Could this be why Murray lost?

The Times this morning is full of reports and analysis of the Australia Open and Andy Murray's failure to end a 74 drought of Grand Slam victories by a British male. One of the journalists wrote that Murray brought his A game but lost because he did not also bring his A service.

I think he was watching a different match from the one I saw.

In my view, Murray played reactive tennis -- a feature of his natural style. He seemed to be waiting for Federer to make an error, and when Federer played a soft slice, he responded with his own soft slice. Only in the third set, which he needed to win, did he come out and play with the kind of intensity that wins matches. He nearly won that set, and he played some of his best tennis in the tie break, when his motivation was finally at the right level.

So what can we learn from that?

Federer was in charge. He deployed his own resources, he dictated the plays, he made his opponent respond to what he was doing. Murray seldom took the initiative. He has the talent (the means), he has the technique (the method), but he fell short on motivation or mindset.

Means, method, mindset -- the 3Ms that provide the chance of success at the top.