Cro Morgan wrote:One might not guess it from my previous comments, but I actually like Murray (more than jayl0ve anyway). However, no dismissing the fact that he has advanced to two Grand Slam finals and has not won a single set. Not one! You'd expect that from a Baghdatis/Tsonga**, but not Murray - after all, he
supposed to be better than that.
**
Unlike Murray, actually did take a set in their lone Grand Slam final appearance.

....which is disappointing - most likely for no-one moreso than him - I'm reminded a little of Ivan Lendl never winning Wimbledon.
For me, Murray's percentage-style, sometimes (!!) lacking in aggression-tennis is also quite reminiscent of a certain Swede from a few years back.....one Mr B Borg? Murray lacks Borg's 'televisual appeal', certainly - but Borg's style wasn't particularly flash-bang - much of his popularity came from a largely non-tennis-playing crowd - ie teenage girls who quite simply fancied the shorts off the man - Murray certainly doesn't have that particular quality.
I've called him a journeyman in the past - someone who's there to get as far as he can in a competition - seeming sometimes to focus more on not losing, than actually winning, and maybe that wasn't that inaccurate. But I do think his game is different from where he was 2 or 3 years ago - it's natural to revert back to it now and then if things don't go his way for a few games - who wouldn't - when aggressive and attacking means risk of losing, why not fall back to your 'b' game to recoup - but it's perhaps that thinking/perspective that needs to be addressed, and is being addressed...perhaps.
To comment a little on the Nadal post a little earlier too - I honestly believe that Murray and Nadal have more in common than not. To my mind, Nadal is simply not the most talented/artistic tennis player out there - his tenacity, determination and will-to-never-give-up on the other hand are daunting qualities - more than daunting....superhuman really, and beyond anything i've ever seen, in any sportsman, in any sport - it questions my understanding of human psychology/physiology how he does it. Murray, likewise is not the most artistic/creative player on the tour, not by a mile - but there's an intelligence and tactical quality to his play that is pretty uncommon on the tour too - that coupled with his huge fitness and athleticism have made him very very successful....if not as 'watchable' as Nadal, or certainly Federer or Agassi - the flamboyant chaps. Both Nadal and Murray rely on very very high levels of physicality and determination - and both do well from shining in those areas - Nadal is of course more watchable...he's a phenomenal force of nature...you watch him with a sense of awe - but not at his skill alone. Murray's style is waaaaaaaaay less watchable, but he's done pretty well with it too.
Finally - it really, to me, depends on what you want to watch - boom boom tennis, or a tactical, strategic battle of wits and wills, with the racquets, balls and stuff almost incidental, if not at least playing a back seat in the competition.
just my thruppence......
Al - you're one of the true aficionado's round these parts....as opposed to an over-opinionated, under educated irish chap like myself....what think you?