I still remember feeling a thrill of excitement when walking into the Susi Susanti Sports Hall in Indonesia; the former Olympic badminton champion isn’t a household name in Britain but as one of the greatest female badminton players ever - and one of my heroes growing up as an aspiring badminton player – she was a big deal to me.
It’s why walking into her eponymous sports hall meant a lot more to me than walking into a generically-named facility would ever mean.
Remembering this feeling, I get a pang of sadness that there will not anytime soon, and perhaps never, be a similarly dedicated facility to the man I would consider Scotland’s greatest-ever sportsperson; Andy Murray.
The news this week that plans for the Andy Murray centre near Dunblane have been scrapped due to a “combination of factors” including increases in construction, material, energy and labour costs, a lengthy and uncertain planning process was perhaps not particularly surprising given how long it’s been in the pipeline without a brick ever being laid. But the predictability of this news does little to lessen the disappointment.
Andy Murray hit his last ball as a professional tennis player on the 2nd of August, bringing down the curtain on a career that saw him win three grand slam titles, including two Wimbledons, two Olympic gold medals, become world number one and spearhead a British team that won the Davis Cup for the first time in almost 80 years.
He became a sporting hero to many, both within Scotland and further afield.
As soon as he hung up his racquet, the obvious question was what legacy will endure?
I’m often frustrated by the almost constant use of the word legacy within the sporting world.
Particularly when it comes to hosting sporting events, it’s legacy this, legacy that.
So often, it’s a phrase that means very little and is used merely to add a layer of significance that, often, isn’t really there.
But in the case of Murray, it’s legitimate to ponder his legacy.
Murray retired from tennis earlier this summer (Image: Getty)
There will, not in my lifetime anyway, be another Andy Murray. I’m certain that even in a hundred years time, Murray will remain the greatest tennis player Scotland has ever produced. He was that good.
In terms of an intangible legacy, he’s certainly left one.
The interest in tennis has unquestionably increased within Scotland over the course of his two-decade long career.
Tennis participation figures have risen within Scotland.
And more than a few of Scotland’s elite athletes have cited Murray as an inspiration; certainly he proved that hailing from Scotland need not be a barrier to success at the very top level of sport, regardless of how rare it had previously been.
But the halting of the plans for the Andy Murray centre mean that, in the near future anyway, there will not be a bricks-and-mortar legacy of Murray’s career.
It was his mum, Judy, who was behind the idea for the centre having, for some time, spoken of her disenchantment at the lack of a legacy of the success of both Andy and his elder brother, Jamie Murray.
This decision about the Andy Murray centre will only compound that disappointment.
And Murray himself commentated sarcastically on social media “what a surprise”.
Certainly the idea of this centre was not without its flaws; did another indoor tennis facility need to be built in the location that was selected when there’s an excellent indoor tennis centre just a few miles down the road at the University of Stirling?
And much of the dissent of the local community was not towards the sports facility per se, rather it was focussed on the luxury housing that would accompany the sports centre and their disapproval that it would be built on green-belt land.
So, it wasn’t a perfect plan – but what plan is perfect?
In the absence of any competing suggestions of location, this was by far the best there was.
A centre in Murray’s name – it was to be multi-sport and not specifically tennis – would be a fitting tribute, and indeed tennis legend Billie Jean King branded the suggestion of a Murray centre as the “best legacy” for Andy and his brother. It’s hard to disagree.
To not have a tangible legacy of Murray’s career seems so incredibly wasteful, and such a missed opportunity.
In reality, the fact that this conversation remains on-going, despite the fact Murray won his first grand slam 12 years ago, says much about where sport truly is in the list of priorities of this nation.
Murray’s greatest legacy, far more than producing “another Andy Murray” would be for Scotland to become a more active, physically healthy nation in which sporting opportunities are both accessible and affordable for every single person in society.
As things stand, that’s not the case.
Yes, this proposed Andy Murray centre would not have been the answer to all of these problems; the answer to the problem of Scotland, in some sectors of the population anyway, being an inactive and unhealthy group needs a far wider-ranging solution than the construction of a single sports centre.
But it would have sent a message that success in the sporting world does matter and it’s damn well going to be used to improve Scotland as a whole.
So, as things stand, Murray’s success will be consigned to Scottish sporting history whereas in reality, it should be being used to galvanise a positive Scottish sporting present and future.
We’ll see in the coming years if either this Andy Murray centre, or another one, ever comes to fruition.
If the answer is no, it’s a monumental waste of sporting success that we’re unlikely to ever see again.
