To say it again, I 100% agree that it's a very good achievement by Andy. All I was pointing out was that you can't make too much out of it, since with so few matches played, its possible that there are one-off reasons for the results. I'm not saying there is, just that its possible. Noone denies that Andy has it in him to beat Fed, (at least if Fed is not playing at the top of his game). I'm not bringing excuses for Fed, just explaining from Murray's point of view why you can't use this head-to-head so simply at face value. Put it this way, if Andy's record would be more like 12-8 then it would definitely show something - to have a winning record over 20 games would be amazing. But from 3 matches you can't prove anything - there could be one-off reasons for Fed's losses. Hell, there could be a one-off season for Andy's loss!
But you didn't mention Andy's loss, only Fed's losses. And that's what everyone does. It's always "Federer didn't play well" or "Federer was tired". No one bothers to manufacture excuses for Andy's losses.
It's boring. People need to learn that sometimes you lose to a better player on the day.
