It was the scene of his greatest triumph but Andy Murray has risked Wimbledon's wrath by saying that he believes the grass courts have become too slow.

The Scot’s 2013 victory over Novak Djokovic ended 77 years without a British winner and will live long in the memory.

But Murray, who also won the Olympic gold medal on the grass courts of the All England Club in 2012, says he thinks the surface has gone too far away from its natural speed.

“I do think (tennis) could do a better job of adjusting the surfaces,” the 28-year-old said. “I think the indoor courts are probably too slow, grass courts are also too slow.”

Those with a good memory will remember Wimbledon in the 1990s when the slick grass was a haven for big servers.

Pete Sampras, one of the best servers of all time, won the title seven times in eight years between 1993 and 2000 and the following year, the big-serving Goran Ivanisevic aced his way to a remarkable victory.

In response to widespread criticism that Wimbledon was becoming too boring for fans and in particular, television, organisers slowed down the surface.

Things changed so much that the following year, when Australia’s Leyton Hewitt beat David Nalbandian of Argentina to win the title, neither man served and volleyed even once.

With tennis having become increasingly physical in the past decade, the clear homogenisation of court speeds across the Tour has led to a series of epic encounters, often at the back end of grand slams.

Murray was involved in one of those, against Djokovic in the semi-finals of the 2012 Australian Open when he was beaten in four hours, 50 minutes.

Djokovic then recovered to beat Rafael Nadal in the five-set final, which lasted almost six hours.

Many former players have suggested that something needs to be done to ensure the longevity of the sport’s stars.

Though some have suggested allowing let-serves to count and others want to see men’s matches at the grand slams reduced to three sets, Murray said he would rather see the sets shortened than have any major tinkering of the scoring system.

“I think one way of speeding the game up is to make the courts a bit quicker and the balls a bit quicker,” said Murray, speaking at the inaugural Tie Break Tens (first to 10 points) competition at London’s Royal Albert Hall, a tournament in which he lost to Kyle Edmund in the final on Saturday night.

“That would then change the length of some of the matches but I think we genuinely have a great scoring system in tennis, one of the best across all of sports,” he said.

“It’s just because the courts have become so slow that the matches have become very long.

“But we were told after the Australian Open a few years ago when I had that semi-final with Novak and then he played with Rafa in the final, we were told that none of the TV companies complained about the semis or the final being too long, it was great for them, so I don’t really know how much of a problem it is.”

From next year, the Davis Cup will introduce a tiebreak in the final set but three of the four grand slam events – the US Open is the exception – do not have a tiebreak and require the final set to be won by a margin of at least two games.

The 11-hour five-minute marathon between John Isner and Nicolas Mahut at Wimbledon in 2010, which ended 70-68 in the final set to the American, was an exception rather than the rule.

But though relatively few matches go beyond 6-6 in the fifth set, Murray said he would not be against shortening the length of sets in general.

“That’s one of the things they could do, is make the sets slightly shorter, rather than changing the whole scoring system,” he said.

“Like having a tiebreak at five-all or in some of the events, playing the sets to four, that could potentially work.”

Former world No 1 John McEnroe, also participating at the Royal Albert Hall, echoed Murray’s thoughts.

“I think anyone who’s heard me commentate at all would know that I endorse and encourage and beg for a tiebreak in the fifth set, at the very least,” he said.

“I think that would be a light at the end of the tunnel for both the fans and the players and personally it would be a spectacular way to end a match, if it came to that. It would increase the intensity, that’s for sure…because it’s extra excitement over a tiebreaker.

“Without question, people’s attention spans are less than they’ve ever been in all sports.

“They do it in the World Cup when there are 22 guys on the field.....so for me, it’s just a time thing.”