If Andy Murray were to win RG this year, I believe he would be the first man since Mats Wilander to win RG in the same season he won his first clay tournament. The difference? Wilander was 17. Also, noone stuck on 0 clay titles at 25 managed to reach the RG final later in their careers. So he's pretty much got history against him.
Andy has always played against history. Nothing new for him. Things are only impossible when you think they are. He has still 5 to 7 years left him. I do see him winning a few clay titles. He doesn't have as good a chance to win RG as the other three, but the truth of the matter is, even Federer had to rely on the off chance to win RG. Nole has yet to win it despite winning a few titles on clay. Andy happens to like clay so he'll give it a good effort when he feels right. Chances will open up for him. As they say, luck doesn't happen. You create them. Luck happens when you see an opportunity and then you go and seize it. The word Ďluckí is a poor manís version of the ways he/she sees things. Anyway, Andy is a very smart guy after all and he believes in himself more and more these days. With the right frame of mind, nothing is impossible.
Always played against history? In what way? National slam drought is the only thing that comes to mind. So far Murray has not done anything that hasn't been done before. An RG title would change that. Given his clay career so far, I simply can't see him win there. The other slams, however, should be possible.
And I never said anything about "Luck".
Why should Andy do anything that wasn't done before? History told him no man won any GS since Fred Perry since 1936 Ė not only that, he was told that he had 3 great guys ahead of him. But he went and did it so obviously the faith or the believe system was always there. Thatís the first step. Anyway, as I see it, if he wins Wimbledon and AO, which he will, that should be more than enough. Sampras never won RG but it doesn't stand in his way of being as one of the greats. As I said, Federer won RG on the off chance. He didn't beat Nadal to win it. Who is to say these chances won't open up for Andy as well? And of course, if he does go on to win it someday, I am sure some will be very quick to say that he was lucky so luck was implied.
And the Universe doesn't revolve around on what you see or believe. Itís not shortsighted that way. It revolves around on what itís capable of and itís capable of anything. Besides, there's a first time in anything. There wasn't any World War before WWI. As I said, if you want something, thereís nothing that can stop you as long as you have the right frame of mind. Einstein failed one of his physics courses in college and he was an average student all his life. Imagine if he were to say, ďI am going to be THE Scientist in the whole UniverseĒ at that point. You would be the first one to ridicule him. Frankly, I canít think like you and I am sure Andy doesnít think that way either. He doesnít have a loser mentality. He needs to believe in it and then he will execute it when the opportunity strikes.
History told him no man won GS since 1936 is only relevant if he's reading too many newspapers. His colleagues won slams. Are you seriously suggesting he thought he couldn't win because he was British? And then had to overcome that? Winning the first slam should be no worse for him than for anyone else. It's not as if history is littered with Swiss or Serbian slam winners, you know.
As for "The universe doesn't revolve around you" I find that comment really thoughtless. There's nothing in my post to suggest I think it does. Are you here for tennis discussions or insulting people? Voicing our opinions is a part of discussing tennis, and doing so doesn't merit being called narcissist or worse simply for stating what one believes, and commenting upon what has been done before and what hasn't. Yes, there's a first time for everything, Federer and Nadal has proven that many times. They are boundary-pushers. Murray, so far, has not been. You can hope that he will become one, you can expect it, but you can't really critizise those who don't think he will, because odds are on their side.
The part where you say he doesn't have to win RG to be great I agree with, except it's somewhat off topic in a discussion about his RG chances.
That's because the Brits are very much into their sports. In fact, they are crazy about it so they make a big deal about it and they did in it Andy's case. That's why it was far more difficult than it was supposed to be. I hang out with the Brits a lot (not only forums but my ex-boyfriend was English so I have first hand knowledge). The Swiss or the Serbians had never any expectations to begin with so there was never any pressure. UK is a very difficult country unlike the other two. They have a long history in anything. It's a whole different dynamic altogether. Andy has to deal with this different dynamics day in day out. You'd be a great fool if you don't take these mental aspects of things into account.
Also, Federer's first finalist was Phillipousis at Wimbledon, a guy who was past his prime at that time and a first time Slam finalist himself. Nadal's first time finalist was Puerta, a guy who had difficulties to getting past the 3rd round in any Slam and a first time finalist at RG as well. Nole's opponent Tsonga was also a first time finalist at AO in 2008. Andy has faced so far Federer 3 times and Nole 2 times. In other words, all his finalists were not only previous Slam winners but also No. 1 players. Unlike his peers, he never had the luxury to meet with a player who was also a first time finalist. So it was essentially far more difficult for him than the other three.
You said you just 'can't see Andy winning RG'. That's your educated guess at best. In reality, you have absolutely no clue whether Andy will win RG or not. Rest assured, if he dose go on to win it in the near future I am sure you won't be here to own it. That's why I said, unless you are the ruler of the Universe and you know something we don't, your argument doesn't hold any water. Never say never.
This thread is about Andy stating that he has a chance... a shot at RG. Neither he or I are saying anything otherwise. Everything else was imposed by other people and it became off topic a long time ago. If Andy wins RG, that will be great, if not, no harm will be done.
Btw, it's not intelligent at all to compare Andy who's only peaking to those who are now passing their prime. Andy has still a solid 5 years left in him and a lot can happen in this timeframe.