My point is despite all you say above, Murray is NOT a HC specialist. He has a game that translates well to grass. That is like saying despite his Wimbledon titles, Nadal is a Clay specialist, since his resume his heavily clay loaded. That would be an insult to Nadal, who has a great game that translates very well onto grass courts, he has been outright the second best on the surface during his era, and his game translates exceptionally well onto slow HC also. I don't see why you think that these top players are surface specialists. They have great games that can yield fantastic results on all surfaces, with Murray having less success on clay as the sole exception.