"Most would accept that Murray is now the second-best player in the world but being seeded No 3 at the Australian Open hurt his chances considerably.
To win the title, he would have had to beat both the men seeded higher than him."
Simon Briggs in the Daily Telegraph two days ago: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ten...erm-goals.html
Huh? Am I missing something here? Federer is world No. 2, and AFAIK
Wimbledon is the only GS which is allowed to change the seedings so that they reflect players' abilities on grass rather than their world ranking, isn't it? And I can't see that being seeded second would have made any great difference, except that possibly he'd have had Federer's draw and Fed would have had his. (Now there's a thought ...). He'd still have had to play the same people, irrespective of their seeding, but obviously it's far easier to beat the world No. 3 whoever he may be than the world No. 2
I've been very aware over the last half-year or so that the British press/commentators/presenters seem to be losing their sense of balance where Murray's concerned, and this seems to be just another one of those cases. Or am I misunderstanding him?