An Andy-related extract from Pat Cash's article in the Sunday Times:
Why I back Nadal to defy this absurd seeding
"So in the last four Murray is the probable opponent and after the Scot's back injury I'm wondering if he will be sufficiently strong, physically and mentally, to last back-to-back five-set matches. The only times Murray has beaten Nadal in Grand Slam matches has been when Rafa was playing hurt: the US Open in 2008 and the Australian Open in 2010. Since the Scot reached the final of the Australian Open in January he hasn't enjoyed the greatest of years by the lofty standards we expect from him. He won the Miami Masters title in March and Queen's last week but he didn't have to beat another member of the top four to claim either trophy. To win Wimbledon I'm sure he'll have to beat two of them, back to back over the best of five sets. He has never managed that and, sadly, I'm not sure he'll do it this time."
Have I missed something here, or am I right in thinking that Rafa wasn't injured at all in their US Open match that Andy won? And in their Australian Open match, didn't Rafa get injured only after Andy had a 2 set lead anyway, with Andy always looking like the likely winner.
Nadal was actually injured during that match, but Cash is just jealous because Murray will get more praise for winning then he did in his day.