Originally Posted by BackhandMissile
There's a lot of hype about Murray at the moment for keeping up with Djokovic for 5 sets (you know something isn't right when you get credit for not losing badly)
Commentators, especially British ones, love talking about this amazing "top 4" that we're so privileged to witness live on television. Is there really a top 4 though? Del Potro, unlike Murray, actually has a slam and took down Nadal and Federer consecutively to earn it. Murray gets hyped at every slam ("this is the one") and ends up getting schooled (with his latest defeat being an exception).
I give him credit for giving the top 3 a run, and for taking them on outside of slams, but you can't really talk about a top 4 when 3 of the guys have one multiple slams on multiple surfaces and one of them is still on 0.
Holding a major is absurdly overrated. Shall I list some of the 'legends' of the game who have also won a major?
Del Potro beat an injured Nadal in the semis. And who the hell knows what happened to Federer in that final? The stars aligned for him that fortnight. Hell, he hasn't even won an MS title. I think that fact is pretty telling.
The reason why Murray gets hyped is because he has the game and all the physical tools to be a multiple slam winner. However, he always lets himself down mentally. Adjusting one's mentality is more feasible than trying to overhaul one's game. That is why people hold out hope.