You're not getting it AK400,
Murray did freeze and he did under perform. Twice.
And how can you say he had a better chance against last years Novak than against Roger who hasn't won a slam since? I doubt even Roger is that delusional, he's certainly not stupid enough to say it publicly.
You've said it yourself here about Murrays propensity to crumble in slam finals. Part of that crumbling is happening before he gets on court resulting in a very defensive non proactive style of play when he does and for the record, Murray normally makes more winners and is away from the baseline more often than both Nadal and Djokovic.
I don't care whether it's perceived as 'lame excuse' by you. It doesn't change the observation I was making which the truth. It can be looked at statistically also but it was obvious to absolutely everyone excepting the most extreme triumphalistic Federer fans. I'm not doing it to diminish Rogers win either,
A win is a win when all is said and done, on that day he probably would have won anyway. Although I am certain it is a win he would not have got had Murray not taken Nadal out in the quarters.
Also a 'lame excuse' in my book is when you suggest that the reason Nadal so clearly dominates Roger is due to Rafa being left handed, ha-ha.
Maybe he's just a better player, certainly Roger has failed to adapt to Nadal's challenge in all this time.
What else, oh yes the whole Rafa taking 5 sets to beat Roger, you do know he took 5 hours to beat Verdasco just before dont you?
Oh but Roger 'played terrible' in the fifth?
Isn't that what you would class as a 'lame excuse' AK?
Under the circumstance I'm afraid I would have to as well, as he was better rested and should have been able to sustain his level for a final set, maybe he was simply dominated by Nadal by that time and folded, again.
Although I will say that when Federer lost against Del Potro at the USO... well that was on his racquet that time but he somehow found a way to lose.
You have this strange way of posting as if everything is frozen in time.
I think it's common trait for Rogers fans as that's where his glory days are to be found.
The past might be frozen (although perspective on the past isn't) but the future is not.
Murray has time, Del Potro has time, Federer has less.
So I doubt Murray would also give up all of his prior achievements just to be a one slam wonder. Which may yet happen to Delpo, who has yet to win a masters title (again indicating that the stars aligned for him in NY), but I hope it doesn't. He was an exception however and a bit lucky getting one in early. But it ain't over yet. Murray shall get his when he's ready. Delpo will get his next one when hes ready too, as lightening rarely strikes twice in sport and one usually has to be more than lucky & reasonably well prepared.
I suppose you think that Ferrero will go down like Delpo as a better player than Murray if he retired tomorrow as he's been Number 1 and won a slam also? I'm sorry but that is a crass argument and simply not the truth.
And I do hope for your sake that you are not going to try and tell any of us here that the early Hewitt, Roddick, Ferrero etc era was in any way comparable to the other eras I outlined because that's just silly and really you're embarrassing yourself to even try.
Sampras = Roddick etc, give me a break.
It was a weak era because there was only one decent player competing with no competition and that is why he cleaned up. Again this is obvious stuff.
The propblem with your argument is you purely going on hindsight. Of course if Murray had to play Novak in the Aussie Open final now that would not be a good draw and Roger would never say it was.
But last year before he went on to have an amazing run things were quite different. Novak had lost his last 3 matches to Murray and had only won one major before Nadal and Federer were both eliminated so it was a decent draw for Murray and certainly a much better chance than if he had, had to play Federer yet again you know a guy who had crushed him in his previous 2 major finals.
Sure Roger playing bad in the 5th against Rafa was a poor showing but its hard to compare that to Murray because Roger has won 16 majors therefore we know what his best form in a major is like and we know what to compare it to.
Murray has been straight setted in all 3 of his major finals, so whether he froze or whether he is simply not good enough to get over that final hurdle.
I never said that Roddick is equal to Sampras or even hinted I did say that Roddick is a great player and it is a testement to Roger's domination that he is only going to end up with 1 major.
Of course time does not stand still and Murray does have some time left of course and for the record I think he may well have a better career than Del Po when they both retire, but if they did both stop today Del Potro has had the better career because he has wona major.
Of course Ferrero has had a better career so far than Murray if you think otherwise you are deluded not only was he 1 in the world (rankings alone do not mean much without titles) but he has made the same amount of slam finals as Murray and he has actually managed to win one of them (French Open 2003).
Sampras who is one of the greats of all time even said that, Federer has a forehand as good as his better backhand and better from the baseline, while I agree that Sampras would have tested Roger if both played at their prime, I also feel that Roger's dominance has stopped many talented players from becoming multiple grand slam winners like they were capable of becoming.