final at a friend’s house. Speaking earlier, Shirley said her grandson had the game and the physical attributes to compete at this very highest level.
“We’re just so proud of him and how far he has come and how hard he has worked,” she said. “He deserves to be where he is.”
Justine Henin eyes Paris after Serena Williams thwarts her at the last
• Belgian hopes to be back to best for Roland Garros
• Williams may struggle to win second French title
As Justine Henin flew home to Belgium today there would undoubtedly have been many thoughts flashing through her analytical mind. Disappointment, after missing out on a dream conclusion to her comeback; pride at what she was able to do and, most importantly of all, the beginnings of a plan to make sure that, next time, she returns a winner.
Her 6‑4, 3‑6, 6‑2 defeat by the world No1 Serena Williams in the Australian Open final yesterday ended her hopes of achieving what would have been a remarkable Belgian double, winning a first grand slam back after retirement, as Kim Clijsters did at the US Open last September. On the night Williams was just that bit more powerful, that bit more match-tight, and she fully deserved to win a fifth Australian Open title and 12th grand slam.
As the match wore on, it was tempting to wonder what may happen when those two and Clijsters arrive in Paris for the French Open in May. Immediately after her win here Williams said she wanted to get her hands on another title at Roland Garros but she has never been at her best on clay, winning it just once, and to do so again would be even more difficult now that the two Belgians are back.
Clijsters’s early defeat here was a blip and she will be a factor at the other three grand slams, but in Paris it is Henin who will be the biggest danger. She has won the title at Roland Garros four times and on clay the effectiveness of Williams’s power is reduced, so Henin is able to chase down shots that would be winners on faster courts.
Henin will now take a few weeks off to work on the areas of her game she feels are not yet up to scratch. When she returns, most likely in Indian Wells in March – which will be only her third event back after a 19-month absence – she will be given an official ranking. Her efforts here mean she is already assured of a place inside the world’s top 40 and it seems inconceivable that she will not be in the 32, and therefore seeded at grand slams, in time for the French Open.
Henin’s long-serving coach Carlos Rodriguez said she should be playing more like her old world No1 self by then. “She needs more matches,” he said. “She needs to be in more emotional situations like the final and maybe in three, four months she’ll be ready. She wasn’t ready to beat somebody like Serena yet. We’re going to stop now and work on the physical skills and more specific things. Not only a question of technique, but trying to manage the emotions and the tactics on serve. I cannot say it will be better but for sure we need to improve the serve and how she plays on the important points.”
Williams, meanwhile, left with a satisfied grin after again defying the critics who had seen her less than brilliant play in the early rounds and who believed she would struggle to get the job done in the final. Yet again she saved her best for last, serving superbly as she moved alongside Billie Jean King on the list of all-time grand slam champions. Williams said it had been inspirational to have King watching from the stands but that the real motivation came from elsewhere. “I think everyone was [cheering] for Justine,” she said. “But you know what really helped me out? This one guy was like, ‘You can beat her, Justine; she’s not that good.’
“I looked at that guy and I was like, ‘You don’t know me,’ ” she said, wagging a finger for extra effect. “I think I won all the games after that because that’s totally rude.”
Murray is no working-class hero | Colin Richardson
He may have gone to a state school, but Andrew Murray’s parents still needed money to put him on the path to the top of the British game
The wait for a male British grand slam tennis champion goes on. Today Roger Federer won his fourth Australian Open title, bringing his tally of grand slam victories to an unmatched and possibly unmatchable 16. And Andy Murray lost his second grand slam final, both to Federer and both in straight sets. Once again, the plucky Brit fell short. Same old story.
Or is it? As he comes to terms with his disappointment (the £580,000 runner-up’s cheque must help), Murray can console himself with this little fact: he is the most successful male British tennis player in modern times. And he’s only 22. Tim Henman, the last British man to whip the nation into tennis mania, never made a grand slam final.
Murray differs from Henman in other respects. He’s plain Scottish, of course, not posh English. He went to state schools, whereas Henman was privately educated. Murray had a fairly modest middle-class upbringing, while Henman’s family was so well off they had a tennis court at the bottom of the garden. So is Murray’s pre-eminence a sign that British tennis is becoming classless – more meritocratic than aristocratic? No more old school tie?
Murray’s success has, to some extent, changed the face of British tennis – so hidebound by class, so much the preserve of the wealthy, that a great many youngsters have been put off by the game’s snobbish image or have been unable to participate due to lack of cash. He’s an ordinary, average type of young man (apart from his exceptional talent), more representative of his generation than Henman was of his. But in other ways Murray’s achievements leave the mould intact.
You may not need to own your own tennis court to succeed these days, but you do still need money. Murray’s parents may not have been high earners, but they were able to finance his move to Barcelona at the age of 15, where he enrolled at the Sánchez-Casal Tennis Academy – a move that played a crucial role in his development.
And money talks even more loudly in the British women’s game. Consider, for example, one of our most promising juniors, Heather Watson. Guernsey-born Watson, 17 – who won the junior US Open title last year – has changed the face of British tennis, though not in quite the same way as Andy Murray. Her mother is from Papua New Guinea and her father from Manchester.
But her story is a far cry from that of those other game-changers, the Williams sisters, with their early training on the public courts of downtown Los Angeles under the watchful eye of their father, Richard, a self-taught coach. Watson’s father is the managing director of the Guernsey Electricity Company; and when she was 12, her parents paid for her to move to Florida to train at the Nick Bollettieri Tennis Academy, whose alumni include Monica Seles, Maria Sharapova and Jelena Jankovic, and whose annual fees are in the region of £25,000.
This isn’t to criticise Murray or Watson (or others like them) because of their parents. My point is merely that tennis is still a long way from being a sport open to all.
British children whose families lack the wherewithal to pay for tennis rackets, tennis club membership or coaching fees are unlikely to become professional players, despite the best efforts of the Lawn Tennis Association. Football is still the first choice for working-class boys – it’s what your mates do, all you need to get started is a ball – and, if you succeed, the potential rewards are every bit as great as those to be won by losing a top tennis final.
When Murray wins a grand slam – and he surely will – I very much doubt there will be a stampede from the football pitches to the tennis courts.