Does Andy Murray really deserve a knighthood?

Does Andy Murray really deserve a knighthood?

The public have been craving for a British Wimbledon champion for several decades and there seems to have been a drought of solid British competition in the sport. We've suffered through the nearly years of Tin Henman and emerged with Andy Murray, a young man capable of being the best in the world, which he proved with a stunning win at centre court this month.

Wimbledon is a unique in that a large number of the population tune in, despite not caring for the sport otherwise. As such Andy Murray and his fellow British competitors have a massive following each year and have to deal with the massive weight of expectation.

Happily, Murray shrugged off his shackles and 'gave' the public the win they so obviously craved, in front of a packed home audience.

Now, some may seek to take away from his accomplishment, but the Scot has worked tremendously hard to get where he is in the sport today and has come on in leaps and bounds as an athlete.

But does this mean that he deserves an knighthood? 

First of all let's look at the arguments for and against.

The main reason people are calling for the accolade is that he has won a major sporting event. That's about it. If England's football team won the world cup, there would probably be calls for the squad to become sirs, whether they deserved it or not.

However, he competes alone with the hopes of nation/s resting on his shoulders and if he fails, he has to deal with the flak alone. There's a reason there hasn't been a winner since Fred Perry in 1936 and that tells two stories.

Firstly, the gulf in class in British tennis when compared to the world and secondly, the ability of the opposition.

At the age of 26, he still has at least half a decade to compete at a world class level in tennis and showering him in adulation could lead to him becoming complacent, therefore failing to reach the upper echelons of greatness.

This is ridiculous, as it's obvious Murray cares a lot about his tennis and his career and he seems to be a very strong-minded individual.

Even if he never wins Wimbledon again, his achievement will stand in the history books and almanacs, so I don't think diminishing his win by saying he doesn't deserve a knighthood is very fair.

Bosses of banks (that are reviled publicly) receive honours all the time, so why shouldn't a hard-working young man of his calibre be given the recognition he deserves? He is a great role model for children and adults alike and never seems to get into the paper for the wrong reasons.

Obviously the decision is far from mine to make, but I do think that either way, Murray will go on to achieve more in the world of tennis and it's a case of when, not if regarding the knighthood.