Originally Posted by NamRanger
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.
PMSL. You are
taking Murray hate to new levels - brilliant
. So if he wins, Murray's slam wouldn't be diminished - but he wouldn't be an 'elite' player who 'won' his slam. OK - there's nothing remotely incoherent about that statement.
I often wondered what kind of bitter pish you'd come out with if Murray ever won a slam - now I guess we can all see.
If Murray wins he'll have beaten two top ten players - unlike Roger in his first slam, who only faced one top ten player. I guess Roger wasn't an 'elite'player until he 'won' some subsequent slams - as the criteria you seem to want to apply to Murray this year would surely have also applied to Roger in 2003.