HOW quickly time passes for those who are forced by inclination or by newspaper editors to make predictions in the tennis world.

On November 13, 2014, Andy Murray trudged from a court in the 02 Arena having been beaten by Roger Federer 6-0, 6-1.

The consensus was that the Scot was a spent force, perhaps never to challenge again in grand slams. That 33-year-old Swiss boy seemed to have a future, many commentators agreed.

Just more than two months on, Murray has contested the Australian Open final. Federer went out in the third round to Andreas Seppi. The greatest player of all time has now not contested a grand slam final since 2012.

There are reasons to be dismayed by Murray's four-set defeat to Novak Djokovic in Melbourne yesterday.

One would need to have the spin of a Rafa Nadal forehand to make something positive out of losing 12 of the last 13 games. Murray, too, won only 11 points in the final set. From a promising position, the 27-year-old Scot hurtled towards defeat.

There were the usual cries of choking from the usual suspects. They are impossible to answer, except with the observation that most of those critics contended for what seemed like an age that Murray would never win a major. He did. Indeed, he won two.

It may be more constructive, then, to look at what precisely went wrong in Melbourne and address it. That is what Murray will do almost immediately.

It is reasonable to assume that the Scot is still on an upward trajectory after the back surgery that followed his win at Wimbledon in 2013. He must be cheered at finally returning to a grand slam final if somewhat surprised at what seven matches in a fortnight took out of what was once a battle-hardened body.

There was mental fatigue in Murray towards the end of yesterday's defeat but it may have been preceded by a tiredness that comes at the end of a major, particularly when one has not been in a final since Wimbledon 2013.

This, of course, is remedied by further conditioning, further experience at the business end of majors.

The lingering problem for Murray is his serve. It makes headlines for commentators to talk about meltdowns, choking and shouts at the player's box. But only when players lose. Djokovic has done all of the above and more. Most of it yesterday. But he has won eight grand slams so all is forgiven.

But Murray's serve can not be excused at the highest level of the game. If the Scot had served well yesterday, he would have beaten Djokovic.

Tennis offers the arithmetic to support this assertion. When Murray roared "how many times?" in the desperate throes of defeat yesterday, he was referring simply to a second serve whose vulnerability had been brutally exposed. Three out of four times, when Murray tossed the ball up for second serve he was condemned to losing the point.

This is the sort of statistic that makes runners-up of players, however great.

The imperative, then, is to accept that he was not strong enough on the final day of a grand slam but to realise he has been powerful enough on two previous occasions, both incidentally against Djokovic at the US Open in 2012 and at Wimbledon a year later.

He must also adder the second serve. It has been a blemish that has occasionally flared up into a sore. Ivan Lendl, his previous coach, addressed it ever so slightly. Surgery may now be needed.

This may involve the slightest change of technique but it will certainly necessitate an altered mindset. Murray, a tennis classicist who abhors unnecessary risk, may just have to take more of a chance of racking up double faults to keep his opponents "honest".

The post-mortem on Melbourne for Murray will already have started. But his main emotion should be frustration rather than devastation. Djokovic could, perhaps should have been beaten at Melbourne Park.

But walking away from the Rod Laver Arena after a four-set defeat to the world No.1, is a huge step away from the travails of last season when recuperation was slow, even uncertain.

At the end of the 2014 campaign, Murray scrambled to be a top eight player and so earn the right to be thumped by Federer. He came to Melbourne as world No.6. He leaves battered and perhaps bruised but as world No.4.

And so here is a predictable prediction. Murray will come back stronger. It is what he does. He suffers during and after defeat. But he always uses it as platform.

Consider this: Melbourne 2015 ended horribly with that run of lost games but does Murray look more or less of a grand slam winner than in November last year when losing to Grigor Dimitrov at Wimbledon?