I read that story on another tennis site and said there that I thought it was a relatively even-handed article. The reporter has resisted the temptation to really bag Murray, although the title is a bit salacious, which would have been far easier than to say, in effect, 'chalk it up to experience'. All it really says is he hasn't really learned how to deal with situations when he isn't playing his best and that, if anyone wonders why he's still playing in the junior tournaments its to get as much experience as possible (dealing with being expected to win would be one benefit) while he still can.
Quite a long way from being harsh criticism so I can't really understand why anyone would take offense at it. The only part that is even remotely critical is her mention of him saying, before the match, that if he if he played as he did in the quarter-final he'd win comfortably.
On that point, I agree with BLiND. Australians, like the British, don't care for players who big-note themselves either which is why Hewitt isn't more disliked. No-matter his other failings he never talks about what he's going to do, only what he's done. Murray, it would seem, is a little bit different and it rubs people up the wrong way.
