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?

 

[Fiero425]

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?

I prefer Stan, but he obviously has had one of the most underachieving of careers with all his weapons! Something's not clicking inside his head; well at least more now than it used to, but just barely! It would be nice for him to replace Murray, but not possible waiting this long! He's woefully failed overall concerning Masters 1000 and the YEC with not even 1 final! He had a chance a couple years ago and allowed his emotions to flair at the end of an apparent win over his fellow countryman Federer! Getting into a tête-à-tête with Mirka made no sense letting Roger off the hook who was hobbled and unable to compete in the final the next day against Nole! :nono :angel: :dodgy: :cover

 

[El Dude]

Interesting thing is that I'd say that Stan has a better chance of a CGS, while Andy has a better chance of more Slams in general.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I actually think Murray has a greater chance of achieving CGS than Stan, even though Stan needs only one more and Murray needs two more.

1. In AO Andy has reached the finals multiple times. You keep knocking the door and the door will eventually open (especially if the doorkeeper takes his eyes off to look at women).

2. Andy was generally considered to have a clay problem. In view of this many people also said he will never achieve #1 ranking, as it includes clay points. However, Andy proved them wrong, did well on clay last year (winning a Masters and reaching the final at RG). So, there is a reasonable chance that he will improvise on the act and get his hands on Coupe de Mousquetaires (especially considering KOC has abdicated his throne).

Stan may have only Wimbledon left, but he is never going to win that. Look at his record at Wimbledon. He has never done well there. Further, Stan's play relies on powerful shots in which he takes a huge cut for which you need time. Grass takes away the time. Hence, based on playing style also Stan has not much chance. Stan has his lowest win percentage in Wimbledon at 60% with a record of 18-12. He had played there 12 times, losing in R1 5 times, R2 twice, R3 once and R4 twice. His highest achievement there is to reach QF twice. But after doing that, he again lost in R1 this year.

Posters here seem to think just because Stan needs only one more and Andy needs two more, So Stan has more likelihood of accomplishing it. Based on their style of play and also based on their results on missing GSs, I think Andy's chances of accomplishing it are substantially higher than that of Stan.

 

[Fiero425]

Interesting thing is that I'd say that Stan has a better chance of a CGS, while Andy has a better chance of more Slams in general.

I can agree with that, except Wawrinka's never come close to doing well on grass; preferring slow surfaces of all things! Murray has more heart and a little bit more of a brain so he should win a couple more slams before all is said and done! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Fiero425]

I actually think Murray has a greater chance of achieving CGS than Stan, even though Stan needs only one more and Murray needs two more.

1. In AO Andy has reached the finals multiple times. You keep knocking the door and the door will eventually open (especially if the doorkeeper takes his eyes off to look at women).

2. Andy was generally considered to have a clay problem. In view of this many people also said he will never achieve #1 ranking, as it includes clay points. However, Andy proved them wrong, did well on clay last year (winning a Masters and reaching the final at RG). So, there is a reasonable chance that he will improvise on the act and get his hands on Coupe de Mousquetaires (especially considering KOC has abdicated his throne).

Stan may have only Wimbledon left, but he is never going to win that. Look at his record at Wimbledon. He has never done well there. Further, Stan's play relies on powerful shots in which he takes a huge cut for which you need time. Grass takes away the time. Hence, based on playing style also Stan has not much chance. Stan has his lowest win percentage in Wimbledon at ^0% with a record of 18-12. He had played there 12 times, losing in R1 5 times, R2 twice, R3 once and R4 twice.
His highest achievement there is to reach QF twice. But after doing that, he again lost in R1.

Posters here seem to think just because Stan needs only one more and Andy needs two more, Stan has more likelihood of accomplishing it. Based on their style of play and also based on their results on missing GSs, I think Andy's chances of accomplishing it are substantially higher than that of Stan.

Let's not get ridiculous with Murray's success on clay! This was a down season for everyone else and Roger wasn't even on the court! Nole coasted; esp. after winning the FO and he really hadn't played "great tennis" since early on in Qatar where he obliterated Nadal in the final! So lets calm down there! :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I think Murray has enough game to win AO and RG. I think Stan has enough game to win many more slams excepting Wimbledon.

 

[mrzz]

I actually think Murray has a greater chance of achieving CGS than Stan, even though Stan needs only one more and Murray needs two more.

1. In AO Andy has reached the finals multiple times. You keep knocking the door and the door will eventually open (especially if the doorkeeper takes his eyes off to look at women).

2. Andy was generally considered to have a clay problem. In view of this many people also said he will never achieve #1 ranking, as it includes clay points. However, Andy proved them wrong, did well on clay last year (winning a Masters and reaching the final at RG). So, there is a reasonable chance that he will improvise on the act and get his hands on Coupe de Mousquetaires (especially considering KOC has abdicated his throne).

Stan may have only Wimbledon left, but he is never going to win that. Look at his record at Wimbledon. He has never done well there. Further, Stan's play relies on powerful shots in which he takes a huge cut for which you need time. Grass takes away the time. Hence, based on playing style also Stan has not much chance. Stan has his lowest win percentage in Wimbledon at ^0% with a record of 18-12. He had played there 12 times, losing in R1 5 times, R2 twice, R3 once and R4 twice.
His highest achievement there is to reach QF twice. But after doing that, he again lost in R1.

Posters here seem to think just because Stan needs only one more and Andy needs two more, Stan has more likelihood of accomplishing it. Based on their style of play and also based on their results on missing GSs, I think Andy's chances of accomplishing it are substantially higher than that of Stan.

Well, all above is surely fair and reasonable... but I guess is the intangibles that will always make Wawrinka look closer to win. I would guess he never had passed semis on USO too, and look what happened...

 

[rafanoy1992]

I actually think Murray has a greater chance of achieving CGS than Stan, even though Stan needs only one more and Murray needs two more.

1. In AO Andy has reached the finals multiple times. You keep knocking the door and the door will eventually open (especially if the doorkeeper takes his eyes off to look at women).

2. Andy was generally considered to have a clay problem. In view of this many people also said he will never achieve #1 ranking, as it includes clay points. However, Andy proved them wrong, did well on clay last year (winning a Masters and reaching the final at RG). So, there is a reasonable chance that he will improvise on the act and get his hands on Coupe de Mousquetaires (especially considering KOC has abdicated his throne).

Stan may have only Wimbledon left, but he is never going to win that. Look at his record at Wimbledon. He has never done well there. Further, Stan's play relies on powerful shots in which he takes a huge cut for which you need time. Grass takes away the time. Hence, based on playing style also Stan has not much chance. Stan has his lowest win percentage in Wimbledon at ^0% with a record of 18-12. He had played there 12 times, losing in R1 5 times, R2 twice, R3 once and R4 twice.
His highest achievement there is to reach QF twice. But after doing that, he again lost in R1.

Posters here seem to think just because Stan needs only one more and Andy needs two more, Stan has more likelihood of accomplishing it. Based on their style of play and also based on their results on missing GSs, I think Andy's chances of accomplishing it are substantially higher than that of Stan.

Well, all above is surely fair and reasonable... but I guess is the intangibles that will always make Wawrinka look closer to win. I would guess he never had passed semis on USO too, and look what happened...

But you could say that to Murray in RG as well. Not a lot of people predicted him to reach the Roland Garros final once in his career but he made it this year.

On the other hand, Stan has not even reach the semifinals of Wimbledon at all. And if you look at his grass court record, it is not good at all for a player of his caliber.

 

[rafanoy1992]

GSM, hit right on the point. While Stan has 3 out of 4 slams in his bags, Murray is more consistent throughout all the 4 slams.

To win a Career Grand Slam, you need to be consistent and good in all surfaces. And since 2015, Murray has shown that he can play very well on Clay. Now, he might not win Roland Garros at all (I believe he won't do it) but he has a better chance of winning RG than Stan winning Wimbledon.

As for Australian Open, I think Murray will win at least 1 AO crown and I'm hoping it will be 2017.

 

[mrzz]

But you could say that to Murray in RG as well. Not a lot of people predicted him to reach the Roland Garros final once in his career but he made it this year.

On the other hand, Stan has not even reach the semifinals of Wimbledon at all. And if you look at his grass court record, it is not good at all for a player of his caliber.

Well, technically, yes. But Murray is indeed playing well on clay (I hate to admit it), he has been steadily getting the results on clay, so you could say that people were not predicting him to do well on clay just out of prejudice (keep bashing him, folks!). If you think hard, who else but Djokovic were actually supposed to beat him on 2016 RG?

In Wawrinka´s case, it is precisely this previous lack of results, followed by an absurd tournament were he beats the guys he were not supposed to beat, that make me believe he is closer to win another slam than Murray (let alone CGS).

But I am the first to admit: there is hardly a rational argument behind this, as GSM´s post and yours show.

In other words: would you really be surprised by Wawrinka winning Wimbledon?

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

I don't know. I don't know if wawrinka's movement on grass is good. If yes, then he can still win maybe. One thing is in his favour. This is 2017 Wimbledon surface we are talking about. We have drifted far from those days when the surface was actually bouncing the balls low and the play was fast.

Sent from my Titanium Octane using Tapatalk

 

[Puppet Master]

They call him "The deathless one". He is coming back from ATP banishment and he will be back with vengeance. The tour has been decaying for long enough without him, and he is going to take back what rightly belongs to him. Sorry Stan/Andy, whichever one of you are most affected by this.
On a serious note, Wawrinka always has some weird setback at Wimbo, and I doubt it will change. He had a very good chance of reaching the finals at least in 2015, but he somehow managed to lose to RICHARD GASQUET in the qf. I was disgusted by Gasquet playing at 800% against Stan and then claimed in an interview before the semifinal something along the lines of " you can't possibly expect me to beat Novak". Even though, in my opinion, Stan would have eaten Djokovic alive if they met then and there.
For Murray though, he absolutely needs to win the AO now, to have any chance at all.
If he fails at AO, he surely will fail at RG as well.

Sorry for the rant, but I believe Murray has a better chance still even though he needs 2 slams. However, this doesn't imply that Stan can't win more slams. He absolutely can.