Which Slam do you want Murray to win next year?

Which one?

  • Australian Open

    Votes: 30 73.2%
  • Roland Garros

    Votes: 9 22.0%
  • Wimbledon

    Votes: 2 4.9%
  • US Open

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    41

Fedeonic

Hall of Fame
You had the power to give Andy his 4th Slam and his only one of 2017. Here are some insights of every slam.
AO: To finally end the burden there of 5 finals lost. And maybe to get closer or even take the N°1 from Djokovic.
RG: To be one of few players to have a Slam on each surface. Something that Becker, Lendl, Borg, Edberg, Sampras, McEnroe never did it.
WB: To consolidate as one of the greatest Wimbledon champions of this era and also a great grass court player, which he already is.
US: To get closer to Nadal and Djokovic on US Open legacy and to show the world his US Open 2012 win wasn't a wind fluke.
 
J

JRAJ1988

Guest
I don't think Murray will win a slam next year. If he does I hope it's the Australian Open.
 
Australian Open obviously. That should be an easy pick for anyone in this case.

He would be a weaker RG winner, and if he ever wins it good for him I guess, but I cant say I am rooting for it to ever happen.

Wimbledon he has already won twice which is great for him, although IMO that is his best surface and where he has the best shot to win more.

U.S Open he has already won, and hasnt really been close in a long time.
 

TupeloDanger

Professional
None would be perfect.
OP didn't want the poll to reflect the will of the masses.

That's okay. Reality will. With Fed back (who, of course, owns Murray), Wawrinka at the peak of his game, and Del Potro now healthy, it's hard to see a clear path to any big titles for a guy with Murray's limited skillset. French is probably his best chance, though, with a power vacuum at the top of the clay mountain right now. The dirt best suits his passive play.
 
OP didn't want the poll to reflect the will of the masses.

That's okay. Reality will. With Fed back (who, of course, owns Murray), Wawrinka at the peak of his game, and Del Potro now healthy, it's hard to see a clear path to any big titles for a guy with Murray's limited skillset. French is probably his best chance, though, with a power vacuum at the top of the clay mountain right now. The dirt best suits his passive play.
French probably remains his worst chance, although it might be better than at the US Open. The dirt LEAST suits players with a style like Murray, who don't have much firepower off the ground, but rely on angles and variety. (I think that's what you mean by "passivity.")
 
French probably remains his worst chance, although it might be better than at the US Open. The dirt LEAST suits players with a style like Murray, who don't have much firepower off the ground, but rely on angles and variety. (I think that's what you mean by "passivity.")
What do you think of his odds to win Roland Garros next year. I find them laughable. Some sites have him 3 or 4 times more likely than Wawrinka and at 2/5. Only an IDIOT of the worst kind would bet on him at those odds. I have no problems saying Wawrinka is clearly and beyond any doubt in fact more likely to win RG next year than Murray, regardless of the semi final result this year.
 

Kalin

Legend
What do you think of his odds to win Roland Garros next year. I find them laughable. Some sites have him 3 or 4 times more likely than Wawrinka and at 2/5. Only an IDIOT of the worst kind would bet on him at those odds. I have no problems saying Wawrinka is clearly and beyond any doubt in fact more likely to win RG next year than Murray, regardless of the semi final result this year.
Murray's biggest asset as well as his biggest shortcoming is that he's very stable and predictable. So his chances at every tournament are more dependent, IMO, on how other top players play since he is a known quality.

On clay, with Rafa on decline it is indeed a matter of how Novak and Wawa do (no idea where Roger will be then, to be honest). If they're on fire, it will be very tough for Andy. If they're MIA for some reason he actually may have a chance but is always prone to run into a hot claycourter like Thiem.

I vote for the Channel Plateau de Salade Slam.
 

Fedeonic

Hall of Fame
He would be a weaker RG winner, and if he ever wins it good for him I guess, but I cant say I am rooting for it to ever happen.
That "weaker RG winner" is better than not winning at all the FO, as I've quoted earlier, some of the greatest players never had the chance to win Slams on 3 different surfaces, like Sampras, Becker, Borg, McEnroe, Edberg, etc.
Weaker or no weaker RG winner, he'd have his own share of history, while still sitting on 4 Slams. Tell me of any 4 Slam winner to hold that honour.
 
That "weaker RG winner" is better than not winning at all the FO, as I've quoted earlier, some of the greatest players never had the chance to win Slams on 3 different surfaces, like Sampras, Becker, Borg, McEnroe, Edberg, etc.
Weaker or no weaker RG winner, he'd have his own share of history, while still sitting on 4 Slams. Tell me of any 4 Slam winner to hold that honour.
I can get that, but I still dont really want him to win RG when many IMO better clay courters havent. If he does good for him, but I wont be cheering for it, even though I like Murray. I would much rather see him win a slam I think he is far more worthy of winning, like the Australian Open after losing so many finals there. Or another Wimbledon when he is clearly one of the best grass courters of this era.
 

Fedeonic

Hall of Fame
but I still dont really want him to win RG when many IMO better clay courters havent
Name some other "better clay courters" who won at least 2 M1000 on clay. The only one I know who has a better pedigree on clay while not winning the FO is Marcelo Ríos, the Chilean won the 3 M1000, Montecarlo, Hamburg and Rome and some other minor clay tournaments.
 
Name some other "better clay courters" who won at least 2 M1000 on clay. The only one I know who has a better pedigree on clay while not winning the FO is Marcelo Ríos, the Chilean won the 3 M1000, Montecarlo, Hamburg and Rome and some other minor clay tournaments.
Corretja surprisingly didnt win 2 M1000 on clay, but I still consider him a better clay courter who didnt win RG. Coria certainly I would put in that category. Even Del Potro's peak level at RG 2009 is better than anything I have seen from Murray on clay, even though he isnt as accomplished on the surface.
 

tennisjedi

Hall of Fame
Australian Open.
He's reached 5 finals and lost all of them.
Right now, Djokovic is the only person that's preventing him from winning.
 

Fedeonic

Hall of Fame
Corretja surprisingly didnt win 2 M1000 on clay, but I still consider him a better clay courter who didnt win RG. Coria certainly I would put in that category. Even Del Potro's peak level at RG 2009 is better than anything I have seen from Murray on clay, even though he isnt as accomplished on the surface.
I agree with Corretja. Should have won a FO, but he won the Masters avenging his defeat to Moyá in the final of RG98.
Coria wasted his chances, like 2003 losing to f. Verkerk (still no guarantee to beat peak Ferrero in finals) or f-ing up his almost win against f. Gaudio, that was his greatest failure and arguably the greatest choking ever. He got really lucky that Federer was inconsistent on clay and Nadal was too young and still wasted those chances. Once Fedal came up, he was done.
Del Potro is a tougt customer in every surface, but over 5 sets, any grinder can outgrind him, even 30yo Fed outgrinded Delpo.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
What do you think of his odds to win Roland Garros next year. I find them laughable. Some sites have him 3 or 4 times more likely than Wawrinka and at 2/5. Only an IDIOT of the worst kind would bet on him at those odds. I have no problems saying Wawrinka is clearly and beyond any doubt in fact more likely to win RG next year than Murray, regardless of the semi final result this year.
Well, I expect you found the odds of him beating Nadal to win Madrid or Djokovic to win Rome laughable as well and, as for beating Stan at RG to reach a final there, I guess only a complete idiot would have bet on that?? :rolleyes:

But, as we can see, sometimes it pays to be an idiot!!! ;)
 

Max G.

Legend
AO. He's had so many finals. Also, that would probably let him get to #1 briefly, though he would lose it later in the year probably.
 

Firstservingman

Talk Tennis Guru
I can get that, but I still dont really want him to win RG when many IMO better clay courters havent. If he does good for him, but I wont be cheering for it, even though I like Murray. I would much rather see him win a slam I think he is far more worthy of winning, like the Australian Open after losing so many finals there. Or another Wimbledon when he is clearly one of the best grass courters of this era.
I want Murray to win all four eventually, but yeah, I think the Australian Open would be better at this stage.
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
Name some other "better clay courters" who won at least 2 M1000 on clay. The only one I know who has a better pedigree on clay while not winning the FO is Marcelo Ríos, the Chilean won the 3 M1000, Montecarlo, Hamburg and Rome and some other minor clay tournaments.
Coria for one. Medvedev, Correjta were probably better than Murray on clay too.
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
I agree with Corretja. Should have won a FO, but he won the Masters avenging his defeat to Moyá in the final of RG98.
Coria wasted his chances, like 2003 losing to f. Verkerk (still no guarantee to beat peak Ferrero in finals) or f-ing up his almost win against f. Gaudio, that was his greatest failure and arguably the greatest choking ever. He got really lucky that Federer was inconsistent on clay and Nadal was too young and still wasted those chances. Once Fedal came up, he was done.
Del Potro is a tougt customer in every surface, but over 5 sets, any grinder can outgrind him, even 30yo Fed outgrinded Delpo.
Delpo got injured in 2012...he would have won that match had he not because he was taking Fed to the cleaners. Even in 09, Delpo played a great 5th set so it's not like he ran out of steam, maybe a bit on the serve...Fed was just firing on all cylinders.
 

Druss

Hall of Fame
None! He's already overachieved by winning 3 slams and 2 OG singles golds.

Also he's got one of the worst on-court attitude. He is hard to like, unless of course you're British.
 

Kalin

Legend
I'm torn... I like Andy and I think he deserves (that word again) at least one AO but I also feel that 3 Slams and 2 OGs is actually already a great return for a guy who, let's be honest, has historically looked like missing his highest gear when playing other top guys on the biggest stages. Yes, he's been very unlucky to be matched up with some of the top-pest guys ever, but still...
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
Last year I would've answered RG, solely because it would troll Djokovic so hard. Now I'm obviously hoping for the AO title. If he were to finish with 3 Wimbly's, 2OG, 1USO and one AO he'd have an amazing resume. Winning RG as well would be the dream though.
 

Flint

Hall of Fame
As @Mainad said, any Slam would be brilliant.

If I could choose I would give him the French Open, then he would have won a Grand Slam on all 3 surfaces and it would not be a fluke because he is now a genuine force on clay. The clay season was his best part of 2014 and he has been one of the absolute best on the surface since 2015.

If I could give him 1 masters next year I would give him Monte Carlo, along with the French Open that would give him 1 win in all 3 clay masters and the 1 clay Grand Slam.

Additionally, given how the rankings stand and who is defending what, this would greatly enhance his chance of world number 1.
 

TheMuzziah

Hall of Fame
Tough one. It's obviously between Australia and Wimbledon for me, would be brilliant if he finally wins his first AO title after so many heartbreaking losses there, he deserves it more then anyone. However, winning a third Wimbledon title would be equally amazing, hes always been a fantastic grass court player and defending his title there will further prove that.

To answer the op though I'd give him the Australian Open coz I think he's perfectly capable of winning Wimbledon without my help! ;)

French probably remains his worst chance, although it might be better than at the US Open. The dirt LEAST suits players with a style like Murray, who don't have much firepower off the ground, but rely on angles and variety. (I think that's what you mean by "passivity.")
Correct!
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Would have said 0, but basically any slam win that stops Djokovic I will take.

Also hope he faces Federer again at Wimbledon (or any tournament) love seeing pigeon shootouts.
 
Well, I expect you found the odds of him beating Nadal to win Madrid or Djokovic to win Rome laughable as well and, as for beating Stan at RG to reach a final there, I guess only a complete idiot would have bet on that?? :rolleyes:

But, as we can see, sometimes it pays to be an idiot!!! ;)
I will ask you flat out then, do you think he is 30% likely to win RG next year? For me personally not even close. Maybe 10%. 30% is about his likelihood to win WIMBLEDON next year, not RG. And just because he beat Stan at RG next year does not mean he is 3 or 4 times more likely to win next years RG, or more likely at all. That is uneven logic. By that logic Soderling was more likely to win RG 2010 than Nadal.

Like I said on another thread the mens bookies odds for the slams next year were atrocious. I am excited though, i am going to make some huge money next year I bet.

PS- I didnt bet on it but I expected him to beat Djokovic in the Rome final. He looked a bit better all week, was far fresher, and was due for another win over Djokovic finally. Nadal vs Murray in a best of 3, even on clay is at best 50% for Nadal these days, maybe less. The only place I might favor Nadal over Murray is a best of 5 at Roland Garros only.
 
Top