What makes it more fascinating to watch certain players than others, although the others may be as technically perfect or more so. In bullfighting, aficionados call a matador "cold", if he is perfect but lacks a certain amount of charisma, passion and flair. To give an example in tennis: Michael Stich may well have been the most talented player of the 90s (Courier said so), he was well equipped with every shot, but he lacked the passion of a Boris Becker, who certainly had his technical weaknesses. If Stich began losing, he often looked dull and disinterested. In the case of Becker, you could always expect a sudden explosion and a fight back. Tennis became a drama with a sort of katharsis for the spectator. In modern tennis, players like Mac, Connors, Nastase, Panatta, Rios, Becker, Leconte, Agassi, Muster, Safin, Kuerten - to name a few -had that certain flair. Ice-cold Borg had the advantage to put his stoneface-image against some of the most flamboyant players ever. Sampras often looked dull, but underneath the surface, he was a fighter, and he could certainly fight to the end. Today, i find - sorry to say it - Murray like a sleeping pill. Granted, he is talented, but he looks so dull, as if he is bored with his own game. Djokovic seems an interesting and funny character outside the court, his game lacks imo a sort of agressiveness and explosiveness. I hope that Nadal will come back strong, if he is motivated and fit, he certainly brings passion and fighting spirit with him.