Andy Murray: Grand Slam Champion?

Even before he established himself within the elite tier of professional tennis, there was never any dearth of writers' (now-largely-proverbial) ink spilled nor airtime devoted toward the subject of the career prospects of young British hope Andrew Murray. This furious drumming of keyboards and wagging of tongues has only intensified during the last three years, since Murray claimed his place among the world's top five players. Undoubtedly the most giddily-optimistic prognostication flourished in the weeks and months following Murray's dramatic emergence in the summer of 2008, which saw him claim the championship at Cincinnati and reach the final of the US Open; the most vivid example of this trend to my memory came in early 2009, when the ever-flamboyant Justin Gimelstob enthusiastically proclaimed that there was "absolutely no question Andy Murray will win numerous Grand Slam titles" while covering one of the Scot's matches.

Now, I thought this prediction (and the many others like it which were floating around, to the point at which Murray was made betting favorite for the 2009 Australian Open championship) to be rather wildly jumping the gun, and history has thus far vindicated my perspective on this matter; nearly three years later, Murray has still failed to win a Grand Slam title, and the public discourse has, by and large, cooled to speculation about whether he will ever win one at all- a proposition now seen in some quarters as highly dubious. John McEnroe has announced going into the 2011 US Open that he considers this Murray's "best chance" to win a Major, as if to suggest that it may be a matter of now-or-never for the Scot.

Here, however, I will come to Murray's defense. You see, having spent a fair bit of time sifting statistics, as is my way, it appears to me that he may be, as Roger Federer once suggested, simply too good not to win a Slam. Consider:
-Aside from Andy Murray, every active player who has reached two or more Grand Slam finals has won at least one Grand Slam title (Murray has reached three).
-Aside from Andy Murray, every active player who has reached six or more Grand Slam semifinals has won at least one Grand Slam title (Murray has reached seven).
-Aside from Andy Murray, every active player who has won four or more Masters Series titles has won at least one Grand Slam title (Murray has won six).
-Aside from Andy Murray, every active player who has finished three or more consecutive seasons ranked inside the world's top four has won at least one Grand Slam title (Murray is in line for his fourth).

I do believe there are more such valid comparisons to illustrate this point, and moreover, that most of these comparisons would extend to the entire Open Era of tennis. This demonstrates first, as most are aware, that Murray is already long overdue for a Grand Slam title, and second, that Murray would stand as a truly remarkable historical outlier if he failed to claim at least one Grand Slam title at some point in his career. Now, historical outliers do, of course, exist, but they are outliers for a reason; it is seldom wise to bank on their occurrence. Murray is a healthy 24 years old, and, with continued commitment, likely has three to four more years of elite-level performance ahead of him. Bleak as things may look at a given moment, I do believe the best bet is that it is only a matter of time before Murray makes good.