Murray played some great tennis but then Federer won that second set from nowhere. He came back after the rain, having left all the unforced errors in the changing room, and from then on there was only one winner.
I know! And that will probably be Murray's case 'till the day he retires. This was the first Grand Slam final since Australia Open in 2010 that neither Nadal nor Djokovic were present.
Not convinced by this argument. Before the current crop there was Sampras, Agassi, edberg, Becker, Lendl, McEnroe and so on to Laver and before. Granted we have three top players now, but I think there has always been somebody better than Murray around, both in willingness to take risks and go for winners and in temperament. I suppose law of averages would have him winning a Slam in an earlier era if the competition was less intense, so I've just talked myself out of my opening stance. Time for a drink.....
You make a good point about taking risks FFS, in the second set Murray was content to play baseline tennis waiting for the unforced error. Federer was a bit off in the first set with errors, but once he got his range he was toying with Murray, and in the 3rd and 4th sets his quality and variety of shots was on another planet and he played, and won, risky points at key times...
