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.
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.
And you could argue that Murray has been unfortunate in other slams eg scheduling and draws and still made it to two slam finals and gone far in most other slams.
I don't think you could say Murray would be a weak Slam winner.
It's not like he's some sort of fluke.
Let's see if he wins it first. I think beating someone as good as Djokovic would be proof enough.