Michael Berrer - A gentleman or a choker?

To reach the third round of a Grand Slam is undoubtedly an achievement not to be taken lightly, especially when you have defeated "tennis wonderkid" Milos Raonic and previous Grand Slam finalist Arnaud Clement on the way.

Michael Berrer a German tennis “journeyman” raised an eyebrow or two when he took out Raonic and turned a head or two when he beat Clement on his home turf. Andy Murray can't have been expecting to face Berrer in the third round given the draw, and may well have been quietly pleased when he found out he was due to face Berrer.

Since turning pro in 1999, Berrer has hardly caused shockwaves within the tennis world. He reached a career high ranking of 42 in the world last year, but this slipped as 2010 progressed and 2011 started. He has never won a singles ATP tournament to this day/

To face Murray in the third round at the French Open would have been the highlight of Berrer's career. With a large crowd and television audience Berrer was sure to want to make an impression.

Murray took the first set with such ease that left the crowd wondering how Berrer made it to round three. Midway through the second set Murray nastily turned his ankle chasing down a short forehand. It was heavily strapped for the remainder of the match. Murray was clearly struggling to move and thus had adopted a “win or bust” strategy.

What followed, in my opinion, was astonishing.

Murray playing with his "win or bust" mentality closed out the second set, and then waltzed through the third to book his place in the fourth round.

With Murray clearly barely able to change direction, the obvious thing it seemed, for Berrer to do would be to hit a combination of drop shots, lobs, short angles and off pace balls, yet throughout the set and a half following Murray's injury, Berrer barely mustered any of the above. He continued with his big hitting through the middle of the court straight towards Murray. As the already bemused French Crowd looked on, they must have wondered what was going through Berrer's mind. Did he really want to win?

In the post match press conference Berrer was quizzed about his tactics, the seemingly lack of intent to exploit Murray's obvious inability to move swiftly around the court. Berrer explained that he felt he "couldn't" play on Murray's injury and maybe it was this lack of ruthlessness that had stopped him climbing the tennis ladder further.

To me, this whole episode shows that Berrer lacks the mental game to ever really make waves within the game.


When you enter a competition of any sort, one must assume that whoever your opponent or opponents are, they feel that they can operate at the level of the competition. If one is to injure themselves during an event, surely one can feel, without guilt, to play upon his or her injury. To me, it is the same as playing upon an opponent’s weakness.

However, many would argue (as my housemate does) that it is ungentlemanly to target an injury. Personally I can see no reason not to. Do you need this ruthless streak to reach the top of a sport or is it possible to remain a complete gentleman and reach the top of a sport? Can you be ruthless and a gentleman?

If Michael Berrer had played on Murray’s injured ankle and won, how would the British press have reacted? Would they have slated Berrer or would they have simply stated that Murray can learn from his ruthless streak?

These are my thoughts on a debate that is bound to go on for years without ever reaching a conclusion.