#114

nobody’s done it since 1969 (nice) so pretty unlikely

2 Likes
#115

But not ridiculous.

#116
  • no man has
1 Like
#117

I think Thiem and Zverev both have better chance of winning a grand slam than Kyrgios. They both have the power to match Kyrgios but appear more focused. Kyrgios can be a top 10 player and can always cause upsets on his day but I can’t see him putting the consistency together to win a grand slam.

#118

pretty ridiculous imo, i’d be happy enough to see him win more than a single slam in a season.
these long term projections based on short term form are never really accurate, think the ridiculous heights federer and djokovic have hit have made people underestimate what it takes to properly dominate the tour

2 Likes
#119

He hasn’t really surpassed their levels at their peak has he? Nadal, Djokovic and Federer achieved much more in the game and were much better players at their peak than Murray.

#120

This thread keeps coming back and reminding me that Aggpass effectively ‘like-rides’ on coattails here.

1 Like
#121

say what now?

is this beeves I can smell

#122

I think likes should be disabled for pictures/Gifs. It’s cheating! Especially for people with photoshop skills.

Also, the most popular users should all be banned from getting likes too.

Thanks Theo.

1 Like
#123

not like I just put a :'D under it or something. I added laughs to the collective user experience of the boards, as I have consistently done throughout my time here.

Near, Spar

1 Like
#124

Enjoy the notion of like-riding

awaits like from theo

#125

But he’s had the tenacity to stay at the top (and improve) as they all fall away from their peak levels.

1 Like
#126

Yeah, no beeves I am just being playful eh?

#127

Nah this is war!

1 Like
#128

True, he deserves a lot of credit for that. It has also helped Murray (and Djokovic) that none of the younger players have stepped up as Federer/Nadal started to decline through age/ injury.

#129

I think it’s very easy to underestimate just how difficult stepping up to that level is. We’re talking about the best players of all time here, really.

2 Likes
#130

also the fact that players are able to prolong their careers for longer now means the tours have more strength in depth than they did a decade ago and it takes much longer for the young ones to break through

1 Like
#131

On the subject of winning the Grand Slam (for that is what was suggested), it’s certainly not ridiculous to suggest Murray could do it. He has advantages over the other three players who might have done it in the last decade or so.

Federer came close, but Nadal was always in the way at the French. No longer that problem. Nadal: just not unbeatable enough on the hardcourts and also always had a very full and tiring clay season. Djokovic: again the Nadal problem, and arguably last year he might have managed it if only he hadn’t been so massively successful everywhere else in the first six months.

So to do it, Murray would certainly need to focus on it as his primary goal. He would probably need to get “lucky” and get knocked out early at some of the clay Masters events, and probably skip either Canada or Cincinnatti. He would also need none of the up and comers to up and come, and he’d need Djokovic to stay below par for a whole year.

Won’t happen.

#132

he’s just had the best 6 months of his career and still managed to lose to nishikori in a slam quarter final in the midst of that.
not saying it’s impossible, think there’s even a possibility he could go into all 4 of the slams as favourites but actually winning them is another thing.
also curious wrt federer’s level when he comes back, think his absence and the collective knackeredness of a lot of the top players helped murray over the last half year

1 Like
#133

Well Murray made the first three slam finals of last year, and you could argue he might have won all three with his and Djokovic’s levels where they are right now. (I thought it was quite startling that Djokovic claimed he knew he wasn’t going to win on Sunday from the start.) Take the Olympics and a few clay matches out of the equation and you could make the case that he might have got through to the US final too. It was close with Nishikori after all.

Logistically he has the easiest path to it next year that anyone has had for a while, bar maybe Djokovic last year, and he had his issues (yet still also made three slam finals).