* !Picby Pete Bodo*
A second-round win by Andy Murray over Viktor Troicki in Monte Carlo is one of those matches that gets lost in the shuffle for all but the most stout of Murray or Troicki fans; after all, it isn't like Troicki is one of the elite clay-court experts. All five of his career finals were played on hard courts.
Still, Murray clobbered the 6'4" native of Belgrade, 6-0, 6-3, which is pretty impressive when you factor in that Troicki is No. 30 in the world and has been ranked as high as No. 12. This raised the question in my mind: What if that elusive first Grand Slam title everyone has promised Murray plopped into his lap in Paris?
It sounds outlandish, but to me it would be very Andy Murray. While you wouldn't count him a contrarian in the personality department, he's the closest there is to that type as a tennis pro. Murray has spent his career popping up in unexpected places, winning—and losing—matches in what might be called a random way. He's about as unpredictable as you can get for a guy who wins a boatload of matches and is a solid world No. 4, and the 1/2 in the Big Three-And-a-Half.
A year ago this month, Murray was an unhappy camper sliding around on the red clay. He was in the midst of a terrible tailspin that included three consecutive first-match losses, two of them in the hard-court Masters events that precede Monte Carlo. Just when it seemed that Murray had self-destructed on the hard courts that he claims as his favorite surface, he pulled his game together in Monaco. He made it all the way to the semifinals, where Rafael Nadal—defending champ at Monte Carlo for the sixth straight year—found his hands full before he subdued Murray in three sets.
A few weeks later, at the Rome Masters, Murray almost ended Novak Djokovic's marvelous winning streak in the semifinals, losing in the third-set tiebreaker. And while Murray lost in straight sets to Nadal in the semis of the French Open, there were moments in that match when Murray had answers for all the questions Nadal put to him.
Yet nobody really talks much about Murray's proficiency on clay. It has something to do with the fact that he's been runner-up at three majors, all on hard courts. The fact that he's British, and has acquitted himself admirably at Wimbledon, also factors into it. And he has a stellar record in hard-court Masters events, having won eight of them.
In fact, in a career littered with outstanding results on indoor and outdoor hard courts, as well as on grass (given how few events there are on turf), Murray has yet to play his first clay-court final. Someone smarter than I will have to tell you why this is so.
Here's why I don't understand Murray's meager record on clay: he's got excellent groundstrokes and a fine service return that ought to enable him (given the extra time the returner has on clay) to be aggressive in his return games. He's a great mover and retriever; the last time I checked those are signature traits of a great clay-court player. He's also incredibly fit; Murray works as hard as anyone and harder than most on his strength and conditioning. He spent a good portion of his formative years developing his game on clay in Spain. And lastly, he is one stubborn dude, which may or may not have something to do with the fact that he's a Scot. In any event, he's gritty and capable of pushing himself on all fronts when it comes to endurance.
Murray has often said that the Grand Slam he most wants to win is the U.S. Open (no Scot is going to kowtow to the Brits and admit he's all ga-ga for Wimbledon, right?), and his countrymen and the entire U.K. would most love to see him win Wimbledon. The most favorable surface for him may be the Rebound Ace of Australia. But given his contrarian playing character, I wouldn't be surprised if he bagged his first major in Paris, despite the formidable and obvious stumbling blocks he'll find there.