Why Hasn't Murray Won a Slam? It's The Serve, Stupid.

===

We call it the "Big 4" in men's tennis, but three of the four have broken through and won multiple Grand Slams (a whopping 30 between Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic combined) while Andy Murray is still coveting that elusive maiden Slam title.

So, why do we even bother counting Andy Murray among the game's elite when the cold hard facts say he is not deserving? Is it an expression of sympathy for the tortured artist who wears his heart on his sleeve, a mere bone thrown to give forlorn British tennis fans something to believe in, or is it justified?

Well, the answer is simple, and yet, it's complicated too: Between the lines, Murray does possess an elite game. He's a physical specimen, he's tactically brilliant, and his shotmaking abilities are on par with Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. But between the ears Murray can become discombobulated at times. Oh, let's be honest, he can fall into a bottomless pit of agony and despair and not come out until the match is over. His last Grand Slam final was a clear indication that Murray is not yet capable of adequately dealing with the pressure of a Grand Slam final.

It's a shame, because Murray's clearly a highly intelligent player, and he no doubt puts great emphasis in his mental preparation on the importance of poise in such situations, but he's yet to conquer his nerves under the brightest spotlight in tennis.

Can he? Sure.

Will he? I don't know.

But before you think that nerves are the only thing keeping Murray from being the next Novak Djokovic -- a player who rises up and takes over men's tennis for an extended period of time --let's look at what I believe to be the real reason that Murray hasn't gotten over the hump yet: his serve.

For years the rap on Murray has been his lack of aggression. Pundits have consistently blamed Murray's failures on the fact that his predilection for cat-and-mouse rallies and his lack of a Berdych or Soderling-like forehand is what's hurting him. I don't agree. I think that Murray was born to be the type of player that he has become, and he should embrace it and stick to it. Can Murray focus some of his effort on being more aggressive when the situation calls for it? Yes. Does he need a massive philosophical overhaul? No.

What Murray does need is to serve better. You don't believe me? Check the stats.

Murray's 46th on the ATP Tour at winning 2nd serve points. If that isn't a recipe for disaster when you are regularly trying to beat two of the best returners in the history of the sport, I don't know what is. Nadal is 1, Federer is 2, and Djokovic is 3, in case you were curious.

Murray's 41st on the ATP Tour in first serve percentage, and he's 23rd in percentage of service games won. Federer is 2, Djokovic is 5, and Nadal is 15.

Murray can strengthen his mind all he wants and become as aggressive as everyone else wants him to be, but until he starts getting better results from his serve, he'll only be able to win a Grand Slam title if he plays perfect tennis in every other facet of the game.

If I was Murray's coach I'd tell him to leave his game the way it is. He's an amazing tactical player, and he gains confidence from being able to execute his unique brand of tennis against the best players in the world. That's who he is and he's damn good at it, so why should he change?

But the serve needs to get better. He needs to make more first serves, he needs to deal with his service games better emotionally, and he needs to construct better points around his second serve.

Until he can serve like the other members of the "Big 4" I think the monumental task of becoming the first British player to win a Grand Slam since 1936 will continue to be too much for him.

2011 First Serve Percentage:

Murray: 59%, 41st

Nadal: 68%, 6th

Djokovic: 65%, 11th

Federer: 64%, 14th

2011 2nd Serve Points Won:

Murray: 50%, 46th

Nadal: 57%, 1st

Federer: 57%, 2nd

Djokovic: 56%, 3rd

2011 Service Games Won:

Murray: 81%, 23rd

Federer: 89%, 2nd

Djokovic: 87%, 5th

Nadal: 84%, 15th

Archie's Picks: Nadal-Murray

===
Archie is riding Rafa right now, and with good results. So he poked his head up from his bowl this morning and said 'you know what? I'm going with Rafa again.' Then he chowed down the rest of his raw meat and licked his chops. He's thinking that's what Rafa, who is 12-4 vs. Murray in 16 career matches, is going to do today.

See Archie's Federer-Djokovic pick here: 
See Archie's Federer-Tsonga pick here:
See Archie's Murray-Isner Pick here:
See Archie's Roddick-Nadal pick here. 
See Archie's Djokovic-Tipsarevic pick here:
See Archie's William's-Pavlyuchenkova pick here:
See Archie's Stosur-Zvonareva pick here:
See Archie's Pennetta-Kerber pick here:
See Archie's Petkovic-Wozniacki pick here:
See Archie's French Open Picks here:
See Archie's Wimbledon picks here:

Archie's Pick: Rafa
Why: Because archie believes Rafa is part pit bull.

My Pick: Rafa
Why: I'd like to pick the upset here, but after watching Rafa's bloodletting vs. Andy Roddick yesterday, I'm thinking that Nadal is primed to make a run this weekend (and Monday) in New York. I think ideally Rafa, being the warrior that he is, would like a chance to get revenge against Djokovic in the final. If that doesn't happen, I'm sure he'd be more than happy to expand his dominion over Federer to the slower-playing hardcourts in New York.

Either way, the scheduling gods gave Rafa a nice break when they moved the final to Monday. Rafa then gave himself a break when he made short work of Roddick in the quarters yesterday. Murray has had a good tournament, and he's a formidable foe for anybody on the hardcourts. But I think he will get broken more than he breaks, and in tennis, that usually means you lose. Until Murray has a more reliable first serve that he can call upon in big points, games, and tiebreaks, I think he's destined to lose to a player like Nadal. I don't think there is much that separates these two great players, especially on a hardcourt, but the serve is one of those things, and it can't be overlooked. That's why I'm picking Rafa, just like Archie, in a tough 4-setter today.

Archie's Picks: Williams-Pavlyuchankova

Welcome to this year's US Open edition of Archie's picks. We've got a lot of picks to make, so Archie and I will try to be brief and keep it entertaining for y'all. So, without any further ado, here is our Williams-Pavlyuchenkova pick. 

See Archie's Stosur-Zvonareva pick here:
See Archie's Pennetta-Kerber pick here:
See Archie's Petkovic-Wozniacki pick here:
See Archie's French Open Picks here:
See Archie's Wimbledon picks here:

Archie's Pick: Pavs

Why: Who knows, Archie always seems to like the Russians. Could be their affinity for slicing off a little meat for a well behaved pit bull and slipping it under the table to him. 

My pick: Serena

Why: Duh. What you need a better explanation? Okay, how about we forget about the serve for a while and talk about Serena's backhand. Such control, such variety. I could go on and on. And on and on. 

Court 17 (The Pit!) Will Be Ready For This Year's Open

A new 3,000 seat stadium court, simply called "Court 17," will be ready to go when this year's US Open begins.

(USTA Sketch)

===

I had a conversation with Chris Widmaier, who is the Managing Director of Communications for the USTA, about the new show court on the grounds of the Billie Jean King National Tennis Center.

The word is that the court will be ready for action when the Open begins on August 29.

This is huge for many reasons. The addition of a new state-of-the-art show court means that the Open will now have four showcourts to put juicy matches during week one, a time where many enticing tilts end up sequestered on the less spacious sidecourts.

Here are some of the details of the new court, according to Widmaier:

"When we say a show court what we mean by that is a couple of things. It will have full broadcast operations, it will also have electronic line calling," said Widmaier. "By putting it in the area that we're putting it in (see USTA sketch above for location), we're hoping that we can change some of the traffic flow on the site to better utilize the overall space, and sort of reduce some of the crowding that happens through the East gate and in the South Plaza."

I asked Widmaier about the characteristics of the court, particularly about the fact that the court is actually sunken into the ground by several feet.

"Some people are calling it the pit," said Widmaier. "One of the reasons to do that was to alleviate the sight lines of the structure from outside of our footprint. We are a public park and we are in Flushing Meadows Corona Park," he added. "The thinking there was trying to create a more aesthetic sight line for park users."

While the court will be ready for the 2011 US Open, the USTA is leaving room to make further improvements to the court in the years to follow. "It will be operational in 2011," said Widmaier. "There might be some further enhancements that are added on after the 2011 Open -- they are in the process right this moment of constructing it."

Other things to note:

• Court 17 will be first-come first-serve for all grounds pass ticket holders.
• No official word on when Grandstand and Armstrong will be taken out of commission and/or renovated.

So, great news for the Open, as a 3,000 seat show court will be added to the grounds and nothing will be taken away. As I do the math I can't help but think that this will create more space all over the grounds, giving fans more chances to get close to the action and soak up some Grand Slam ambiance.

Archie's Picks: Nadal-Djokovic

Archie believes that 2011 is the year of Nole, so he's picking Djokovic to get his fifth consecutive win over Nadal in the Wimbledon final tomorrow.

===

Well, here we go, the match to end all matches -- at least for a few days! No, seriously, as I mentioned in this post, this is the Grand Slam final that I've been waiting for since May, and Archie has too. Speaking of Archie, if you see that doggie biscuit perched on his nose in the picture above, you can get a feel for the kind of anticipation that has been built up for this match. He says he'd rather see Nadal play Djokovic in a Grand Slam final than eat that treat. And the dog don't lie.

If you've followed along with Archie through the men's quarters, you also know that he's a smart dog. He's gone 8 for 9 thus far, and if Nole continues doing what he's done for the last seven months, he'll be 9 for 10. Archie wants you all to know that win or lose, right or wrong, he's had a lot of fun sharing Wimbledon 2011 with you all. He say he'll talk to you all later in the summer when the US Open rolls around. Until then, he says you're on your own, because he doesn't do these piddly little Masters or Premier events (Take it easy, he said it with a smile.).

Without any further ado, here is Archie's Djokovic-Nadal pick.

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 Murray-Lopez pick here.

See Archie's Kvitova-Azarenka pick here.

See Archie's Sharapova-Lisicki pick here.

See Archie's Djokovic-Tsonga pick here.

See Archie's Nadal-Murray Pick here.

See Archie's Sharapova-Kvitova pick here.

Archie's pick: Djokovic

Why: Because Nole is the type of guy that would befriend a dog like me, while Nadal would probably be told by his uncle that pit bulls are scary, and that I could injure him (so not true, imo).

My Pick: Nadal

Why: Does it get any bigger than this? Two absolute titans of the sport, in fine form, slugging it out for the most prestigious title in all of tennis. In one corner, Rafa, in search of his third Wimbledon-French double and 11th Grand Slam, and in the other the man who has single-handedly broken up the Federer-Nadal duopoly by the sheer force of his own desire (and brilliant play).

Djokovic has been the consummate professional throughout 2011, managing his schedule to a tee, playing world-class tennis every time he steps on the court, and conquering his health-related issues and inconsistencies with aplomb. Nadal, meanwhile, started the year with some lowlights, but eventually responded by running the table at the French Open for his sixth title.

So, then, how do we pick this?

I must admit, it's tough, but I've chosen Nadal based on the fact that his game has looked a tad more fine-tuned on the Wimbledon grass. Add to that the fact that I don't know how in the heck anybody can beat this man -- at this stage of his career -- five times in a row, and there you have my pick.

That being said, if Djokovic can do it four times in a row, than can't we assume that the man can pretty much do anything? You'd be right in saying that as well, and that is what makes this final so difficult to pick.

Enjoy the match, my friends, and don't let your rooting interests get in the way of your appreciation of the tennis, which will be played at the highest level, I'm sure.

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.

Rafa: More Dominance, Less Drama

Rafa has lost two sets in 21 matches this spring

To witness a player like Spain's Rafael Nadal when he is in top form is practically a religious experience for tennis fans. Unlike a lot of other sports, say American football or ice hockey, many tennis fans play the sport regularly, and the experience of being on court gives them an idea of just how magnificently the world's top players are performing.

Simply put, watching the tennis professionals of the modern era is like watching aliens from another planet - it is humbling to watch, but also proof that a divine level of tennis prowess exists.

It has always been breathtaking to see a top professional patrol the clay court, mixing deft slides, big loopy spins, and wide court-opening angles that you don't see on grass or cement.

Then there is Rafa, patrolling the Roland Garros clay, which is beyond breathtaking.

The recently turned 24-year-old Spaniard has been pretty much destroyed, deconstructed, and defused every player he's faced this year on clay. Spaniards have always been clay aficionados - but Rafa has taken that stereotype and brought it to an entirely different stratosphere.

In 21 matches, starting with his Monte Carlo title defense, Rafa has only dropped 2 sets. He's like an ornery pit-bull who has just been handed one of those chew toys that quacks like a duck. For a few minutes it is very entertaining to watch the lustful dog get to work on destroying the thing. Then, in a flash, it is over before it began. Not only is the duck not squeaking anymore, but you have to pull the toy away from the drooling pit-bull before he swallows the whole thing and gets it lodged in his stomach.

Rafa's matches, while brilliant, ferocious, astounding, awe-inspiring, and mind-bogglingly impressive, are starting to remind me of this pit-bull scenario.

It is rare to see Nadal tested at Roland Garros. And by tested I am referring to facing a break point while up a break - not the types of down two-sets-and-a-break tests that his peers are regularly enduring in Paris. He has become the ultimate front runner, and typically he has all but squashed his opponent's hopes of pulling the unthinkable upset before the culmination of the first set.

Time and time again, a heralded player steps up to take a shot at the indomitable Spaniard, and time and time again he's swatted away as if he was a big fat fly trying to land on a fresh plate of pasta with sauce.

Thump! He's gone.

And all you hear is Vamos! as the crowd rises to its feet, much earlier than they had expected.

While I don't want to belittle what is so obviously a miracle the likes of which tennis has never seen (eat your heart out, Borg) and will likely never see again, I do constantly find myself frustrated that none of Rafa's so-called competition can do anything to keep him from ripping their hearts out by the end of the first set.

Does anyone else feel this way?

I do not want to be labeled as a man who doesn't appreciate what Rafa does. Refer back two paragraphs to see that I've called him a miracle - it's just that the miracle has been getting a tad bit predictable and a tad bit boring of late. He's got the rest of the men's field in his mouth and the ATP bosses are imploring him not to swallow them.

We always talk about the greatest player of all time. Federer's name usually gets associated with the term. But for my money, the greatest player of all time is Rafael Nadal on clay. There has never been and probably never will be a level of tennis that is so close to perfection.

I just wish that his matches weren't all over before they began.

The Consummate Warrior

At 28, the energetic Ferrer hasn't lost a step

It's clay court season, and once again this week in Rome, Spanish tennis players are pretty much the only ones left in the locker room as the weekend nears. Everybody else has been taught a hard lesson: Don't mess with Spain on red clay. They've been whipped like over-the-hill horses, spanked like tiny children, and sent crying for their mommies.

It's a testament to the depth and capacity of Spanish tennis that brilliant players like David Ferrer go largely unheralded.

But not today, because, as an intrepid tennis writer, I am going to do my best to praise Spain's 4th highest ranked player.

Ferru. I have to admit that I've always had a soft spot in my heart for the 5'9" 160 lb Valencian. It's just one of those things that we tennis fans feel. You may feel it for someone else, but I've no doubt that there are others that feel for Ferru the way I do. How could they not? Maybe it's the way he likes to chew on his towel during changeovers. Maybe it's because he reminds me of a pit bull (I've got a major soft spot for that breed as well).

Whatever it is, I know I'm not the only one who admires David Ferrer. Any serious tennis fan in Spain knows that he has poured a considerable amount of blood, sweat, and tears into the clay in the name of Spain. Who could forget last December's come-from-behind five set victory over Radek Stepanek? The way that Ferrer, so out of kilter for the first two sets, willed himself back into that match was truly inspiring.

But it's not only about the winning and losing with Ferrer. And that is what endears the 28-year-old red-blooded Ferrer to me most of all. Of course he aims to win, and he's desperate to do so, but as he plays it seems to be about the battling. About the spirit of competition and the one-on-one nature of the sport.

For Ferrer, it's about playing tennis courageously rather than timidly. It's about lusting for battle and not being afraid to take your chances when they appear. There are more gifted players than Ferrer on the ATP tour, to be sure. There are more consistent ones as well. But I don't know that there is anyone as intense, as maniacally driven, or as physically energetic.

Ferrer is such a spirited competitor, bouncing up and down between points, his sweat-laden bandanna doing all it can to control his long unkempt hair, that his energy is contagious. Just watching him on television is enough to make you want to hit balls for two hours after a six mile run. It's even enough to make you believe that the aforementioned workout is possible!

Sometimes Ferrer wins, as his eight career titles and career-high ranking of four can attest, and sometimes he loses. But never, ever, does he take a match off. He battles just as hard down a set and two breaks as he does in a third set tiebreak.

Expect more of the same as he prepares to do battle in the Rome semi-final across from his compatriot Fernando Verdasco. Win or lose, it'll all be left on the red clay for us to see.

Win or lose, Spain should be proud of Ferrer, and so should the ATP.

The Calm Storm

Serena Williams engineers a classic comeback in Australia against Victoria Azarenka, and solidifies her unflappable reputation.

There isn’t a more polarizing figure in tennis - maybe all of sports - than Serena Williams. Some people love to love Serena and some people love to hate her. Some love the way she plays but hate the way she acts. Others hate the way she behaves when she plays but love the way she makes no apologies for it (unless she absolutely has to - see 2009 U.S. Open). Some want her to keep winning so she can take her place among the Martina’s, Steffi’s, and Chrissie’s as one of the all-time greats of the Open Era, while others want her to fall flat on her face so she will be forever be known as someone who didn’t make the most of her enormous abilities.

For a brief period of time, yesterday’s match against Victoria Azarenka gave hope to the haters (You know who you are). Eventually, the match ended up providing us with more irrefutable proof that Serena does indeed belong on a pedestal with other former legends of the game.

But the day didn’t start gloriously for Serena. She was down a set and two breaks (4-0) and was getting absolutely hammered by the feisty Belarusian‘s penetrating ground strokes. Those who know Serena, know that she is capable of rescuing herself from the deepest depths of despair, but the hole that Azarenka was digging for Serena was starting to look more like a bottomless pit.

It’s over, we thought. Stick a fork in her, added the haters. She’s getting what she deserves, continued the haters, because of that outburst in New York last summer.

But it wasn’t over. In fact, it was just beginning - and, remarkable as it may seem, it started with the look on her face. It was that hell-hath-no-fury look that Serena sports when she really needs to get some business taken care of. It is a look that contains no consternation, fear, anxiety, or anger. No, those would be the looks of lesser women. Serena - no stranger to negative emotions on the court - instinctively knew that there was no place for panic when it came to the monumental task at hand. This look was different and we all saw it. It was a look of calm. Perhaps you could call it menacing calm - and it didn’t bode well for Azarenka.

It was a look of calm that brought to mind those Indians who walk through fire without ever changing the expression on their faces.

It was a look of calm that elicited imagery of stoics laying down on beds of nails and resting peacefully ’til morning.

At the drop of a hat Serena had transformed herself into a pillar of belief. She had become an immovable vessel of concentration that had anchored herself to her singular desire to win. After winning a few games it was apparent that nothing was going to stop her from winning this match.

It was a look that brought forth the fire in her belly, the quickness of her feet, the purpose of her serve - which had all been curiously missing until then. It was a look that told her opponent that she would have to walk through that same fire if she really wanted to take the match.

All of us who have ever stepped onto a tennis court wish we could do what Serena did yesterday. How is it possible to play perfect tennis just because you’ve decided you want to? For most of us, recreational players and Grand-Slam winners alike, it isn’t.

But for Serena the link between desire and tennis is as pure a relationship as we have ever seen.

It starts with a look, and ends with a win.