Opponents didn't get any hotter than Isner at the AO - you yourself said he was 'the hottest guy on tour' whe nyou predicted he would take Murray out. Murray straight setted him. Yet again, your assertions and the facts don't square up. Just to repeat:
Murray if he runs into a hot opponent, is going to have trouble, because he simply doesn't have any offensive weapons to play from behind
Andy Murray wins in straight sets.
I'm also confused as to how a guy who quote "simply doesn't haven't any offensive weapons" unquote is able to " blow Nadal off the court during the USO 2008 SF" not to mention AO 2010. So which is it Nam - is Murray capable of blowing one of the best defenders the game has ever seen off the court in grand slams or does he simply have no offensive weapons - because hey - both those statments can't be right can they?
If Murray has no offensive weapons, what does he use to blow Nadal away with?
Nadal is a different type of opponent who Andy Murray matches up well with. Nadal let's you hang around in points, which in turns gives Murray an opportunity to be aggressive. And yes, I said Murray has the CAPABILITIES of playing aggressive, but for whatever reason, against an opponent who pressures him and takes his time away, he plays defensive.
You seem to have some GREAT selective reading skills there don't you?
And *Gasp* I said he played one pretty good tournament where he played aggressive and didn't allow his opponents to dictate play. What tournament would that be? Oh, the Australian Open. And who did he lose to? Federer. Why? Because he didn't play the type of tennis that was necessary to beat Federer. You simply can't just stand there and rally all day with Federer; he's just simply going to pummel you into the ground if you try and do that. Not even Nadal does that, and he is a better mover and a better defender than Murray. He did beat a red hot Isner. Why? Because
HE DID NOT ALLOW ISNER TO DICTATE PLAY.
Let me remind you what happened in the final despite all these improvements to his game.
He got pummeled into the ground because he attempted to play a dumb defensive style of play, which Federer took full advantage of.
Murray's losses in the slams thus far since he has entered the top 5 have come to players who are hot, hit hard, take time away, and serve well (not necessarily big). Roddick, Federer, Cilic, and Verdasco all have that in common. If you pressure Murray and force the issue, he will respond by playing a defensive style of play. Against those guys (especially Federer), they are simply not going to miss that often if you are playing them in the latter stages of the slam. I saw some improvements at the Australian Open, yet he completely reverted to total defense once Federer came out and slapped a few forehands around.
But you know what, I'll let Murray's losses sink in for you. I know it's hard that he can't even win 3 set matches now. If you don't like what people say about Andy Murray, than just ignore them. There's no need to go on a 100000 page rampage, especially when it is totally off topic.