My journalistic application article on Andy Murray

I am applying to become a sports writer, and I was asked to write a draft article, this is what I wrote, tell me what you think please (also comment on the content itself, that too can be up for discussion).

'Not only does Murray need to win a slam, he needs to defeat members of ‘the big 3' to do so

0-2 v Djokovic
0-2 v Federer
2-6 v Nadal

Those are Murray’s H2H records against the big 3 in Grand Slam matches, a combined 2-10 record.

Both of those came against Nadal, one of which was a 3rd set retirement from Nadal.

He has been close, Australia 2007 he should of beat Nadal, Australia 2009 was his best chance against Federer and missing that forehand against Nadal at Wimbledon last year cost him the match.

Down under against Djokovic this year was as close has he has ever come. If he had of topped Djokovic, the same would of then been needed against Nadal, but he has been VERY close.

Agassi, Henman, Becker, Ivanisevic etc have all said he can win a slam. But they all also acknowledge Federer, Nadal and Djokovic when talking about Murray’s Grand Slam chances.

If Murray won Wimbledon this year, but say defeated the likes of Tsonga, Berdych, Del Potro or Ferrer in the semi-final and/or final to do so, people would say he only won because he didn’t face Federer, Nadal or Djokovic. 0-2 v Djokovic, 0-2 v Federer & 2-6 v Nadal is why people will say that.

When Federer won the French Open in 2009, people said he only did it because he didn’t play Nadal, who at the time had beaten him 4 straight years at Roland Garros. Nadal pulling out of Wimbledon didn’t do Federer any favours when he won his 6th Wimbledon title and 15th Grand Slam overall either. Why, because Federer is 2-8 against Nadal at Grand Slam events, and was 2-6 at the time.

When you have big rivals, you want to defeat them on the biggest stage.

Connors never beat Borg at Wimbledon
Agassi never beat Sampras at Wimbledon
Evert never defeated Navratilova in a Wimbledon final (2 semi-final victories though)
Federer has (of writing) never defeated Nadal at Roland Garros

Winning a Grand Slam is the pinnacle for a tennis player. But you want to be able to defeat the very best to do so. Murray is yet again in Nadal’s half at a Major, he is 0-3 against Rafa at SW19, 1-9 in sets won. Murray NEEDS to put that right. If he can, it’s likely that Djokovic or Federer will await him. Djokovic may be World Number 1 and the defending champion, but maybe Murray needs to beat Federer more than he needs to beat Djokovic. Federer’s chances of reaching Slam finals are getting ever so slightly slimmer as each year passes, Murray has plenty of time to seek revenge on Djokovic for his 2 slam defeats, however he doesn’t have too much time to pay Federer back. Plus, to defeat a 6 time Wimbledon champion in the Wimbledon final is as good as it gets. Maybe get Djokovic in the Olympic final on the same court 3 weeks later?'

Not sure what comments you are expecting but using bullet points when you want to list several different points to back up an argument would help in terms of clarity and impact.

Grammatically "should of beat"needs to be "should have beaten" (there are other anomalies)

In terms of content yes I'd agree that it would mean a lot more if Murray beat two out of three of the top challengers when winning a slam but I think you will find he'd settle for anyone in the final as long as he gets his hands on that first elusive slam. re

My first comment would be that it's "should have" not "should of". "Should of" is an incorrect corruption of "should've".

Apart from that the article is well written - there are a few points that you could expand on, but maybe you were given a word count to stick to.

It's more of an opinion piece, and I have to say that in that respect I disagree with some of it. I've always been of the opinion that if you win a slam it doesn't matter who you beat. If the big 3 fall early and Murray wins, then he deserves it just as much. The single, sole aim is to be the last man standing, holding (or biting!) the trophy. Who you beat along the way is entirely secondary and Murray has no say in who his opponents end up being.
History remember the victors, not so much the passage to victory. Did you know Sampras won three Wimby's without facing a top 15 player. Or that Borg's greatest rival and world No 1, Connors, was absent from the FO from 1974-1978.
I'm sure it's a bit of icing on the cake of you can beat the best players along the way, but the cake is the thing.

I would agree with newballs and JHM. Winning a slam matters mosy and it matters not one jot who you beat to win it as the achievement is still the same.

Good article

BTW Julius why are you blanking my PM?

When you don't have a slam, you want to face the easiest opponents you can to get over the line and that's particularly the case with someone like Murray, who seems to be inhibited by the pressure to win one. If he can get that first slam, then sure it would be great if he could then go through the best to win another one (and he might well have more chance with the pressure slightly eased).

However, ultimately no one cares who you beat to win a slam. No one recalls some of the draws which Sampras had to win Wimbledon, despite the fact that at least twice he did so without facing a top 10 player. Getting the win is all that really matters.

newballs wrote:Not sure what comments you are expecting but using bullet points when you want to list several different points to back up an argument would help in terms of clarity and impact.

Grammatically "should of beat"needs to be "should have beaten" (there are other anomalies)

In terms of content yes I'd agree that it would mean a lot more if Murray beat two out of three of the top challengers when winning a slam but I think you will find he'd settle for anyone in the final as long as he gets his hands on that first elusive slam. re

I always do that!! Not making excuses, but I drafted this up at work (I Haven't actually sent it yet).

I apprectiate all the feedback, in response to JuliusHMarx itis more of an opinion piece but I thought I would go with it.

Where are the other anomalies in the piece? I want all the feedback possible!

You could add the disparity between his slam record against the top 3, and his masters record against the top 3. Might make it more interesting, show that it's not impossible for him to beat those guys.

Also, it doesn't explore why he can't beat these guys in slams. This might be because you are on a word limit, but if you wanted to be critical you could mention his mental weaknesses in comparison to those above him. Or how he has been inhibited by an overly defensive approach in slam matches against those 3 (up until this years AO semi). Or - of course - that they are better.

But overall it's a good piece.

Hope this article helps:
https://www.606v2.com/t31322-top-4-record

Danny_1982 wrote:You could add the disparity between his slam record against the top 3, and his masters record against the top 3. Might make it more interesting, show that it's not impossible for him to beat those guys.

Also, it doesn't explore why he can't beat these guys in slams. This might be because you are on a word limit, but if you wanted to be critical you could mention his mental weaknesses in comparison to those above him. Or how he has been inhibited by an overly defensive approach in slam matches against those 3 (up until this years AO semi). Or - of course - that they are better.

But overall it's a good piece.

Yeah - 500 words tops, if this was an actual piece I would of gone into his 3 set victories and why maybe in the slams he hasnt done too well.

Cheers

Who is the target of this journalistic application, if I may ask?

Not always true Born Slippy. Nalbandian has had good opportunities in the past to have a couple of slams, Australia 2006 (lost in semi's from 2-0 ahead, and would have played an off form Federer in the final), US Open 2003 after having match points. Nalbandian when younger and a top 5 player could beat the whole top 10, but lose to a player out of the top 20.