I think we are going around in circles here.
Emma... Sure Andy has a chance to win RG - it is not impossible for Andy to win RG. But due to the fact that he hasn't done anything on clay and EVEN if I buy into your tanking MS and minor tournaments arguemnt, it still doesn't hold water. How can you presume Andy will win RG if doesn't even has a title on clay. Sure it's a good surface for him but not the greatest. We can all agree that if Nadal is fit, nobody, including Djokovic can take it to him, he is just a monster on the surface. And let's suppose Nadal is not 100% fit, then Djokovic is a better clay courter than Andy. With today's actions, I can even say that Federer can have a better chance than Murray, due to the style of play, there is no great counter punchers on clay, since the ball is too slow on RG, hence Roger can definitely go around all the passive/counter punching Andy has done lately that has given Fed lots of trouble. His serve wouldn't even be as effective as it is on hard courts and Andy relies too much on his first serve since his 2nd serve is too slow atm. Sure he has a shot at RG but it is safe to say that Nole, Nadal and even Federer have a better shot at winning RG than Murray, at least for the time being. So, even though Murray has a shot it is a slim one at that at the moment. At least that is the way I see it right now.
As for the dispute you have going between Litotes and Alex, well, that's all up to the 3 of you but I haven't seen Litotes state something as "rule" or as something he "knows" will happen in the future, he is just stating what he sees and why Murray doesn't stand a chance at RG, nothing more, which I don't agree 100% but he has some points worth discussing and valid points at that.
To say that Murray has a "legitimate" shot at winning RG is just hopeful thinking RIGHT NOW. Numbers aren't in his favor and he hasn't done a lot to make every tennis fan think otherwise, especially on clay. I said it before, if he were to say he has a legitimate chance at Wimbledon, then this discussion wouldn't even be taking place, since I do believe he has a very good shot at Wimbledon, but RG? I just don't see it and don't think will happen. But I have been known to be mistaken in the past and if I am proven wrong then it's all the best for the sport, and I will gladly acknowledge my "lack" of "vision" onto this one, but first I have to be proven wrong! And I wouldn't like that!