Australian Open Betting 
/ Jack Houghton / 29 January 2011 / Leave a Comment 
Can Murray grab a slice of tennis glory at the third time of asking?
"For every Agassi or Lendl who announces their Grand Slam intentions with a plucky final defeat or two; there is a much longer list of those who get close without ever delivering when it really matters."
There's a long list of Grand Slam finalists who never quite made it to the top table of tennis winners, says Jack Houghton, and good though he is, Andy Murray may just be the Magnus Norman of the 2000s
Here's a great quiz question for you. What do the tennis players Tom Okker, Dick Crealy and Harold Solomon all have in common?
Unless you possess a freakishly strange statistical knowledge of 1970s tennis, it's highly likely you haven't the first clue. In fact, I'm willing to bet that a high percentage of you won't even recognise the names.
Don't worry; you're not deficient in any way. After all, they could be any Tom, Dick and Harry (boom boom).
I could have been a lot kinder with the question. A trio of Robin Soderling, David Nalbandian and Andy Murray would have made things easier - three more names picked at random from the 44 tennis players who have played in a Grand Slam final in the Open Era without winning one.
It's a statistic that will do little to calm the nerves of those willing Murray to victory in Sunday's Australian Open Final (BBC1 and Eurosport, 08:15 GMT).
Sure, Murray is a player full of promise, and with this his third appearance in a Grand Slam final, he certainly seems to have more going for him than the lowly-ranked player who enjoys a run of form to coincide with a serendipitous draw. Mal Washington he's not; he's made his third final on merit.
After all, he's been winning Tour titles for a few years now, and has been in the world's top-five since 2008. Surely he's going to win a title that matters before long? Surely he isn't destined to be a perennial also-ran; remembered only by tennis stato-freaks contesting highly-specialist pub quizzes in years to come?
I guess we'll find out; and maybe even before our eggs and bacon have digested on Sunday morning. But it's worth remembering that for every Agassi or Lendl who announces their Grand Slam intentions with a plucky final defeat or two; there is a much longer list of those who get close without ever delivering when it really matters.
Particularly telling is that, looking down the list of the most successful Grand Slammers of the last 40 years - Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Courier, Edberg, Becker, McEnroe, Borg, Connors - they all took their Grand Slam opportunity at the first time of asking. Murray may well win one, but he doesn't look a likely candidate to forge a long career at the very top of the game.
On Sunday morning of course, such concerns will be irrelevant. Murray's mind will be on his first title; the history-making can wait.
At the prices though, I'll be backing Novak Djokovic ([1.75]). He outplayed Federer in the semi, producing a performance beyond anything Murray has yet to produce in his career. And he's delivered on a Grand Slam match point, which might be the most decisive factor of all.
Murray's Tour credentials and Grand Slam near-misses might seem appealing, but just go look at some of the other possible names in our quiz question - Todd Martin, Magnus Norman and Guillermo Coria will get you started. Many promised as much as Murray; but none converted.
Murray might have what it takes to beat Djokovic this weekend; but it's more likely he'll further cement his place on a long list of nearly-but-not-quites.
Recommended Bet:
Back Novak Djokovic @ [1.75] to win the Australian Open
No comments:
Post a Comment