it made cricket sort of tolerable (inasmuch as this is possible), so why not?
I like murray's sulkiness, and the fact he actually wins tournaments (though his collapse against Roddick at Wimbledon was disappointing). I doubt he'll beat Federer though. Best chance he might have is if Tsonga plays a blinder in the semi.
Murray's a faulty machine. Really uncharasmatic, hard to like him - he is a brilliant player, though. The men's tour is more intense and painful than it ever has been -- even during Henman's era (I liked him even less than Murray). So to hold Top 5 rankings now, for 2 years, is very impressive. The best Scottish player ever. Better all-rounder than Henman, but Henman could smash him on grass. The thing about Henman (apart from being a cunt) was that he was as classic, and vintage, serve and volley guy. He could have won Wimbledon if it hadn't been for Sampras.
What Agassi said about Nadal -- "that guy's writing cheques his body can't cash" -- is coming true, isn't it? The stalion is breaking down. The relentless clay court play over every Grand Slam tournemant -- slugging, slugging, AND coming up to the net to beat Federer -- has broken his body. He will be an anthritic old man in 20 years. Shame, I like him.
But what if Murray peaks at, say, 27? That will be at least one Grand Slam title. Then again, who knows who is around the corner? Remember, this time last year, Murray was 2nd in the ATP rankings.