Andy Murray to win a Grand Slam title in the next four years?

First topic message reminder :

Andy Murray has just turned 25 (May 15th was his birthday). In four years time he will be 29 and he would have had 16 opportunities to win a grand slam title (four French Open opportunities, four wimbledon opportunities etc). His past 16 grand slam events has resulted in the following returns:

Maximum Progress
Wins: zero
Finals: three
SF: six
QF: two
4R: two
3R: two
2R: zero
1R: zero
Absent: zero

What do you think the chances are of Murray winning a slam in the next four years?

That's not really how probability works, NS, though your approximation is reasonable. If we go with 5% that's 95% of not winning a particular Slam so;

Pr(any slam of 16) = 1 - (.95)^16 = 1 - 0.44 = 0.56 or56%

bogbrush; bringing Maths pedantry to the forum.

@NS

Actually statistic doesn't work like this. If not you would have a 100% of probability to get a win after 20 attempts if you have 5% chance but alas it's not always the case.

In 16 events at 5% you would have------------> 55.9% of 1 win
In 16 events at 4% you would have------------> 47.9% of 1 win.

In the case of Murray I believe he has left 6 events in his prime time which would make an overall 21% at 4%. After that it is unlikely to think one would win his first slam. If you add uncertainty I think maybe yes 15% to 18% is fair enough for me.

Great minds.........

I can say with a great amount of confidence that he will never win at RG. The other 3 he has a good chance though.

It always amazes me the reaction when Murray loses on clay. Do people forget that out of all of his successes and titles, none of them have been on clay? If he starts losing early regularly on hard courts then it would be reasonable to start thinking he is regressing or past his peak.

But he has 0 titles and 0 finals on clay in 7 or 8 years on the tour. Whether it makes sense or not, he's not a particularly good clay player and never has been. Murray losing before the business end of a clay tournament is not big news.

bogbrush wrote:... Pr(any slam of 16) = 1 - (.95)^16 ...

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:@NS

Actually statistic doesn't work like this. If not you would have a 100% of probability to get a win after 20 attempts if you have 5% chance but alas it's not always the case. ...

O' well, that's a shame , I stand corrected




[1] I determined average number of wins not probability and muddled it up with probability; Average number of wins = 16 x Pr(of win in a single slam) --> 0.64 to 0.80

Very true Danny. However, the nature of his defeat wasn't down to the surface and more down to aspects of Andy's game that needs addressing and quick.

Danny_1982 wrote:I can say with a great amount of confidence that he will never win at RG. The other 3 he has a good chance though.

It always amazes me the reaction when Murray loses on clay. Do people forget that out of all of his successes and titles, none of them have been on clay? If he starts losing early regularly on hard courts then it would be reasonable to start thinking he is regressing or past his peak.

But he has 0 titles and 0 finals on clay in 7 or 8 years on the tour. Whether it makes sense or not, he's not a particularly good clay player and never has been. Murray losing before the business end of a clay tournament is not big news.

True, except that this time last year he was a haird breadth from beating Djokovic, who went on to do Nadal in straight sets.

Danny_1982 wrote:I can say with a great amount of confidence that he will never win at RG. The other 3 he has a good chance though.

It always amazes me the reaction when Murray loses on clay. Do people forget that out of all of his successes and titles, none of them have been on clay? If he starts losing early regularly on hard courts then it would be reasonable to start thinking he is regressing or past his peak.

But he has 0 titles and 0 finals on clay in 7 or 8 years on the tour. Whether it makes sense or not, he's not a particularly good clay player and never has been. Murray losing before the business end of a clay tournament is not big news.

Except it is the same set of stats - low percentage of first serves in (which is entirely under his control) and low points won on his second serve.

Nore Staat I would say that another important fact is the amount of unforced errors were high against Gasquet by Murray's usual standards as has been the case through a number of his matches lately. A worrying trend.

Yes he was a hairs breadth away from Novak at AO this year...that is what can keep him believing. It was his serve/nerve that let him down at the end.
I think we all feel AO is probably Murray's best bet of a slam...the surface seems to suit him down to the ground. If he can just tweak that 2nd serve....

Andy Murrays three best results at:

AO: Final, Final, SF
FO: SF, QF, 4R
Wimbledon: SF, SF, SF
USO: Final, SF, 4R

Interesting NS. So AO then...and maybe Wimb shades it as 2nd?
He's definitely getting there...or rather was. He needs to keep developing his game...the others are. Look at Federer, he's a better player now overall than a few years back - IMO.

Murray has a seasonal temperament, he does really well at the AO, goes on a post-AO slump (to varying depths), then regathers / remotivates himself in the second half of the season.

With regard to the Lendl - Murray connection, it looks to be a part-time arrangement, with Lendl telling Murray he is a champion and needs to go though the pain barrier to beat the top three in the slam tournaments. I was just hoping there would be some technical imput in there as well. We should be able to better evaluate Murrays technical progress at Wimbledon 2012, USO 2012 and AO 2013. It seems however there hasn't as yet been an obvious change in Murrays serving proficiency.

I've gone for the 30-39% mark. I tend to think that rather than being near the cusp of making a breakthrough, Murray is constantly in a struggle to keep up his position near the top. It's his consistency that keeps him afloat.

He needs a Thomas Johansson/Albert Costa/Gaston Gaudio style draw to realise his dream.

Don't watch much tennis eh?

Gaudio defeated 4 of the top 20 seeds to win.

Costa defeated Ferrero and then the greatest clay courter since Borg in Kuerten! Not to mention a young Davydenko.

Let's actually do a tad better when making such remarks.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Don't watch much tennis eh?

Gaudio defeated 4 of the top 20 seeds to win.

Costa defeated Ferrero and then the greatest clay courter since Borg in Kuerten! Not to mention a young Davydenko.

Let's actually do a tad better when making such remarks.

Gaudio was lucky LK I remember it well. He defeated two players in Coria and Nalbandian who affectively threw their matches away. Coria lost it totally and even then Gaudio played a game of who could choke the most as the fifth set could have gone either way. Gaudio's win against Hewitt was his most impressive of the tournament but Hewitt never liked clay. Costa preyed on a Ferrero that was partly injured in the final so I'm perfectly happy with my comments you condescending lettuce!

Nore Staat

I've been studying your chart and am unable to see any clear meaning. I am hoping that you may write some sort of conclusion to your poll so that we can have a better idea of the probability of Murray winning a slam in the next 4 years?

Super D Boon wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Don't watch much tennis eh?

Gaudio defeated 4 of the top 20 seeds to win.

Costa defeated Ferrero and then the greatest clay courter since Borg in Kuerten! Not to mention a young Davydenko.

Let's actually do a tad better when making such remarks.

Gaudio was lucky LK I remember it well. He defeated two players in Coria and Nalbandian who affectively threw their matches away. Coria lost it totally and even then Gaudio played a game of who could choke the most as the fifth set could have gone either way. Gaudio's win against Hewitt was his most impressive of the tournament but Hewitt never liked clay. Costa preyed on a Ferrero that was partly injured in the final so I'm perfectly happy with my comments you condescending lettuce!

Ferrero wasn't partially injured. He won Monte Carlo you numbskull!!

Coira may have choked, but still you try to dismiss the other players he defeated! Nalbandian defeated Kuerten and Safin in 4.

Good try in attempting to 'remember' such matches.

It is very possible. I am going to say he will win 1 slam in his career. He is bound to have a lucky draw one time and Fed and Nad are getting old. He will have his chance.

He has to do it soon though, he is aging too... and these losses cannot be helping.

0%

murray is a goner