Murray critics always make me laugh. First it was the argument he wasn't very good because he hadn't won a Grand Slam. Then he wasn't very good because he hadn't won multiple Grand Slams. Then he wasn't very good because he hadn't won as many as Federer, Nadal or Djokovic. They'll continually change the criteria because they hate him for some reason. Now it's because he's not as good as he was due to age and injury.
Especially laughable because presumably many of these would be old enough to remember the days when a Brit reaching the second week of a Grand Slam was a major shock. Or certainly old enough to remember the desperate hopes that Henman would win Wimbledon, when he was clearly not good enough and probably outperformed realistic expectations by reaching a Semi Final. Then along comes a guy good enough to win 3 Grand Slams and 2 Olympic Gold medals, plus lead Great Britain to a hugely unlikely Davis Cup win, all while competing against 3 players who are amongst the best all time in the history of the sport.
Perhaps when he and Dan Evans (who has almost certainly peaked too late in his career sadly) are retired and we're back to no Brits reaching the second week, these blinkered people will realise we never had it so good?