5 Thoughts on the Andy Murray-Ryan Harrison Tilt

===

One of the more highly anticipated first-rounders in Melbourne did not disappoint, as Andy Murray outclassed youngster Ryan Harrison on Hisense. Here are five quick thoughts on what the match might mean for both participants.

***Editor's Note: You can find my work at Tennisnow.com throughout the Australian Open. I'm posting 3-4 pieces a day there, so please feel free to stop by and check it out.

1. Harrison's going places

The 19-year-old Shreveport, La. native is now 0-10 against top ten opponents, but don't let the 0-for fool you -- Harrison can play. And we were made aware of that fact in the first set yesterday when the feisty Harrison not only took the set, but looked like a bonafide world-beater in the process. Harrison made 69% of his first serves, smacked 12 winners, and basically looked like the better player throughout the 51-minute first set. Granted, Murray has never been the fastest starter, but if Harrison can find a way to play whole matches against top players the way he played yesterday's first set, he'll be scoring wins against top foes sooner rather than later.

2. Murray's calmness -- it's almost eery

During ESPN's broadcast of the match Brad Gilbert lamented that he could never get a young Andy Murray to behave so well when he was in his box. Ah, but that was a long time ago, Brad, and probably more importantly, it was before "Mr. Lendl" stepped to the fore. Here's my question: Is Lendl really ushering in the halcyon days for Murray, and if so, what will it really have a dramatic effect on the Scot's results? Of all the great things that Andy Murray did yesterday against Ryan Harrison, the greatest was his newfound zen-like placidity. No punching racquets. No bratty epithets aimed at anyone who would listen. Just proper, constructive tennis.

3. Murray's backhand, a thing of beauty

Now that Murray has me focusing less on his outbursts I noticed last night that his backhand is sublime, with a capital S. Of all the two-handers on tour, I'd say that only Novak Djokovic is more effective with the shot. But nobody is as natural with it. Murray can spin it or drill it, he can hit it crosscourt or punch it down the line. He can lob it, punch it, rip it -- you name it. The guy is a virtuoso with the two-hander.

4. So then, can he win it?

We've seen how much of a difference Lendl can make on Andy Murray's comportment, but what can he do for his nerves? Furthermore, is there anything he can do for Murray tactically when it comes to facing a merciless, en fuego player like Novak Djokovic? Murray's three previous trips to Grand Slam finals ought to have numbed him to the nerve experience a bit, so shying to the occasion probably won't be as much of a factor as it once was. As far as cultivating an effective strategy to deal with Djokovic, you can bet that Lendl is racking his brain for ideas every waking hour. It may not make the difference, but even the hope that there is somebody in his box that can make a difference could function as a potent placebo for Murray.

5. Is Murray's serve good enough?

Those of you who are kind enough to read this blog know that I'm very skeptical about Andy Murray's ability to deliver world-class serving on a consistent basis. I've written about it often. And honestly, as high as I am on Murray at the moment, my skepticism about the serve remains. His 54% first serve percentage yesterday does not inspire much confidence, but I do like the fact that he won 60% of his second serve points. Those numbers are way above his average. If he can keep that up, it will make his low first serve percentage a lot easier to stomach. The simple question is: Can he keep it up?

Thoughts On Stich, Martina and the Perpetual ATP Schedule Debate

===

It's post-US Open time, and as is the custom, it's time to debate the merits of the ATP's current schedule. This year, however, there is a new wrinkle, as the big "S" word has been spoken by some of the players (most notably, Andy Murray). The mere mention of a player strike has taken the conversation to another level, and since a good healthy dialogue about a lingering issue that never seems to go away is always a good idea, I'm heavily in favor of opening the can of worms and keeping it open.

This week's Weekly Net Post by the USA Today's Joe Fleming has some really good background on the situation, and there are currently scads of opinions being thrown around, some in favor of the players, and others not so much.

Former world No. 2 and current tournament director at Hamburg Michael Stich had some choice words for Andy Murray in response to his complaints. "I don't think it's a big issue," said Stich. "They are not playing more than we did 10 or 15 years ago and they have shorter seasons than we used to. I think the players forget that all the tournaments out there provide them with jobs."

Stich's argument, while passionate, overlooks the systemic changes that have occurred in tennis over those aforementioned 10 to 15 years. Anyone who knows the sport knows that the physicality of today's tennis is exponentially greater than that of decades past. And let's not forget how truly global the game has become too, which means that players are traveling more in addition to playing more physical tennis when they finally arrive at their destinations.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but is the issue about what happened in tennis 15 years ago or is it about what is happening now? In spite of the ATP's laudable efforts to reduce the schedule by two weeks starting next year, issues still remain.

Murray's biggest beef is about the mountain of mandatory events that players must attend. The rankings are built around these mandatory events, and the biggest rewards don't just go to the players that play the best -- they go to the players that play the best the most often.

Players that want to play less over the course of the year, either to prolong their careers or to recover from injuries or to simply relax, are punished for doing so. "I know because I've spoken to a lot of the players, that they're serious now about trying to get some changes," said Murray. "To get another change implemented, it might take 5 or 6 years at the rate it's going now, and then all of us will be done, so we want it to happen sooner than later."

Players are preparing to meet Shanghai next month, and Murray, while not adamant about a work stoppage, is not ruling out the possibility of a boycott. "We need to have some say in things that go on in our sport. Right now we don't," he said. "I think it's (a strike) a possibility, and I know from speaking to the other players that they're not scared of doing that anymore."

Martina Navratilova came out in support on Thursday, saying in an interview with the BBC, "You cannot maintain that level of intensity and not put your body in hospital eventually. I don't know why Andy Murray should be criticized for taking charge of his life."

Having watched this year's US Open, which featured a record number of player retirements due to injury, it's hard to argue with Murray and his peers. The quality of the game is suffering in it's current state due to the rigors of the calendar, and as much as I hate to mention this, tennis is basically daring it's players to find ways to enhance their performance beyond natural levels in order to maintain the intensity that Navratilova spoke of in her interview.

Think about it: If tennis becomes a sport that rewards players more for their ability to recover quickly, last longer and play more often, is it really putting its best foot forward in terms of growing the game, entertaining its fans, and ensuring that the best possible product is put on the court at all times?

Of course there are different standards for the top players on tour and the lower-ranked players, because the top players play more and have their services in demand more often, which is why lowering the amount of mandatory requirements (and adjusting the way that rankings are kept accordingly) might be a good place to start. This way players who need the money can still play all year long, and tournaments can stay in existence (albeit with a little less starpower).

There's no way to avoid hurting someone, but the fact is clear: Having a system that grinds the top players to a pulp and spits them out of the sport when they have hardly turned 30 is a travesty.

Something needs to change, and I'm all for Murray and his fellow players doing what it takes to ensure that it actually does.

Archie's Picks: Murray-Nadal

Does Andy Murray have a chance tomorrow? Heck yeah. Will he win? Heck no, says Archie.

===

Okay, big stuff going on tomorrow. Archie made his pick earlier today with a stoic, almost cold shrewdness. Why? He was hurt. Deep down he wants the underdog to have his day, and he thinks Murray deserves that much. But in an even deeper place, he knows that the pit bull that lives in Rafa's chest will squelch all the British fun.

He's torn, to say the least. Not about who's going to win, but who he wants to win.

See Archie's French Open picks here.

See Archie's Djokovic-Tomic pick here.

See Archie's Federer-Tsonga pick here.

See Archie's Nadal-Fish pick here.

See Archie's Kvitova-Azarenka pick here.

See Archie's Sharapova-Lisicki pick here.

See Archie's Djokovic-Tsonga pick here.

Archie's Pick: Nadal

Why: Duh

My Pick: Nadal

Why: Normally I wouldn't think it was too far fetched to pick Murray for the stunner tomorrow, but have you guys seen Nadal play lately? He's so good on the Wimbledon grass, it's like he's still on clay. And his forehand has been an even bigger weapon that it usually is on clay. Murray is no slouch either -- far from it -- and he's scored a couple of confidence building wins at Slams vs. Nadal (2009 US Open semi and 2010 Australian Open quarters) in recent years, but the same questions persist: Can he come good in a match of epic proportions against a player of epic stature? Someday it's going to happen, but until he's erased those doubts, it's hard to go out on a limb and pick him to win a match like this.

So there you have it. Go ahead and prove me wrong Mr. Murray -- I dare you.