How about if we begin and end with this: The two big titles in the bag today seem a LOT closer to being 'lost' than 'won', don't you think? Add Murray's TRUE and constant stature of being a counter puncher rather than an offensive force and the debate can end right there, don't you think - again? Here's his record @ Slam (Olympic) finals:
| Tournament | Opponent | Score | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US Open 2008 | Federer | L 2-6, 5-7, 2-6. | |||||
| AO 2010 | Federer | L 3-6, 4-6, 6-7(11). | |||||
| AO 2011 |
Djokovic | L 4-6, 2-6, 3-6. | |||||
| Wimbledon 2012 | Federer | L 6-4, 5-7, 3-6, 4-6. | |||||
| Olympics 2012 |
Federer | W 6-2, 6-1, 6-4. | |||||
| US Open 2012 | Djokovic | W 7-6(10), 7-5, 2-6, 3-6, 6-2. | |||||
|
|
How many of you believe that Murray would win the Olympic title against Federer and the US Open title against Djokovic if those matches are replayed with just slightly altered conditions - today? Even if you have some reservation with the emphatic NO and are undecided, try this: Can you say the same about ANY Slam won by the other three big cats? Sure there might be some, given the vast pool available to dissect, but the MAIN theme is so overwhelmingly dominant that doubt is stamped out beyond recognition leaving the bump resembling an accidental massive aberration incapable of casting ANY shadow ANYWHERE.
Translation: UNLESS the other three begin to falter BIG freaking time, Murray's current US Open and Olympic form is good enough for a final berth AND a STRAIGHT set loss there as has happened three times above. Until Murray 'WINS' the major, either he will offer Roddick company as a one-Slam wonder boy or carry an asterisk if he manages to bag more Slams with his current form and strategy - against top cats of today.
