More likely to win a slam: Wozniacki or Murray?

monfed said:

Yes but he could be the first to go slamless with all those flowery stats too.



I'd put Nalbandian above Murray although Murray has better stats.



The empirical data is more along the lines of what a tarot card reader would put out. A better indication would be his performance in slam finals which isn't exactly stellar.



Let me guess, folding like a cheap tent when it matters most? Not winning a set in a slam final in 3 attempts? Not winning a set against ******* in a slam final being 5-2 up?

Murray doesn't have the mind of a champion, the signs just aren't there.

Click to expand...

I guess facts become 'flowery' when they don't support your view - yes?

They are all facts of course; unlike the majority of your post which is essentially pompous conjecture centred on the premise that because you say something, it must be true.

Murray might be the first guy to finish his career slamless despite all the positive indicators., that is clearly a strong possibility given that he hasn't won one thus far - I don't think I've ever stated on these pages that Murray will definitely win a slam. But please, spare us the lazy, armchair, absolutist cod psychology @rsegravy.

Tennis is a sport. In sport, things can and do change. Most of us get this and don't spout absolutist bollox because of it.

^ Yeah but I don't think Murray is even close to Rios level of talent.

nadal_slam_king said:

^ Yeah but I don't think Murray is even close to Rios level of talent.

Click to expand...

And you are absolutely entitled to your opinion that Murray is "not even close" to Rios' "talent" - there is no point in anyone arguing with you about it - because only you know what you mean by "talent".

Wozniacki will most likely win slams. Murray has no opening.

Click to expand...

Lol.

nadal_slam_king said:

^ Yeah but I don't think Murray is even close to Rios level of talent.

Click to expand...

You mean like Rafa is not close to Rogi's level of talent.?

Sentinel said:

Lol.


You mean like Rafa is not close to Rogi's level of talent.?

Click to expand...

What did "rogi" do? Copy the textbook. What did Nadal do? Write a new textbook. Federer is talented, but not as talented as Nadal.

Slams are BO5 for men, BO3 for women. On that basis alone, I'd choose Woz.

TTMR said:

Wozniacki. Any semi-top woman can win any slam these days

Click to expand...

If it was that easy, Wozniacki would have claimed a major by now...but she has failed to do so after long years of experience, rising to get the #1 ranking, etc. What's the difference between Wozniacki this year and Wozniacki over the past two? Nothing. Her game is exactly the same, her support system is the same (daddy), and that combination has not transformed her game into one capable of winning a major.

At this point, the only way she wins a major is to have THE most lucky, upset-ridden draw in sports history, then face a player in the final who chokes and/or was half-there, and/or injured, and/or sick.

Murray is no favorite, but at least I recognize that he has the ability to improve and a has a few physical gifts which the right coach can train him to use. Wozniacki comes at her opponents the same way over and over again at the majors, and believes there's nothing wrong with it...meanwhile, Azarenka and older players have won majors while Wozniacki was at the zenith of her peak years as a player.

I voted Wozniacki because the ATP is much more stable, it's hard for someone outside of the top 3 to win a slam. It's totally different in the WTA, everyone has a shot.

merwy said:

I voted Wozniacki because the ATP is much more stable, it's hard for someone outside of the top 3 to win a slam. It's totally different in the WTA, everyone has a shot.

Click to expand...

True.

But 67% of people fluked this poll.

Murray is still the male Wozniacki.