Losing to Berdych 3 or 4 times in a row is not at all a bad thing for Murray. Because when all things end for both of them, this will not matter because this will not count. For example, Sampras lost to Wayne Ferreira 4 times in a row and in his prime but how many people remember that? Eventually Sampras sorted things out with Ferreira but at some point he was leading Pete. Federer, in fact, lost to Murray three times in a row if you count that Exo match. But what beats it all is the fact that, Federer lost all his Slam finals to his main rival Nadal since 2008 and nothing can be bigger than those losses. So if I were you, I would keep those in mind before I say something…anything.
Emma I do very much agree with your point head for head is not the be all and end all and once Murray and Berdych's career is over he is no doubt going to be miles ahead, that is not in question for me.
For the record I actually have a feeling Murray is going to turn Berdych over tomorrow despite the head to head he has a game that I think should match up well to Berdych, we will see how it goes.
My points was that if he was to lose tomorrow while it would in no way take away from what he has achieved, it would slightly dent his aura as being part of the elite top 4.
No doubt that Nadal has had the upper hand on Roger since 2008, if they both retired now though I do believe Roger would have had the greater career, time will tell if that is the case when they both hang up their rackets but I believe it will be.
To add fuel to your argument I believe Kraijicek also had a winning record on Pete, but despite the Wimbledon loss 1996 you cannot compare their careers, right now 10 years after the retirements those records dont mean much in the contexts of the respective careers but back then when doing battle week in an week out, any dent in an aura or handing over any form of belief to your rivals can count for a lot that was my point.