What does Andy Murray need to do to make that next step in a Grand Slam?

It would be unfair to call Andy Murray’s successful 2009 season as a sophomore slump. In a way, it’s a reference to the mindset that changes, Murray’s second successful year as a solidified top player on tour, and it can be draining mentally. Adrenaline doesn’t last forever, and every peak levels out eventually, whether due to increasing expectations or declining play.

It’s a common observation in tennis, young players finding their forms and suddenly feeling like they’re on top of the world. They’ve barely started their careers and they’re already close to the top of the rankings. It’s not like Andy Murray first started his pro career, but his meteoric rise began in the US hardcourt season last year, highlighted by a US Open final appearance.

He’s had good results in 2009, but his Grand Slam results have left a lot to be desired not living up to the results from the Masters events. Tennis is a confidence sport, and somehow staying on an even plateau can result in a lack of inspiration, the feeling of being stagnant despite all efforts to move a career forward on and off the court.

Playing well requires a certain spark, a surge of interest and energy to play attacking and athletic tennis. Big events such as Grand Slams require this in spades, as witnessed by runs from Fernando Gonzalez, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga and Robin Soderling in previous years. Murray has it inside of him in case he needs it, but he needs to believe that he needs to use it. Murray is one of those players that will use just as much as he needs, and that has been his biggest downfall.

Is it a sign of cockiness, preference or inability to read other people’s full potential? I think, it is a combination of all three. As much as Murray is a thoughtful player, he is also a reactive player often bogged down into using too many deft slices and rolled over shots to the point where he is more entertaining himself than getting the job done in the best way possible. Ultimately if he is being outplayed, he will still believe in his ability to fight through a match without feeling a drastic change is needed, like the Montreal final against Juan Martin Del Potro. It’s the type of stubbornness that can often be seen with the best players.

Considering that Murray has the ability to drastically change the patterns of play, he doesn’t often make noticeable changes within a match, usually minor at best. His style of play is more varied in between matches, from one opponent to the next. His way of being aggressive in recent times has been more like hitting a panic button, trying to hit the ball harder rather than structuring a more aggressive point, like in his Wimbledon match against Andy Roddick.

He very rarely plays a statement match these days, those matches that send out signs to the rest of the locker room, to watch out. He’s not an intimidating figure, but rather a confusing player to play against at the best of times. The best way to beat him is to not get sucked into it, keep it simple and straightforward, patient target tennis like Cilic showed at the US Open. Forget about his athleticism because he can’t hurt you if he’s too much on the defensive.

As much as taking the long way round can be a sight for sore eyes, it’s obviously silly to take the longer route when you can take the shorter one. That’s something Juan Martin Del Potro showed loud and clear in the US Open final. If you can hit a winner into the open court, then do it. I suspect the problem is that Murray has not yet fully mastered how to control his faster paced balls.

What makes the best players in the world where they are, is generally that they don’t allow their opponents to have success even on their good days. They don’t play down their level noticeably, but they still keep that margin of error. Building up an opponent’s confidence is a dangerous thing, and I always feel that Murray is on the borderline to flirting with disaster.

He needs to get it ingrained in his head that anyone is capable of having a good ball-striking day, and treat every dangerous player as if they’re capable of Rafael Nadal-like consistency. It may not be true, but who would have thought that Robin Soderling would have made the French Open final?