I made this post because I'm not getting why so many "experts" are choosing him to win the US Open. Granted, I know he's only 22, but what has he actually accomplished to be considered a favorite?
By age 22, the following players in the current era had actually won a Grand Slam to get the respect as being a favorite to winning a Grand Slam:
Federer: 1 Wimbledon title
Nadal: 4 French Opens titles, 1 Wimbledon title
Djokovic: 1 Australian Open title
Andy Roddick: 1 US Open Title
You seem to be making two points here; that Murray is only as good as Henman and that he should be winning slams before people see him as one of the favourites to win a slam.
We'll take the first one first.
By 22 years 4 months, Tim Henman had won zero titles, been to zero finals and had a career high ranking of 25. Murray has won 13 titles (4MS) made a slam final and is ranked 2 in the world. If Murra never plays another match he'll already have achieved much more than Henman did.
Now to the 2nd point.
You are struggling to understand why the guy who made last year's final, with the best hardcourt win/loss record this year, the only guy to win 2 hardcourt MS this year, ranked number 2 in the world is among the favourites to win? REALLY?
You do realise how logically incoherent the position that he should be winning slams before people see him as one of the favourites to win a slam is?
You are saying that until someone wins a slam, they can't be considered as capable of winning a slam. Despite the empirical evidence which shows that 100% of slam winners were at one time slamless and therefore lots of slamless people have won slams, you believe that only slam winners can be considered among the favourites to win a slam. OK.