Ghostbuster?

by Pete Bodo

It probably says something about the game of tennis today that the consensus "best man never to win a Grand Slam title"—that would be Andy Murray—has had the top two seeds removed from his path, but will still embark on his quest to nail down that elusive first major as an underdog.

Murray is seeded No. 5, while Novak Djokovic, his opponent early tomorrow morning in the Australian Open title match, is No. 3. As if that weren't challenging enough, Murray's chances are being shaped and conditioned by factors and forces of a kind that will have no bearing on the play of his opponent, but may influence Murray's performance.

Murray is hoping to become the first British man since Fred Perry in 1936 to win a major title. More than 270 Grand Slam events have come and gone since then, and some have been won by Italians, others by Brazilians, many by Swedes and a host by the Spanish. Even the French have won a couple during that interim, not to mention the powerhouse U.S. or Australian paragons. But no Brits. Of such statistics are legends born. They feed our fascination with the concept of the hex, or jinx.

Murray might have avoided this entire mess ("The curse of Perry!") had he won either of the two majors at which he previously made finals. You know, kill the idea before it becomes the narrative. That's precisely what Novak Djokovic did, winning the 13th major in which he played (the Australian Open of 2008). Oh, there was certainly less pressure on Djokovic. Nobody was asking, "How come the Serbs can't win major titles?" Serbia is an emerging tennis nation; Great Britian gave us the game before promptly forgetting how to play. Still, had Djokovic tarried as long as Murray, his life would have been complicated, particularly at home, with the refrain: "Will a Serb ever win a major?"

Djokovic won his major on the floor of Rod Laver Arena, besting Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, who hadn't been to a major final before and hasn't been to one since. Is it a bad omen for Murray that when Djokovic won in 2008, he surprised Roger Federer in the semis, beating him in nearly identical, straight-sets fashion as he did the other day at the same juncture? If you're a Djokovic fan, you're entitled to sit back and smile, basking in a feeling of deja vu.

But let's be realistic. You can't put Murray's Grand Slam final failures down to nerves, or pressure, or a hex. He lost straight-up to Roger Federer in his two previous finals, the U.S. Open of 2008 and here in Melbourne last year. That he's returned to the final in Oz is in itself a terrific achievement. Tennis is a game of second and third and fifth chances, sure; there's always that next major, the new year. But Murray is returning to the scene of what by any reckoning was a huge, nearly crushing disappointment (some felt Murray never really recovered until late in the year). He's picking up where he left off, with a shot at redemption against a less accomplished opponent. For Djokovic is Murray's peer (they were born exactly a week apart, in May of 1987) while Federer has been both his role model and nemesis.

That the stakes seem that much higher for Murray than Djokovic can go either way. Let's be honest—for all but the most fiercely loyal Djokovic fans, the match is all about Murray, all about the ghost of Perry and the best player never to win a major, all about the hopes of a kingdom more or less united and aching for a Grand Slam champion to call its own. Just how the hype will affect Murray remains to be seen, but it might also influence Djokovic's attitude. People can get swept up in historic events in a variety of ways, not all of them good.

I have an idea.  Let's poke around the records to see what other No. 5 vs. No. 3 match-ups we might have had at the Australian Open in years gone by. We'll just go by the year-end rankings of the previous year to create our imaginary match-ups.

In 1975, the Murray role would have gone to Manolo Orantes, going up against Bjorn Borg. Ouch. In 1980, Murray would have been Guillermo Vilas matched against Jimmy Connors. Double ouch. In 1985, the No. 5 vs. No. 3 match-up would have been Stefan Edberg vs. Mats Wilander, while in 1990 Pete Sampras (No. 5) would have been in against Ivan Lendl. In 1995, it would have been Michael Chang vs. Tomas Muster, and in 2000 Yevgeny Kafelnikov would have met Pete Sampras. In 2005, the No. 5 player was Nikolay Davydenko, while Andy Roddick held the No. 3 spot. Note that in this entire comparison there's just one man who never won a major, and he's still in with a chance—Nikolay Davydenko. Take that to the bank, Murray fans, if things get rough tomorrow.

Maybe it's just me, but this match resists handicapping. Both men are playing very well, although you have to give Djokovic credit for slashing his way through a tougher draw. Djokovic took out Tomas Berdych and Federer in back-to-back matches starting in the quarters, while Murray's two victims at those stages were, respectively, unseeded quarterfinalist Alexandr Dolgopolov and No. 7 David Ferrer.

The similarities between the two players are striking. Both move beautifully and are dangerous serve returners. Murray has a better serve, and his backhand is more versatile if less forceful. Djokovic's forehand is massive, and he's great at changing the direction of successive shots. Murray can be unpredictable and has a better sneak attack, even if both players are excellent at making the transition from defense to offense.

Unless you believe uncategorically in the power of inspiration, you have to give Djokovic the nod when it comes to the intangibles. He's got his major already, and the way he's played here (and since the U.S. Open of 2010) suggests there are more to come. He's got to be stoked by that win over Federer. He's under no particular pressure to beat Murray, while getting a chance to win that first major without having to beat either Federer or Nadal kind of puts the ball in Murray's court. Even if Murray plays the best tennis of which he's capable, Djokovic might still win. And you can reverse those roles just as easily.

My only strong feeling is that the match will be won by the player who is more willing to take the initiative and press the attack, provided he executes at a reasonable level.