The British see Murray in a completely different light than others and for understandable reasons. For them, he's the best they've produced in a long time and he's definitely a top 5 player at the moment. Murray is just the excuse - the British really really want to be able to celebrate a tennis champion of their own - someone like Roger for the swiss and Nadal for the spaniards. Problem is, if you objectively look at Murray and his achievements, sure, he's a great player on a given day, having beaten the likes of Roger, Nadal, Djokovic and others on big stages like the Master's series, but there seems to be a disconnect between the "hype" and the reality. Here's the hype: The demand of respect from the British media, his rabid fans and somewhat from Murray's own behavior and statements. I remember something similar from Djokovic fans when he first came on the scene. The reality: With peers like Roger and Rafa, whose achievements in the past few years on the biggest stages in the sport, when a lot is on the line, has been so stellar, Murray has a long way to go before he's talked about in the same breath as those two. Also, there are a bunch of other players who don't get as much press, but are contenders in their own right. Murray is put on pedestal ahead of them - people like Djokovic and Del Po. The Hype: Murray is the most talented player ever to play the sport, has the tennis IQ equivalent of Einstein and has already hit the shots which should be enshrined alongside Roger's and Rafa's on youtube tribute videos. The Reality: Murray is definitely talented and it reflects in his ranking position. He's probably a thinking player who relies a bit more on guile but at the end of the day, that's not what matters, its the Ws. There are different types of players on tour - some talented and tennis-smart, others improvisational and yet others who rely on heart and their enjoyment of the fight. No one style is better than the other. The only proof is in the pudding - which is, how this the style translate into wins when it matters most. Sure he hits pretty shots sometimes off that backhand, but compared to Roger's inside out forehand against Haas at the FO that saved his match, or Rafa's stupendous DTL shot against Roger during the Wimby 08 tiebreak, where are his memorable shots when it most matters? He lost meekly to Cilic yesterday. Also the pusher moniker is justified. If you cannot dictate play when you want to, is the guile part really guile or just a lack of options? Nadal for the longest time was called a pusher. He's really not. Try giving him a short ball and see. Yesterday's match against Monfils is a great example. Rafa can step in, force action with authority, finish points at the net and make his opponents go for more than they are capable of. Murray doesn't have the instinct (or ability?) to force action similarly. He's content to hit from the baseline and relies on his opponent's mistakes more than his own offense. Even when the opponent is playing really well, he does not seem to be able to shift gears. Hype: Master's series shields are the sh$t and all those 3 set matches he's won matter. Reality: Put all his trophies so far on one side and make him an offer - a USO trophy with memorable wins against Rafa and Roger along the way OR all those trophies he has now. I doubt he would pick against a slam trophy and that's the reality. Everyone wants the big prize. The small prizes are definitely important for a player coming up, but when his competition is a guy who has 15 majors and another who has 6, they are not looking for small fish to fry.