It is rather interesting how people continue to speak of Andy Murray as if something is "wrong" with him, as if his performance is a far-cry from his ability. As I see it, his performance perfectly matches his ability level. If you look at his record since he broke through in 2008, he's got the 4th best overall numbers; I'd say that is very accurate for his ability level - that he's been "the best of the rest" after the Big Three. If you look at his record, it was really only a five-Slam span of time--from Wimbledon 2012 to Wimbledon 2013--where he seemed coeval with the Big Three, which in a way is reminiscent of Guillermo Vilas's run from 1977 to mid-78.
To put that another way, overall Andy Murray has been about as good as Roger Federer since 2010. In other words, peak Murray = post-peak (plateau) Federer. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, it is better than all but two players on tour. What do people expect from him?
This phenomena is not unlike how some folks think Novak has been sub-par after 2011, as if that was a sustainable level that he simply failed to keep up for various reasons. Actually, 2011 was his best season and established a new level for him, but like Roger's 2006 or Rafa's 2010, it wasn't that he was much worse the following year, its that he played at his very best and didn't as much decline as settled into a more manageable level, as well as the fact that others adjusted and got better.
The simple fact with Andy is that, for better or worse, he's playing alongside three of the greatest players to ever swing a racket - he's a great player, but just not as great as Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. This was the lot in life of Guillermo Vilas and, for a few years at least, Ivan Lendl. I think people were hoping that 2012-13 was a sign that Murray was following the Lendl career path. Like Andy, who won his first Slam--the 2012 US Open--at the relatively ripe age of 25, Lendl won his first Slam late or an all-time great at the age of 24. But unlike Andy (so far at least), it wasn't simply his best year so far, it signalled a rise to a new level. Lendl went on to be the year-end #1 in four of the next five years, age 25-29. Both won a Slam per year in their first two Slam winning years, but whereas Lendl won two Slams in each of two following two years--1986-87--Andy didn't win a Slam or Masters in 2014, which would have been the equivalent of Lendl's 1986. It is interesting to note that Andy fell away from the Lendl career path around the time he parted ways with Lendl as his coach.
What's next for Andy? Well, he turns 28 in a few months which places him firmly in his "plateau phase." Chances are we won't see higher heights than we've already seen. I suspect Andy will remain a Slam threat and top 10 player, even top 5, for several more years, but I think the ship has sailed on him following Lendl's path and claiming his place among the greats. That said, Roger Federer is going to be 34 later this year and Rafa has some big question marks, and given that Andy remains the "best of the rest" he may only have to solve, or get around, one player. In other words, he very well could have another Slam or two in him - unless, of course, Rafa regains his health and one or more of the young guns miraculously reach a new level. But all things tolled, I think Andy is probably still the third contender for Slam titles over the next couple years, and is still probably the second most likely to win at Wimbledon.
One other point of difference from Lendl. Ivan lost his first four Slam finals to Borg, Connors (twice) and Wilander. I'm not sure he improved in 1984 and beyond as much as the field shifted to help him rise to the top. Borg retired, Connors continued to age, and then McEnroe stuttered and declined. Aside from his incredible 1988, Wilander didn't quite capitalize on his early promise, and the next group of elite players--Becker and Edberg--didn't fully come into their own until the late 80s, when Lendl begin to show cracks. Plus I don't think Becker or Edberg (or Wilander) were quite in the same league as the former "Big Three" (Connors, Borg, McEnroe). In other words, Lendl's very best years--1986-87--were nestled in a nice gap between the reign of Borg/Connors/McEnroe and the rise of Wilander/Edberg/Becker, and then of course the arrival of Agassi and Sampras. I am not saying that it was a weak era, but that those two years when Lendl won two Slams a year were in a nice window of opportunity when Ivan was the only great player playing at his best. Even when Edberg and Becker peaked, Lendl was right with them, but whereas Lendl was clearly the top player in 1986-87, he was more in the pack with the others in 1988-90. Actually, until Sampras took over the #1 spot in 1993, there was a nice half-decade or so (longer if you want to go back to the end of McEnroe's dominance in 1985) in which the top players were packed close together.
But I ramble on!
