Yesterday, I picked Kim Clijsters as the female Player of the Year for 2010, and I've come to realize that the phrasing was a bit awkward. It would have been more accurate to say that I was picking Kim as the Player to Watch in 2010 - not that it's an especially intriguing choice. Still, for Clijsters to create a career Act II that surpasses her significant accomplishments in Act I would certainly be a notable story.
I had to agonize a little more over my choice for male Player to Watch For in 2010, because it came down the a choice between two men: Juan Martin del Potro and Andy Murray. And I'm going with Murray, partly on the theory that del Potro is going to need a good part of this year to absorb his new celebrity - and to learn the painful lessons that are visited upon anyone who suddenly has a target on his back. Weeks ago, I wrote a post demonstrating that guys who win a major at age 20 or younger always have trouble backing up their breakthrough accomplishments. Delpo may be an exception; he seemed half-attentive at the ATP World Tour Finals and still managed to look like a guy to whom you'd better give wide berth. But I'm going with the conventional wisdom on this one.
So why Murray?
Well, I've got a few reasons, starting with the amount of change we've seen him undergo in the past few years, even as he still needs to make a few changes if he's going to be a Grand Slam champion. It seemed a career turning point when Murray fired Brad Gilbert, a coach for whom I've got enormous respect. Was the shake-up a sign that Murray wasn't interested in following the same path that Andre Agassi and Andy Roddick walked when they signed up for Gilbert's program? Not everyone wants to embrace the goal (perhaps I should say the work demanded by the goal) of being a top player. And with Murray's instant status as a national, or at least trans-national (UK) hero - something that required little more than just showing up, given the state of UK tennis - it seemed entirely possible that he'd settle for a good life spent in the Top 10.
But Murray went on to put together a fine team and his results attest to it. His fitness has been much improved, and his dedication is obvious - the only thing lacking is the validation provided by a Grand Slam title. I don't think Murray has failed to break through at a major because he's got some deficiency or weakness in his game; it's because he hasn't really figured out the nature of the two-week commitment, or mastered the mental and emotional pace a Grand Slam champ needs to close the deal. I like him as a one-week tournament man, even though certain one-week Masters 1000 events are tougher in some ways than majors, because the winner plays four or five days in a row, against quality opponents, in day and/or night matches that screw up standard rest and recovery periods.
Murray has been more successful at putting his foot to the gas and racing to the finish line of a one-week event than at managing his motivation and sense of urgency at majors where days of play alternate with days of rest. That he can manage the physical demands of any given major is obvious; he's fit, blessed with lean and long muscles, rangy and very well built for tennis. He comes to us from a Scottish culture in which the "hard life" and the toughness required to endure it are accepted as fate. Yet this toughness that seems like a inheritance is the one thing Murray has lacked when it comes to two-week events, although it's manifested less as physical weakness than as mental and emotional inadequacy. That means that what Murray needs to do, first and foremost, is figure it out - not make tangible changes in his game or training.
I believe Murray is capable of figuring it out; he's a smart lad. And he must know that the time has come for him to step it up at big events.
A look at Murray's head-to-head results underscores his abilities in an any-given-day context: The most interesting aspect of the record is that he's a combined 11-5 against Roger Federer and Juan Martin del Potro - and four of those meetings with Delpo were in 2009. Pretty clearly, Murray can deal with thunder and lightning with comparable skill. He's also in with a shot against Novak Djokovic, although he trails in the rivalry, 3-4. He has winning H2H records against Andy Roddick, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga and Nikolay Davydenko. Out of curiosity, I checked Murray's record against Gael Monfils, who's game, much like Murray's, is essentially reactive (as opposed to initiative). Murray leads, 2-1, which suggests that he's a true counter-counterpuncher.
The only top player against whom Murray commands less than even odds is Rafael Nadal, who's got a 7-2 advantage on Murray. Surprisingly, only two of those matches were on clay. Rafa's secret, I think, is that he can make Murray, a gifted ball striker, hit balls that are outside his strike zone, thanks to his lefty spin. And unlike Monfils, Nadal is aggressive-reactive. Give him a good look at a ball and he'll put you on the defensive and keep you there, like a guy tied to a stake atop a fire-ant mound, in the burning sun. But Nadal struggled in the second half of 2009, and we need to see more of him before we determine whether he's the same player he was a year ago at this time.
If you were Murray, what would you ask of yourself looking ahead to 2010? My task would be: Find a way to bring and keep your A game intact for the two weeks required at a Grand Slam venue.
Murray has the intelligence, work ethic, and ambition to take on that challenge, which is why I expect him to have a big year.