If you care to look at what I originally said it was that Rusedski got closer to winning a slam than Murray. Mathematically that is true, you may not like the fact, but it is true.
Hell, Del Potro won his first and only slam final from 2 sets down against Federer. By contrast Murray has the distinction of being the only player in tennis history to lose 9 consecutive sets in slam finals, a more amazing feat given he was in a position to win at least 4 of those 9 sets. Murray dug deep and found a way to lose.
It may be mathematically true but it's also retarded but I don't think you will get it.
Del Potro is so far an exception but more importantly, he doesn't come from a country you are from...if you get my drift. Still, Del Potro's Slam is so far considered a fluke. Besides, there are too many one Slam wonders. They came and died with those single slams. No one knows who they are any more. And even if Andy doesn't win a Slam, he'll be regarded as the best player to have not won a Slam and he will always be remembered. He's already made his mark in history by being the 7 only men to make all the semis in on season in the Open era.
And making three GS finals is more amazing feat than losing all three of them and it doesn't even matter how you lost.
Get lost now.