This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/sports/tennis/murray-has-won-a-tournament-at-wimbledon-but-not-this-one.html

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Murray Has Won a Tournament at Wimbledon, but Not This One Murray Has Won a Tournament at Wimbledon, but Not This One
(about 1 hour later)
WIMBLEDON, England — It has been a through-the-looking-glass Wimbledon. Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal were gone before the third round. Marion Bartoli won the women’s title without dropping a set, despite being seeded 15th and not having won more than two straight matches in any other tournament all year. WIMBLEDON, England — As is now well established, it has been a through-the-looking-glass Wimbledon.
Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal were dismissed before the third round. The double-handed outsider Marion Bartoli won the women’s title without dropping a set despite being seeded 15th and not going past the quarterfinals in any other tournament this year.
“Well, that’s me!” Bartoli said Saturday with a why-worry-now shrug.“Well, that’s me!” Bartoli said Saturday with a why-worry-now shrug.
But this Wimbledon has also been odd because everyone keeps asking Andy Murray about the 77-year drought, even though he already had the chance to celebrate a cathartic victory at the All England Club just last year by winning the Olympic gold medal. But this Wimbledon has also been odd because everyone keeps asking Andy Murray about the 77-year drought even though he already had the chance to celebrate a cathartic victory at the All England Club just last year by winning the Olympic gold medal.
That remarkable, emotional victory came on the same rectangle of lawn where Murray will try to win his first Wimbledon on Sunday. To visitors from abroad, the edge is undeniably off. That deep emotional victory came on the same rectangle of lawn where Murray will try to win his first Wimbledon on Sunday. It is difficult to have experienced Murray’s triumph and all the encomiums that came with it and feel the same sense of urgency about his quest to win the Wimbledon men’s single title this time around.
True, the color schemes were slightly different for the Olympics last year. So were the demographics of the public and the choice of refreshments (no Pimms to be had). But it is difficult to have experienced Murray’s triumph and all the encomiums that came with it and feel the same sense of urgency about Britain’s quest to win the Wimbledon men’s singles title this time around. Murray has proved his point already, and he added muscle to his new stature by winning his first Grand Slam singles title at the United States Open in 2012.
Murray, in a fashion, has proved his point already, and he then cemented his champion’s stature by winning his first Grand Slam singles title at the United States Open a few weeks later. But the British are sticking to their long-running plotline. But the British are sticking to their long-running plotline, the one that dates to Fred Perry, the last British man to win the singles at Wimbledon. That was, as Murray knows so well, in 1936.
“This place means so much to the English, to the British,” said Paul Hayward, the chief sportswriter for The Daily Telegraph. “It’s been 77 years. It’s got to be cured.”“This place means so much to the English, to the British,” said Paul Hayward, the chief sportswriter for The Daily Telegraph. “It’s been 77 years. It’s got to be cured.”
To cure it — or what’s left of it — Murray has the trickiest task now available: beating Novak Djokovic, the world’s No. 1 player, in a Grand Slam final. To cure it — or what is left of it — Murray has the trickiest of assignments: beating Novak Djokovic, the world’s No. 1 player, in a Grand Slam final.
Federer is clearly in a slump that looks a great deal like a decline. Nadal has been vulnerable on grass for the last two years. But Djokovic, the other remaining member of what’s left of the Big Four, is very much in his prime and very much in form. Federer is clearly in a slump that looks a great deal like a decline. Nadal has been vulnerable on grass for the last two years. But Djokovic, the only other member of what remains of the Big Four, is very much in form and in his prime at 26.
He also, unlike Murray, has won the Wimbledon title, at least the one without the gold medal: claiming it in the midst of his phenomenal 2011 season. Unlike Murray, he already has won the Wimbledon title, at least the one without the gold medal, claiming it in the midst of his phenomenal 2011 season.
“He’s won here; he’s obviously in the final here; semis last year,” said Murray, 26. “He has a very, very good record on the grass. I don’t think this surface gives me an advantage.” “He’s won here; he’s obviously in the final here; semis last year,” Murray said. “He has a very, very good record on the grass. I don’t think this surface gives me an advantage.”
That may well be true, but it is hard not to believe that the site, and the rowdier atmosphere that now goes with it, will be a help. That may be true, but it is hard not to believe that the site — and the more partisan atmosphere that now accompanies it — will not be a help.
“Well, look, I know what to expect,” Djokovic said Saturday. “It’s normal to expect in a way that most of the crowd will be on his side. He’s a local hero. He has a big chance to win Wimbledon after a long time for this nation. People will be supporting him. But it’s not the first time that I’ve been in a similar situations when I played against local players. I know what I need to do. I know the way I need to be focused, extra focused obviously, because it’s the finals. “I do think Andy’s handling it all much differently now,” said David Felgate, who long coached Tim Henman. “He just looks comfortable in his own skin, comfortable about being one of the big boys, comfortable about everyone wanting him to win.”
“I’m going to play against one of the biggest tennis players in the world in the last five years. I’m ready for it.” For years, Wimbledon’s fans seemed more enthusiastic by obligation than pro-Murray to the core. He is still not quite Henman, the perennial semifinalist who represented, in clean-cut, understated fashion, the essence of traditional Middle England.
Djokovic, who enjoys playing Davis Cup for Serbia, has had plenty of experience with prevailing over negative energy. But in the only match he has played against Murray in roughly equivalent circumstances, Murray won, 7-5, 7-5 in last year’s Olympic semifinal at the All England Club. Murray, a Scotsman from a more modest background, remains rougher around the edges even with his stylish English girlfriend, Kim Sears, and his increasingly well-burnished image.
Long before he was an Olympic and Grand Slam singles champion, long before the British had slowly — rather slowly — come to embrace him, Murray wrote an autobiography at 20. But his tears when he lost to Federer in last year’s Wimbledon final humanized him for many here, and there were more tears in a popular and poignant documentary about Murray shown on BBC shortly before this year’s tournament.
It was entitled “Hitting Back,” and this is how it began: In the interview, Murray choked up and cried as he discussed the massacre that occurred at his primary school in Dunblane, Scotland. A gunman, familiar to Murray and his older brother Jamie, shot and killed 16 students — all aged 5 or 6 — and a teacher in the gymnasium on March 13, 1996. Andy Murray’s class was on its way to the gymnasium before being turned away, according to Murray’s mother and first coach, Judy.
“Kipling’s wrong by the way. You can’t treat them exactly the same, Triumph and Disaster. I don’t. Triumph is clearly better. I have never liked losing.” Andy Murray told the BBC: “At the time, you have no idea how tough something like that is. And then, and yet as you start to get older, you realize. And the thing that is nice now, the whole town, they recovered from it so well.
Through the years, he has done lots of winning at Wimbledon after passing under the lines from Kipling’s “If” posted above the entrance to Centre Court: “If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster/and treat those two impostors just the same.” “It wasn’t until a few years ago that I started to actually research it and look into it a lot because I didn’t really want to know. So, yeah, it’s just nice that I’ve been able to do something that the town is just proud of.”
Through the years, Murray, an outrageously gifted and occasionally profane Scotsman, has reached five straight semifinals and now two straight finals. The documentary — “Andy Murray: The Man Behind the Racket” — painted Murray as good-humored, self-deprecating and down-to-earth, much more interested in walks in the country and playing ice-bath pranks on his physiotherapist than in living the glitterati life.
But he and the crowd want more, even though they have already experienced something that felt a great deal like the real thing. He no longer berates his camp during matches; his coach, Ivan Lendl, presumably would not stand for it. But Murray still has a dark side on court and still swears under his breath.
“I think winning Olympic gold, I don’t know if I’ll ever have the sort of feelings like I had that day,” Murray said. “Winning Olympic gold here, a home Olympics, I mean I’ll never get the opportunity to do that again. On Friday, he certainly had no qualms at voicing his displeasure with the Wimbledon referee, Andrew Jarrett, when Jarrett informed him during Murray’s semifinal victory over Jerzy Janowicz that the roof over Centre Court was about to be closed even though some daylight remained and Murray had regained the momentum in the match.
“So yeah, it was probably one of the proudest moments of my career. I don’t know if I’ll ever top that.” Impeccably well-mannered? Murray is not there yet, but he does seem genuinely popular here at this stage. The television audience for that semifinal, which peaked at 13.24 million viewers and 54 percent audience share, was the largest in the United Kingdom so far this year.
Sunday’s final should trump that, and the players’ strengths — returns, defense, athleticism and first serves — are so similar that it should be very hard to separate them.
But fervor could be a factor, and unless Djokovic snuffs out the enthusiasm early and often, Murray should have ample opportunity to ride the wave.“Well, look, I know what to expect,” Djokovic said Saturday. “It’s normal to expect in a way that most of the crowd will be on his side. He’s a local hero. He has a big chance to win Wimbledon after a long time for this nation. People will be supporting him. But it’s not the first time that I’ve been in a similar situation when I played against local players. I know what I need to do. I know the way I need to be focused, extra focused obviously, because it’s the finals.”
Djokovic, who enjoys playing Davis Cup for Serbia, has had plenty of experience prevailing over negative energy. He also has beaten Australians at the Australian Open, Frenchmen at the French Open and Americans at the United States Open.
But in the only match he has played against Murray in roughly equivalent circumstances (and in their only match on grass so far), Murray won, 7-5, 7-5, in last year’s Olympic semifinal at the All England Club.
Djokovic has stormed back to win their last three matches. Clearly, there is much left for Murray to prove, even if he has already shown that he can win a big one on the grass of the All England Club.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: July 6, 2013Correction: July 6, 2013

An earlier version of this article misstated a quotation from Rudyard Kipling’s “If.” It should have read, “If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster / and treat those two impostors just the same,” not as “If you can meet with triumph and disaster and treat them both the same.”

An earlier version of this article misstated a quotation from Rudyard Kipling’s “If.” It should have read, “If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster / and treat those two impostors just the same,” not as “If you can meet with triumph and disaster and treat them both the same.”