Originally Posted by The_Nadal_effect
Murray's case is unique. No other top player has that much outer pressure to perform. Of course, when the results do come, people flock around you, but where have the results come in his case? St Petersburg and Doha don't qualify. Yet the Brits celebrate him as a legend, and you are telling me that its only up to Murray.
Do you really think so, T_N_E?
I think one of the big challenges for any top player is to deal with the expectations from 'outside'. Some of the players are capable of meeting those expectations at a very young age, others need a lot more time. Remember that Federer himself got the label of being a headcase, a true underachiever in his early days, and got BASHED for it.
The hyping may well be worse in Great-Britain, I don't know, but I don't think Murray has a lot of problems with that at all. Rather the contrary, he comes across as a rather level-headed guy to me.
Murray's fans are responsible for pampering him and spoiling him. He would have greater mental discipline if there would be more objective criticism of his game. Then, he wouldn't melt away in the slams like he does so often, losing to Verdasco, Cilic and Roddick whom he owns in the MMs.
How do you know whether Murray has a lack of 'mental discipline'? I think rather the contrary. And not every time a player loses a tough match, it's a case of 'melting away' - sometimes they just happen to run into an opponent who's playing better at that time. Verdasco, Cilic and Roddick were all on a very hot streak when they beat Murray. It... happens.
And comparing results in lesser tournaments with those in slams... there's this big difference called 'Best of Five', and that's one of the things that makes winning a slam such a very difficult thing to do.