Let's face it, if Novak Djokovic could, he would fold up Andy Murray and take him around the world with him in a suitcase. He might even think of it as taking a bunny home to toddler son Stefan. In another case, he would have rolled up the Melbourne Park courts. As it was, on winning this sixth Australian championship, he bent to kiss and pat it. The proliferation of trophies they have yielded he would have to send on ahead.
Djokovic would never put it like that, of course. He is too gracious, and they go back too far. But at the Australian Open, Murray's record now is 0-5 in finals, four times losing to Djokovic. Conversely, the Serb is 6-0 in finals here. In all major finals, Murray is 2-9. All have been against Djokovic or Roger Federer. Would you not think fate might have served up to him at least one Marcos Baghdatis, say, or a Jo-Wilfried Tsonga? 
The science is settled. Murray has been in the top four for half a decade, and was a clear No. 2 last year, but never has been No. 1. Against No. 1s generally, he has lost 12 of his last 13 matches. Against Djokovic, it is 11 of their last 12, since Murray's famous Wimbledon win in 2013, and 22 of 30 across their careers.
If Murray could cling to one sliver of hope on Sunday night, it was Djokovic's record in finals. If Djokovic has an Achilles heel, it is where heels generally are to be found - at the end of a given leg. In the whole of 2015, the only matches he lost were finals, including one to Murray. In finals in majors across his career, he was 10-8. But in Melbourne, he was 5-0, and Murray, of all players, did not need to look that up.
In any case, it was a forlorn hope. This final picked up where last year's fizzled out. At 5-0 in the first set, Djokovic had won his last 14 games against Murray on Rod Laver arena. He was measurably and at times profoundly the better player. He hit the ball so deep, so often, from both wings, to both sides of the court, that it was all Murray could do to hit it back into play. There were no histrionics from the Scot then; there was nothing to say.
Necessarily, this was an austere contest, the two most anally retentive players in tennis. It was all black and blue, all black, blue. The colour and the animation were in the contest.
At length, the terms evened out. Murray round his range, limiting Djokovic's. For 20 and 30 shots at a time, neither gave the other a scrap with which to work. If arguments sometimes are likened to tennis matches, this match could be likened to an argument: point, point of order, point against, point. Each in his turn was so fully absorbed dealing with the point that he was unable to come up with the reply with which he could say: "I rest my case." For a time, the Scot was the most dogmatic, also the most bellicose. Might he will his way back into this game yet?
The last pass came. Murray led 40-0 on serve, but lost it; Djokovic would not let this bone go. Serving for the set, even this metronomic player felt a tremor and served five faults in a row. Fortunately for him, the fifth went undetected, and with two deep breaths to still his mechanism, he shut the gate and jammed it. Without getting to a tie-breaker, the set had run for 80 minutes.
The fight in Murray did not shrivel up as it did last year, but the mountain was too high. Murray has found his place as a kind of perennial second-best. He won't abandon his mission, but no wonder he projects such a tormented image. Second-best should be shared around. So should best.
But all is not lost. All may not even matter particularly. Fatherhood did Roger Federer no harm, and it has borne Djokovic to new peaks. Evidently, reproduction is good for production. Murray was married last year, and is soon to become a father.