Andy Murray's style of play is being raked over once more following his latest Grand Slam disappointment at the US Open.

After his crushing defeat at the hands of Marin Cilic in New York, the critics are out to label Murray as a player who is too defensive and one who needs to add more aggression to his play.

Certainly looking at Murray's losses in the majors this season, you can see the point - he's been outhit by Fernando Verdasco, Fernando Gonzalez and Cilic, while Andy Roddick played a more attacking game against him in the Wimbledon semis.

However, what this theory does not explain is how Murray has consistently managed to beat these men - and indeed the vast majority of the leading players - in the regular tour events. Remember no-one has won more ATP titles this season than his five, a figure which includes two Masters 1000 crowns, while his record against the world's best, Roger Federer, remains highly impressive.

OK, Murray can certainly improve his game by adding more aggressive tactics but is this really the reason he remans Slam-less?

I feel a simpler more plausible reason could be that he just struggles to handle the pressure of the bigger events.

Clearly I have no way of proving this - and Murray would be a fool to ever admit he struggles with pressure or nerves - but there is some evidence to back it up.

His record against Verdasco, who beat him at the Australian Open, is today won six, lost one. And frankly as well as Verdasco played in Melbourne this year, his tennis was very patchy against Murray.

It's the same story against Cilic - Murray led 3-0 prior to Tuesday but then lost the one that really mattered. He also holds a winning record (6-3) against Roddick.

This week you also had Murray talking of feeling "low on energy" during his clash with Cilic. He had encountered a similar problem in his second-round match.

Perhaps this can be written off as an illness or, as some commentators did in New York, the player misjudging his food and drink intake. Or it could be nerves.

If it was an issue with eating, then surely it's something 'Team Murray' need to address right now. After all, the Scot must be paying his entourage a hefty six-figure sum at the very least. Perhaps he could splash out further and hire a sports psychologist.

Sadly, if you want to put it this way, Murray has been unfortunate enough to come from Great Britain.

Few countries in the world put their sports stars under such pressure to perform - expectations are raised beyond reality by both media and the public at large, while wins are talked up as the greatest things since sliced bread, defeats as a total disaster.

In the tennis arena there's also no-one - literally no-one in the US Open singles draws - to take away any of the British attention. The spotlight falls entirely on Murray.

But that is the reality Murray finds himself in - and it's something he has to deal with.

The fortnight at Flushing Meadows has also shown that Murray must now also cope with the 'next generation' of players on the tour.

Cilic is only 20 and is one of the new breed now chasing down Murray in the rankings. Juan Martin Del Potro, who at time of writing looks a real title threat in New York, is another youngster seemingly destined for great things.

Oh, and that's before you consider that living legends Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal are still very much around.

Finally the good news.

While there are plenty of people out there now saying Murray will never win a Slam, the bookmakers - who tend to get things right more often than not - disagree.

Significant history may be against the 22-year-old - many of the game's modern greats were Grand Slam champions by the time they turned 22, Federer, Nadal, Boris Becker, Pete Sampras and Stefan Edberg to name just a few - but messrs Hill, Coral et al are still convinced it's a matter of when and not if for Murray.

The bookies make Murray odds-on to win a Grand Slam title in 2010 alone.

One email which has landed in my inbox even quotes Murray at 7/1 not to have won a major before 2018, which for all intents and purposes means his whole career.

For those of you not into your betting, that's a long shot.

I hope they are right, but cannot be the only one beginning to fear they are not.

Do you agree with Andy? How do you rate Murray's chances of winning a Slam and what changes does he need to make to succeed? Email your feedback to tennisfeedback@sportinglife.com.