How can anybody "hate" Murray? This is a guy who was involved in the Dunblane massacre - he was cowering in a classroom at the time. He has played some fantastic tennis and I would love to see him win.
Can't see it, however, with the machine that is Federer in his way.
Women's tennis, on the other hand - money for old rope. But enough of Venus Williams. Or the other one.

IMO it doesn't really come down to big match mentality. It's not like Murray is going to finals and then losing his bottle against players he really should be beating. He is pretty good under pressure and I thought he played ok today, his game didn't disappear into a load of unforced errors or double faults. He isn't as good as Federer, Nadal or Djokovic that's the bottom line, Federer today when he hit his stride served superbly and just hit winners, he won the game rather than Murray losing it.

In any other era Murray would have won a few Grand Slam tournaments because he is better than a lot of players that have won the odd Slam here and there, but with three of the all time greats of the game playing in the same era they just hoover up the Slams and don't give anyone else a shot.

There was a great stat about since Federer winning his first Wimbledon in 2003, all the Grand Slams have gone to Federer, Nadal or Djokovic apart from Roddick, Gaudio, Safin and Del Potro winning one each.

That's something of a contradiction, there, no? Unless you think those four one-off winners are better than Murray? Today was Murray's best effort in a major final, but even if he had won the second set, which Federer frankly burgled off him, I still think he would have lost in the end.

I'm assuming you're not trolling for a change, obviously.

Pretty much blob on....Many tennis experts have acknowledged that in any other era, Murray would have won a few Grand Slams already.

His Slam record is actually very impressive - he rarely gets 'giant-killed', mainly losing to one of the big 3, or at least a similarly ranked player, and the fact he has been almost resident in World top 4 for the last 3 years indicates he has the consistancy needed to be rated as above-average.

I think he will eventually sneak a Slam, though I think it will be a US or Aussie Open when he does, and it will probably be in a tournament when at least 2 of the big 3 get upset along the way.

I should have qualified that, Roddick, Gaudio and Safin won theirs in the early part where Nadal and Djokovic were very young and weren't dominating apart from Nadal at the French. So really since Murray has been around, its only been Del Porto winning one. I do think Murray is better than any of those four. But when people say he's going to win one one day, I'm not sure, it will take a lot of luck. His chances of winning a Grand Slam tournament are about the same as Catalans winning a major trophy in the next 5 years.

I think had Murray come round a few years earlier, in the gap between the end of Sampras/Agassi's careers and Federer emerging, he would have won some slams, at the time it was guys like Alberto Costa, Thomas Johansson, Lleyton Hewitt, Gustavo Kuerten winning them.

A true Brit would never cry on national television in front of a foreigner. He's definitely Scottish. Anyway, he did one to Spain when he was 15, he's practically Iberian.