Andy Murray's greatness emerges in subtle ways

Before assessing Andy Murray's career - we will get to that in a few moments - let us first appreciate the simple reality that the career has not - just yet - come to an end.

At the 2019 Australian Open, it was clear that Andy Murray could not continue as a professional tennis player with the pain he absorbed every day.

Did it feel like the end of a career? 

Yes, but the powers of sports medicine and science gave Murray, like other athletes who encounter devastating injuries, a chance to restore his career if he was willing to put in the work.

We, the tennis world, wrote about Andy Murray in Melbourne this past January, as though we were expecting him to leave the stage, or at the very least, as though he would never be the same elite player we had known him to be.

Today - in late June of 2019 - we know that Murray's tennis journey isn't done. That expectation of an end to this shimmering career was not met by the standard course of events. How wonderful it is for expectations to not be met in this case. 

Murray's refusal to meet the world's expectations is a very good thing for the global tennis community. Thankfully, Australia was not his last hurrah.

As for the second expectation - namely, that Andy Murray would never be an elite player again:

Only time will tell. 

We don't yet know if Murray is capable of once again becoming one of the very best players in the world. He plans to return to singles competition after the U.S. Open. He will give his body - in particular, the hip which became such a limitation on his groundstrokes - a test drive. After that, he won't have to worry about playing in the ATP Finals. He will have an offseason time block of at least two months in which to build a base of fitness for the 2020 season and see what he can achieve.

This process is a long one, and necessarily so. The transformations to Murray's body and the attached need to not rush a return to action demands caution and a generally deliberate pace. Assuming Murray is able to return to singles play this Spring, his stamina and overall health - not his results - would be the most important aspect of his attempted return. Merely playing tennis comfortably and without pain represents Murray's 2019 goal. Points won, or tournament results aren't particularly relevant. 

If everything goes well, they will begin to matter again in 2020.

We can wait for that process to unfold. For now, then, let's assess the career we have all had the privilege of witnessing up to this point, which - in truth - goes through the summer of 2017, when Murray's body began to betray him at Wimbledon against Sam Querrey in the Quarter Finals.

Murray's quality and greatness emerge in some very obvious ways. Consider this fact, which I tweeted just before the Australian Open:

The major titles, finals, semifinals, quarterfinals, and match wins, plus all the Masters titles, finals and semifinals - plus two Olympic gold medals - give Murray a boatload of riches. Compared to the 'Big 3' of Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic, it seems like chicken scraps, but compared to anyone, indeed everyone else in men's tennis over the past 15 years, it's a lot.

David Ferrer didn't even win one major title. Juan Martin del Potro has won only one. David Nalbandian, regarded by many as the best ATP player never to win a major in the Open Era, was comparably skilled relative to Murray (I would argue he was more talented) but didn't get nearly as much out of his game - or his body - as Murray did.

Marat Safin was CLEARLY more talented than Murray, but 'Muzz' has more major titles.

Comparing Murray to Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Novak Djokovic is a futile exercise. Murray will never look good in those comparisons. But, can we realize that Murray had to share the same era with arguably the three best male tennis players who have ever lived? 

Of. All. Time. 

Let that marinate for a minute.

Are we going to hold the reality of the 'Big 3' against Murray, or are we going to interpret that fact in a way which magnifies his career and achievements?

The tweet above is an easy and obvious way to praise Murray, but the shadow of the 'Big 3' is what tennis fans will constantly think about when evaluating Murray's career.

I, therefore, want to evaluate Andy Murray in a positive way, while ALSO invoking the 'Big 3,' rather than running away from that trio. I want to show that it is possible to make Murray look good - even while referencing the three people who substantially and dramatically reduced his all-time trophy haul.

This is like playing against an opponent with a strong forehand, trying to break down said forehand, instead of trying to avoid it like the plague. You have to show you can confront an opponent's strength at some point, right?

Here is the subtle, yet hugely impressive aspect of Andy Murray, relative to the era he played in and the 'Big 3' colossus which so often stood in his way: he very, very rarely lost a 'Big 3' major-tournament match he should have won.

Go ahead: tell me when Murray should have beaten Novak Djokovic at the Australian Open? It is true that Murray didn't play his best tennis in those finals he lost to Djokovic, but Murray-Djokovic matches embodied pain, work and struggle. They were not pretty matches. Both players relied on defensive skills, which is another way of saying that they relied on the strategy - a perfectly valid and reasonable one - of making their opponent miss, rather than going for a winner. Murray was not going to have an easy time against Djokovic in that context, which brings us back to the original point: Murray never really lost a match against Djokovic at the majors which he SHOULD have won.

When Djokovic - a bad wind player - ran into wind against Murray in the 2012 U.S. Open final, Murray took advantage.

When Djokovic - a bad hot-weather player - had to endure the brutal sun of the 2013 Wimbledon Final after having played a very long Semi-Final against del Potro, Murray took advantage.

In Melbourne - in a series of night-time matches when Djokovic was not exposed to extreme conditions, Djokovic won. You might be able to claim that Murray could have won the 2013 Australian Open Final, in which he won the first set and took Djokovic into a second-set tiebreaker. Murray certainly came close on that night, but he never had total control of the match. He had an opening, but that's not the same as total control.

Djokovic-Murray matches at major tournaments - very much including the Australian Open - often involved a pair of tiebreakers in the opening sets, followed by a Djokovic runaway in sets three and four. If Murray had been able to take a two-set lead in any of those matches, sure, one could say he would have let that match get away from him... but that never happened.

Murray did take Djokovic deep into a fifth set in the 2012 Australian Open Semi Final - one of the better matches the two men played, probably their best at a major tournament - but Djokovic stayed the course. Murray took Djokovic five sets in the 2015 Roland Garros Semi Final - which did deplete Djokovic's reserves for the Final against Stan Wawrinka - but Nole won that fifth set convincingly, 6-1.

To be sure, this doesn't seem like a convincing defense of Murray's credentials or fighting qualities. Losing matches is a good thing?!

The point is not about losing. 

The point is more about the longer run of tennis history, and the collective identity players forge not just in individual moments, but over several years and, ultimately, more than a full decade of competition.

So many tennis players, both men and women, have put themselves in position to win Championships over the years and choked, or, at the very least, flinched under pressure. Players with prodigious levels of skill are haunted by matches which shattered their confidence, their careers and prevented them from winning even one major title.

Think of David Nalbandian blowing a two-set lead against Marcos Baghdatis in the 2006 Australian Open Semi Final. He never recovered.

Think of Jelena Jankovic snapping at an umpire when on the verge of beating Justine Henin in the 2006 US Open Semi Final. She lost the match, and she never won a major tournament.

Nicole Vaidisova, Fernando Verdasco, Grigor Dimitrov, Sabine Lisicki, Nikolay Davydenko, Elena Dementieva, the list goes on. So many players with elite-level talent this century never reached even ONE mountain-top moment. 

They all carry with them matches they know they should have won, but didn't.

Andy Murray did lose a small amount of those matches - I chiefly think of his 2016 US Open Quarter Final against Kei Nishikori - but not against the 'Big 3,' and not in major Semi Finals or Finals.

Again, I fully realise this doesn't seem like a lavish compliment, but that's part of Andy Murray's career, and to press the point, you can't write about his career without going into paradoxical and counter-intuitive places.

Murray's career isn't DAZZLING. 

The 'Big 3' dazzle. 

It wasn't - isn't - spectacular. That too is a word best reserved for Roger, Rafa and Nole. 

Murray's career isn't dominant or overwhelming. 

Federer from 2004-2007 was. Nadal in 2008 and 2010 was. Djokovic in 2011, 2015, and the first half of 2016 was.

Murray was the fourth-best player of his time, but, oh, what a wonderfully robust, resilient, resourceful, accomplished, defiant, consistent fourth-best player he was.

Murray - if he had been born in 1977 instead of 1987 - would have won a swag of major titles. He would have played Arnaud Clement or Rainer Schuettler in Australian Open Final instead of Djokovic. He would have played Lleyton Hewitt at Wimbledon or US Open Finals instead of running into Rafael Nadal in a Semi Final, or Novak Djokovic in a Quarter Final. He might have played Martin Verkerk in a French Open Semi Final, or taken his chances against Gustavo Kuerten in a Final, rather than Djokovic, again. 

Not too bad.

The bottom line about Sir Andrew Barron Murray, is that when he lost to the 'Big 3' in moments of supreme consequence, he walked away with no profound regrets. Maybe he could have played a few points a little better, but he was never in a position where he had half a hand on a trophy only to let it slip through his fingers.

The other guy - whether he hailed from Switzerland, Spain, or Serbia - was simply better.

This is not an obvious manifestation of greatness. It is a subtle one. 

Yet, it is greatness nonetheless, when a Hall of Fame-level athlete (and let's make no bones about this - Andy Murray is a future Tennis Hall of Famer) can say that he has no match which will haunt him to his grave, no moment which keeps him up at night.

Andy Murray wasn't the fourth-best player of his era because he failed, or fell short. He was fourth because three other contemporaries completely rewrote the tennis history books on a scale we will not again see in our lifetimes.

It sounds modest, even disappointing if heard in a certain way, but if you see this reality through a different set of eyes, you will understand just how great Andy Murray's tennis career has been.

Did you enjoy this article? Leave a comment below, or join the conversation on the Stats Insider Twitter or Facebook page.