I make no bones anywhere that Federer didn't have a lot of soft draws at majors in terms of the rankings of players he had to face on the journey... I have no problem with that at all. What I have an issue with is people inferring long term class from a body of evidence which is based on short term form. That is what Murray has shown - short term form. He was, without any doubt, been the biggest a beneficiary of the draws being made easier by Nadal's absence and of his other peers not quite firing in all cylinders. But that's how majors have been won since forever by many players - it's nothing new. The tell-tale sign of greatness - long term class - is the ability to maintain some continuity in form. Murry is the sole player in the top four who has not ever been able to maintain any true top form for more than a few weeks at a time. His peak ability is no doubt as good as it's ever been and as good as anyone on the right day - he has just relied on others slipping up much more than the other three have to earn his biggest achievements. No matter how you try to bake it as some straw-clutching argument it is what it is regardless.