Should Andy Murray have said ‘No’ to tweeting about the Scottish Referendum?

After receiving criticism and no shortage of Twitter abuse, Great Britain‘s Andy Murray this week apologised for tweeting his support for Alex Salmond’s now defeated ‘Yes’ campaign ahead of the Scottish Referendum vote, specifically the ‘way it was worded’ where he openly criticised the successful Better Together campaign.

But after the almost inevitable fallout driven largely by the British sporting public and media south of the border who feel betrayed after years supporting Murray at Wimbledon, during Davis Cup matches and at two Olympics, should he have got involved in the first place?

The quick-fire would be no as surely Murray, with a history of being quoted (or misquoted) making anti-English remarks and now a resident of leafy Walton-on-Thames, didn’t want to risk alienating and losing the support of the British sporting public. Hard won support after initially being caricatured as a screaming, on court tantrum queen and previous auld enemy baiting episodes, which include joking about wearing the shirt of England opponents Paraguay during the 2006 World Cup and claiming he would always support ‘anyone but England’ at the same tournament.

But as a passionate Scot – a survivor of the horrific Dunblane disaster no less – Murray is well entitled to an opinion about the future of the country of his birth. But with emotions and tensions running high on both sides of the border as voting D-Day approached, Murray was ill-advised to keep quiet for so long, only to tweet his support and take an open swipe at the ‘No’ campaign on the morning of the vote. Combining my day job working in PR and being a sports fan, I know what I would have advised him.

Which begs the question, did Murray take it upon himself to tweet, was he cajoled into doing so as a last-ditch attempt to sway voters or was his the joker card the ‘Yes’ campaign always planned to play on the morning of the vote? However it came about, Murray has surely learnt a valuable lesson about the potential toxic combination of sporting celebrities, politics and social media and will in future likely follow the more world-wise lead of Sir Chris Hoy (and the Queen) in staying diplomatically neutral.

Men’s tennis still waiting for next generation of stars

Murray. Murray. Mr Andrew Murray. What a joyous first Sunday in July you gave us all. Wimbledon men’s singles champion at last and finally feted by the British public despite already being the reigning US Open and Olympic champion, which one might reasonably expect to have been secured already…go figure. Armchair sports fans, anyone??

Putting jokes, belated recognition – and in the case of everyone’s best mate ‘Dave’ Cameron, suggested over recognition aside – Andy Murray’s history busting victory at SW19 was fantastic for Britain, but was yet another tournament where the next generation of leading male tennis players – who will take the game’s baton of standard bearers from Federer, Djokovic, Nadal and Murray – failed to make an impression.

Tennis is undoubtedly revelling in a golden age where the ability, achievements, rivalries and record-breaking between the ‘Big Four’ have driven the sport to new heights, attracting heightened media coverage, increasing audiences and providing some of recent history’s most dramatic and special sporting moments. Such as 2008′s memorable Wimbledon final between Nadal and Federer. But they also have such a suffocating stranglehold on the top prizes that tomorrow’s champions are yet to flourish.

Aside from Juan Martin Del Potro’s victory at the 2009 US Open, you have to go back to the 2005 Australian Open (won by Marat Safin, remember him?) for the last time a Grand Slam was not won by one of the golden quartet. But to sustain its current status in the global sporting hierarchy and avoid the lull suffered in the early noughties, new personalities need to breakthrough. But who are the most likely? And why are they yet to shine?

Canada’s 22 year old Milos Raonic (currently ranked 15) and the enigmatic 20 year old Bernard Tomic of Australia (ranked 42) have been earmarked as the new pretenders, but neither is yet to even play in a Grand Slam quarter-final and the talent behind them is decidedly thin, where both are at an age where history shows top players start to collect, and consistently challenge for, Grand Slams titles.

Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Chang, Sampras, Agassi, Hewitt, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic had all already won Grand Slams by the age of 21, yet today no one 21 or under resides in the ATP’s top ten. Conversely, Federer is amongst three players over thirty who currently inhabit the top 20; with Germany’s evergreen Tommy Haas (35) being the greatest evader of father time.

Player fitness has improved, where the increased emphasis on athleticism, conditioning and brawn brought on by the emergence of the gladiatorial Nadal – and continued by Djokovic and Murray – means careers are being prolonged, a natural evolution in sport. But armed with this knowledge, what hasn’t evolved is the next wave of players who will in turn take the game forward. As interest in the women’s game waned until credible challengers emerged for the Williams sisters, men’s tennis needs to unearth the next superstars if it doesn’t want to suffer the same fate.