Australian Open Finals: Here's Why Andy Murray Will Beat Novak Djokovic

Andy Murray will surely beat Novak Djokovic when the two meet Sunday in the Australian Open finals. Of that, I can be sure — unless, of course, you read something that says the exact opposite.

Murray’s run in this tournament hasn’t been exquisitely smooth. He only lost a combined 11 games in his first two matches, but 32nd-ranked Joao Sousa took a set off him in the third round and he later had a tight three-set win vs. Bernard Tomic. Then, in the semifinals, Milos Raonic won two of the first three sets vs. Murray, meaning Murray had to battle back for the 4-6, 7-5, 6-7 (4-7), 6-4, 6-2 victory to advance to the finals for the third time in four years.

But the five-setter shouldn’t affect Murray’s chance vs. Djokovic. As former Wimbledon champion Pat Cash said, via the BBC: “This match won’t have taken an awful lot out of Murray — the rallies weren’t that long. He was moving very well at the end and was playing confidently. He knows where he failed in last year’s final against Djokovic. He knows he must keep the pressure up and can’t afford any lapses. Last year he was at himself the whole time. He shouldn’t have been but he couldn’t stop himself and for his sake I’m hoping he has learnt the lessons from that and can control his emotions.”

Andy Murray is playing in his third Australian Open finals in the past four years. (Photo by Scott Barbour/Getty Images)

Thus, one should make no mistake. Murray will beat Djokovic in a rematch from the 2015 Australian Open finals. Here are three reasons why.

1) Murray has successfully battled through his off-court distractions:Coming into the tournament, Murray had plenty of thoughts on his mind. Murray’s pregnant wife, Kim Sears, is due to give birth to their first child soon, and earlier in the tournament, his father-in-law, Nigel Sears, collapsed in the stands and had to be rushed to the hospital. Murray has had some emotional moments on the court during the tournament and he even considered withdrawing altogether, but he’s fought through those moments effectively. “Things have obviously happened with family at other stages, but not in the middle of a Grand Slam and with Kim obviously heavily pregnant, as well,” Murray said, via the Mirror.

“One thing I’ve done very well is fight for every single point and not given away games. Even when I’ve been broken, I’ve fought hard in the next game and made it very difficult for my opponents. Although I’m not exactly being very positive with myself, I’m still very difficult for my opponents and fighting hard for every point. I’m more proud of how I’ve handled myself away from the court. I think I’ve dealt with everything away from the court better than I have on it probably.”

2) Although Murray has been dominated by Djokovic lately, he still has confidence: Since the beginning of 2014, Djokovic has beaten Murray in 10 of the 11 matches they’ve played, calling to mind the dominance of Serena Williams and her 18-straight victories vs. Maria Sharapova. But Murray, who has a 9-21 lifetime record vs. Djokovic, has beaten him in big arenas — triumphing in the 2013 Wimbledon and 2012 U.S. Open finals — and he seemingly is still confident in himself. “I have a very good shot on Sunday if I play my best tennis,” Murray said, via the Guardian. “… I don’t think many people are expecting me to win. I just have to believe in myself, have a solid game plan, and hopefully execute it. It doesn’t matter what’s happened in the past. People like to read into what’s happened, but Stan [Wawrinka] beat Rafa [Nadal] in the final here [in 2014]. He’d never won against him in [12] attempts. There’s no reason it’s not possible for me to win.”

Australian Open 2016 men's final: Can Andy Murray 'Ashe' Novak Djokovic?

It's hard to recall a men's grand slam final between the world Nos. 1 and 2 in which the latter is given so little chance of winning.

In 1996, No. 1 Pete Sampras played No. 2 Michael Chang in the final of the US Open - and swotted little Mike like a blowfly. But Chang's ranking flattered his true capabilities in that period.

Andy Murray is a legit No. 2, narrowly ahead of Roger Federer. He's lost four finals here, Novak Djokovic has won five. The personal scorecard is 3-0 in the Melbourne Park final and, based on results in 2015, the distance between Novak and Andy (between Novak and everyone) has widened further.

Murray celebrates his victory over Milos Raonic. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

If Murray was fortunate to survive Milos Raonic's thunderbolts, he can't be said to have enjoyed an easy or uneventful tournament: His father-in-law collapsed in the stands, he had to endure the Bernie Tomic show then David Ferrer and has just escaped a nasty five-setter against Raonic.

Meanwhile, his wife Kim is eight-and-a-half months pregnant. Murray has said if she's suddenly in labour, he'd pull the pin on whatever match is next, though we assume Kim won't call with contractions if he's serving at 6-5 in a tiebreaker.

So Murray has plenty on his mind. He will need to exercise it for this final and, in Amelie Mauresmo, he might have the right Gallic cornerwoman to help devise a Djoker-slaying plan.

It will not have been lost on Mauresmo that her countryman Gilles Simon unexpectedly gave Djokovic a serious five-set fright. The most notable number from that game was this stunner: Novak made 100 unforced errors.

How did this happen? We cannot discount that Djokovic simply had a downer. Unfortunately for Murray, that's hardly the basis for a successful game plan.

But Simon, who's ranked No. 15, did bring something quite different to the round-of-16 match, compared with nearly every other Djoker victim.

"I know exactly what I was doing, but I won't say it," Simon said after pushing Djokovic to five sets. "I had a plan. I mean, I know him well. We all know which player he is and how hard it is to find any solution against him, to somehow stop the fight and feel better on the court."

What Simon did to Djokovic was to regularly slow down the pace from the backcourt, often hitting to a central position (in width, not depth), rather than the lines. But having taken pace off for some shots, he would abruptly unload a powerful, fast shot.

It's called mixing it up. Bowlers try this on batsman they can't get out.

Djokovic is comfortable with pace on the ball and is nonpareil in covering angled shots. Simon gave him neither. Djokovic, for once in a while, didn't know was coming.

Older tennis people with a remembrance of finals past would know that Simon's - ultimately unsuccessful - attempt to slay this serial winner had a famous historical parallel, just over 30 years ago.

In 1975, Jimmy Connors was the game's El Supremo - he's gone 99-4 the previous year. Jimmy hit the ball hard, fast and flat. If you belted it at him, he'd send it back with compound interest.

The late and great Arthur Ashe, then 32, devised a plan for that final: hit the ball softly, slice it, keep it low; don't give Connors anything to whack back.

Ashe won in four sets, in what was a popular upset - the considered Ashe was a champion of his fellow players' rights, Connors a pugnacious, solitary figure who had boycotted the USA Davis Cup team

Djokovic is no less affable than Murray, and Ashe moved Connors around more, so the comparison has some wrinkles. But the overriding point is this: Simon slowed the tempo against a counter-puncher and removed Djoker from his comfort zone, seemingly irritating him.

Simon says: "If some players can realise what I was trying to do to bring him there, it's good for them."

Simon doesn't have secret herbs and spices. Anyone can watch the match. Murray and Mauresmo surely will, if they haven't yet.

Borrowing elements of the Simon plan doesn't necessarily play to Murray's natural game. "The problem with Andy," said one British tennis insider. "is that he's at his best when he's aggressive."

The Brit insider also noted the Ashe v Connors and Simon v Djokovic parallels, calling this approach "passive aggressive" rather than plain aggressive. "It's a plan of attack based on taking the pace out."

Murray and Mauresmo might find what Simon says (what that match says) too radical to contemplate, since it would mean a major departure from what has brought the Scot success. Typically, players play to their own strengths.

Unfortunately for Murray, he's up against a player with similar strengths - return of serve, court coverage, defensive mastery - but simply better.

He could do worse than watch a clip of Ashe and Connors. If nothing else, it's inspirational.