When Andy Murray looked up at the score after the final point of the 2010 Australian Open, he knew exactly what he had to do. After all, he had ample practice congratulating Roger Federer.

The Scot, after all he’s a Scot when he loses, had done the same each of the pair’s previous two meetings. Once again, Federer reinforced himself as the most successful male player of all time and a pillar of consistency. Once again Andy Murray was left wondering about what could have been, wondering if his time will ever come.

There are really two kinds of champions.

There are the pure naturals: player’s whose talent naturally shines through in the most important moments.

Players like Serena Williams, Pete Sampras, and Federer have an extra gear that allows them to play their best tennis in the most important moments of a match. The ability to be clutch is indeed a talent in and of itself.

Then, there are champions whose physical talent far exceeds their mental toughness.

These players either follow the route of Ivan Lendl and Andre Agassi, developing the belief and courage to perform as they mature, or they fall by the wayside and join the Marcelos Rios’, the Marat Safins, the Mark Philippoussis’, and many other unrealized talents on the long list of underachieving players. More often than not, the player joins the ranks of the latter.

Murray is on the fence and could teeter over to either side.

Brittan’s biggest Grand Slam hope suffered a bigger blow on Sunday than most people realize. Usually there is no shame in losing to Federer.

Defeat is a cold dish and one of which Federer is a master chef. Murray is not the first nor will he be the last. But the manner of defeat is alarming. It was bad enough that Roger came out of the gates focused and determined, but Murray came out tight and passive. The combination was a straight sets demolition.

Had Murray gone out there and thrown the kitchen sink at Federer, and still came up second there would be little room for criticism. If he’s gone out a lost the way Andy Roddick lost at Wimbledon, there would be no shame.

But he didn’t.

Fans and apologists will be forced to face the facts: Murray has now developed a reputation for playing passively in the latter rounds of Major events.

During the 2008 U.S. Open Final, we all could understand his loss to Federer. A young kid faced a determined defending champion. The kid was nervous and the veteran jumped on him.  But when it happened again against Andy Roddick at Wimbledon, heads started to scratch.

The passive playing style, the unwillingness to use many of his weapons, Murray has established a pattern of behavior in which he plays “user friendly tennis” (to borrow a phrase from Martina Navratilova) in Major finals.

After showing the world his true ability in a classic Quarterfinal encounter with Rafael Nadal, Murray looked to finally be taking charge of his tennis and forcing the issue by playing more aggressively. Heading into the final against Federer, many people had him penciled in as the favorite.

It wasn’t to be.

The first sign of the “Murray fear” was his low first serve percentage.  

The second was his seeming contentment with sitting back and rolling the ball around the court, without taking advantage of short balls or seizing opportunities to take control of a point. In contrast Federer could sense the fear like a blood hound, Murray paid dearly.

To lose to Federer in straight sets is an unacceptable result for a player as talented as Murray. He will need to regroup, he will need to assess the problem and seek out a solution.

If he doesn’t, he will remain behind players like Novak Djokovic and Juan Martin del Potro. The moment of truth has arrived. Having already lost two lopsided Major finals to the same guy, Murray must develop a mentality that is satisfied not by reaching Major finals, but by winning them.

Until Murray learns to be unsatisfied with his current self, his results will continue to fall short of greatness.