Originally Posted by batz
Murray has beaten Nadal twice in slams. There has been no Murray hype this year. You are talking out of your arse if you are seriously arguing that Murray winning the AO would somehow be a lesser achievement because he didn't beat Nadal. You're not really arguing that are you?
Look Nam, I am in no way trying to diminish Roger's first slam - quite the contrary. Nor am I saying that Murray winning the AO would be a mirror image of Roger winning Wimby 2003 - it wouldn't.
All I'm saying is that Murray winning the AO would be no more a 'default win' than Roger winning Wimby in 2005 - nor would it be any less of an achievement. You will be taking Murray hate to new heights if you think otherwise.
No, Murray's slam wouldn't be diminished, he would just have won it under favorable circumstances rather than being a truly elite player and actually "winning" it. Some players are simply not good enough to win slams, and need favorable circumstances to win a slam. It doesn't make their slam any less then any other player who has won one, but it would be ludicrous to say that Murray's "potential" slam didn't have some fortunate luck behind it.
It's like saying Kafelnikov didn't have some luck in winning his slams (probably the luckiest and most fortunate player of recent times, despite the fact that I freaking love Kafelnikov); certain players need a little more fortune than others. You would be blind to think that in a time like this where Federer and Nadal have a total stranglehold on tennis, that Murray isn't somewhat fortunate.