Who is more likely to get CGS: Wawrinka or Murray?

[vjmtz]

I would say Wawrinka will win Wimbledon 2017 and Murray won't win RG, maybe not even AO. If that happens, Wawrinka will become greater than Murray, since CGS > no CGS, despite all of the achievements which Murray has over Wawrinka.

What do you think?

 

[Federberg]

Surely it has to be Murray? All he needs is the AO. He's been in gawd knows how many finals already. And on current form he may just have enough to finally beat Novak (still think Novak is the better player imo), assuming he doesn't have to face Roger who seems to be his kryptonite

 

[mrzz]

Surely it has to be Murray? All he needs is the AO. He's been in gawd knows how many finals already. And on current form he may just have enough to finally beat Novak (still think Novak is the better player imo), assuming he doesn't have to face Roger who seems to be his kryptonite

What you mean by all he needs is the AO? He does not have RG either, and that seems a long long shot.

If Wawrinka wins Wimbledon, I would say that he would be tied with Murray, because even if 4 > 3, the YEC, #1 and the dozens of titles that Murray has in surplus at least would make up for a slam. If Wawrinka wins more slams (or achieve other relevant things), than we have a conversation. For now, even with another slam, and even if it is Wimbledon, we don´t (unfortunately, I have a lot of fun poking Murray).

 

[Federberg]

What you mean by all he needs is the AO? He does not have RG either, and that seems a long long shot.

If Wawrinka wins Wimbledon, I would say that he would be tied with Murray, because even if 4 > 3, the YEC, #1 and the dozens of titles that Murray has in surplus at least would make up for a slam. If Wawrinka wins more slams (or achieve other relevant things), than we have a conversation. For now, even with another slam, and even if it is Wimbledon, we don´t (unfortunately, I have a lot of fun poking Murray).

Ugh! You're right. For some reason I forgot that. My bad

 

[mrzz]

Better this way. I was about to demand a re-count!

 

[Billie]

Wawrinka needs Wimbledon only, but it's hard for me to see him win it, although anything can happen.

 

[DarthFed]

It's a close call. Given what we've seen you may have to make Murray a co-favorite at AO this year, and that's the first time we can say that. RG is still too far away but it's tough to picture him ever being the favorite there. Stan only needs Wimbledon and we all have seen what happens when he gets hot, nothing with him should come as a shock at this point. All in all I highly doubt either of them get a CGS, so their chances are similar.

 

[Carol]

Not even a Crystal Ball can tell who is going to win each GS. Two years ego nobody bet for Stan winning the AO and less the next year RG , and what about the USO this year? or Muzz Wimbledon? or the youngest ones and not so young (Raonic, Dimitrov, Nishi etc etc) are still in the limbo not even been able to win a MS even that the top four (only Muzz is doing well) are not playing their best ?

 

[Mastoor]

This is no brainer, Murray can win RG because he played final and semifinal in last two years. He may be considered one of the favourites there if he stays in his current form.

Wawrinka never played past qf at Wimbledon and even qf he played only twice there. it's hard to see him winning now.

 

[mrzz]

This is no brainer, Murray can win RG because he played final and semifinal in last two years. He may be considered one of the favourites there if he stays in his current form.

Wawrinka never played past qf at Wimbledon and even qf he played only twice there. it's hard to see him winning now.

But that´s the whole point, Mastoor. Did anyone ever saw him winning anyone of his previous three?

 

[Carol]

This is no brainer, Murray can win RG because he played final and semifinal in last two years. He may be considered one of the favourites there if he stays in his current form.

Wawrinka never played past qf at Wimbledon and even qf he played only twice there. it's hard to see him winning now.

Muzz probably is going to win AO, RG, Wimbledon and USO...... :mail:

 

[Mastoor]

But that´s the whole point, Mastoor. Did anyone ever saw him winning anyone of his previous three?

True that, but I'd say there can be only that many miracles in him. If he didn't go past qf at Wimbledon so far then he is not moving well on grass and in that case he won't win the slam there.

 

[Mastoor]

Muzz probably is going to win AO, RG, Wimbledon and USO...... :mail:

In 2017? Maybe in some parallel universe

 

[Carol]

In 2017? Maybe in some parallel universe

Well, I can say the same about what you have said about Muzz could win the RG, well, always if Nadal would be injured like this year :lulz2:

 

[DarthFed]

This is no brainer, Murray can win RG because he played final and semifinal in last two years. He may be considered one of the favourites there if he stays in his current form.

Wawrinka never played past qf at Wimbledon and even qf he played only twice there. it's hard to see him winning now.

Wawrinka had never been past the QF of AO and RG before he won it. I agree that his game is better suited for slower courts but at the same time his game is so big that it's easy to see him as a serious threat on grass if he gets hot.

 

[britbox]

But that´s the whole point, Mastoor. Did anyone ever saw him winning anyone of his previous three?

No, No and No... although after he had the second, I kinda liked him in finals... he's a different beast. The trick is to get there. I don't think either will get the CYGS, but my vote would be with Stan considering he has 3 of the 4 in the bag.

 

[Moxie]

No, No and No... although after he had the second, I kinda liked him in finals... he's a different beast. The trick is to get there. I don't think either will get the CYGS, but my vote would be with Stan considering he has 3 of the 4 in the bag.

Funnily, I'd go opposite, though I agree with you that I don't think either will win all 4 in their careers. Although Stan has one of each of 3, he's the more wildcard, between the two of them. And Wimbledon seems unlikely. Murray has been in the finals of all 4, and has recently improved his chances on clay. It will be almost criminal if Andy doesn't ever get a title at the AO, given how many finals he's made. My vote would be that they both finish with 3 of the 4. And I think Murray will have more Majors in the end, for what it's worth.