PDA

View Full Version : IS Murray in the same league as the Big 3 ?


tennisaddict
10-16-2012, 11:37 AM
Of late, a few TTW'ers are placing Murray in the same conversation as Fed, Nadal and Nole and making it a 'Big 4' discussion.

Does the fact that he won USO and has a good H2H outside of slams ,make Murray deserve that recognition inspite of the fact that he currently has a poor H2H with the 3 on matches that count most (Majors) and also his slam record ( 1 vs 33) ?

No one disagrees that in the next couple of years, he may have good chances to increase his slam count.

Yet when it comes to discussions around the supremacy, aura, clutchness, greatness it seems ridiculuous to include Murray in the same discussions as Roger, Rafa and Nole.

The top 3 dont lose to Bogomolov, Chardy, Donald Young for starters.

What are your thoughts ?

AnotherTennisProdigy
10-16-2012, 11:40 AM
Does he hold a candle to the big 3 yet? Not yet, but I still consider him a part of the "big 4". There is nobody on tour that you can say has an equal career or is on equal footing with Murray.

Max G.
10-16-2012, 11:41 AM
Right now, yes. He's now shown the ability to beat them both in Slams and outside of Slams.

Legacy-wise, obviously not, but in terms of current playing level, yes.

cluckcluck
10-16-2012, 11:44 AM
He still has a lot more to go before being in the same league as the others. Just because he's won a slam doesn't automatically get him in. It's a matter of consistency. If he has a successful 2013 and 2014 season, he could very easily be in there.
It's way too early to consider him.

AnotherTennisProdigy
10-16-2012, 11:50 AM
If we are talking about level of play right now, then yes. Career-wise, no.

LuckyR
10-16-2012, 11:52 AM
Ummm... he's in the top three, the question mark is Rafa not Andy...

Homeboy Hotel
10-16-2012, 11:55 AM
He's #3, USO, Gold Singles, Silver Mixed, SF/F in a slam..all achieved in 2012.

If we talk about the top 3 of 2012, then he's part of that.

If we talk about the top 3 of the last 5 years, then he's not part of that - he's part of the top 4

BauerAlmeida
10-16-2012, 11:59 AM
No. Before 2011 people talked about Fedal and their dominance. Djokovic wasn't mentioned with them and he had a career like Murray has now. When he became a multiple slam winner and World number 1, THERE people started talking about the BIG 3.

Murray is now like Djoker pre-2011. When he becomes a multiple slam winner and reaches 1, we can talk about BIG 4.

kalyan4fedever
10-16-2012, 12:12 PM
ahem actually big 2

*Sparkle*
10-16-2012, 12:46 PM
Right now, yes. He's now shown the ability to beat them both in Slams and outside of Slams.

Legacy-wise, obviously not, but in terms of current playing level, yes.

^^^^ This. He doesn't have as many big trophies as the others, but if you are going for legacy, why not start to include retired players too, or ones who have slipped down the rankings, but not yet retired? You wouldn't put Hewitt in that group, despite having more slams.

Right now, he is the number three in the world, and going on recent form, that's earned. He's not played Nadal this year, but he did win their last encounter, and his recent form puts him above Federer, and right up there with Djokovic.

Just as important is the gap between the top 4 and those below.

Next year it will be Federer and Nadal who will have to prove they still belong in the top group based on current form. I'd be shocked if they didn't, but right now, their form for next year is less certain than Djokovic and Murray's.

I'd also point out that to be in the same league doesn't require being at the same level. It just means that you belong in that grouping more than the next one. With the exception of clay courts, there's never much doubt that Murray should make the semis, same as the others.

Danny_G13
10-16-2012, 02:46 PM
I think the 'no' leading by 2 is due to him losing in Shanghai. I polled this recently and it was heavily weighted after the US Open of him being part of a new big 4.

Murray has Olympic gold, 5 slam finals, 1 slam win, and a boatload of individual ATP victories.

The only thing missing from his repertoire is he has never beaten Federer in a slam. He's beaten the other 2.

In terms of current form and level, if you give credit to Federer for regaining #1 slot after a fine grass season, then you must equally give credit to Murray for a similarly good grass season followed up by the US Open.

Yes, he's in the same league.

Before the Australian Open this year, he wasn't. But pushing Djoker to 5 sets in the semi was the breakthrough.

90's Clay
10-16-2012, 04:29 PM
If he had to go up against all 3 in their primes, simultaneously.. He would be lucky to win 2-3 big tournaments a year.

So no absolutely not.. He isn't even in the same area code as the other 3 guys. Prime for prime anyways

Achilles82
10-16-2012, 04:31 PM
I've always said. There's the big three, Andy Murray, and the rest of them...

Prisoner of Birth
10-16-2012, 04:33 PM
Right now, yes. He's now shown the ability to beat them both in Slams and outside of Slams.

Legacy-wise, obviously not, but in terms of current playing level, yes.

/Thread :)

papertank
10-16-2012, 04:54 PM
Absolutely yes. He can beat Federer and Djokovic any day, and has beat Nadal twice in slams and on another occasions. Is the weakest link of the top 4? Yes, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be considered with them. He is leaps and bounds better than anyone ranked below him.

jokinla
10-16-2012, 09:16 PM
Right now, yes. He's now shown the ability to beat them both in Slams and outside of Slams.

Legacy-wise, obviously not, but in terms of current playing level, yes.

As far as beating "them" in slams, he beat Djoker in one slam this year, Nads in slams several years ago, and Fed never, so he could probably use a few more current wins over "them" in slams to make this claim.

NadalAgassi
10-16-2012, 09:35 PM
Funny thing is in a historic sense he is nowhere near them, yet on the tour he has felt up with them for the last 4-5 years, well a bit weaker than all 3 but much closer to them than anyone else is to him other than Del Potro in 2009 only.

A.Motoki.S
10-16-2012, 09:46 PM
i personally think that Murray is making his way up there ... the Big 4 is almost on a different level from the rest of the playing field ... but the Big 3 is slightly a step ahead of them ... so to answer the question ... no not yet but I believe he will be soon

The-Champ
10-16-2012, 09:46 PM
He is absolutely in the same league. 1 major, olympic gold and 8 masters so far. He has beaten all three in big tournaments. He has consistently been a top player and will climb higher.

MichaelNadal
10-16-2012, 09:55 PM
Level of play wise and ability yes, even before this year. Results wise and in a sense of what if he retired tomorrow? Not even close.

Russeljones
10-16-2012, 11:17 PM
My thoughts are that it's harder to make a case for Federer being in the top 3 than it is for Murray. It's clear that Murray, Djokovic and Nadal are the future of men's tennis while Federer is fast fading away. Why would you want to deny the obvious and put Murray in his own bracket? He didn't have a Slam trophy so he wasn't part of the top, now he has one there are new standards. Strange poll.

veroniquem
10-16-2012, 11:26 PM
Right now I don't think he is. 1 slam is not enough for him to be. All of Fed, Nadal and Djoko have been #1, have dominated seasons, have won 4 or 5 masters and/or multiple slams in a season before. Of course Murray is not in that league yet, don't know if he will ever be. Still, he's the best player after the top 3 and he can beat any of the top 3 on a good day. I also think the top 3 can win on all surfaces. Murray is more specialized (one has to exclude clay).

Russeljones
10-16-2012, 11:33 PM
Right now I don't think he is. 1 slam is not enough for him to be. All of Fed, Nadal and Djoko have been #1, have dominated seasons, have won 4 or 5 masters and/or multiple slams in a season before. Of course Murray is not in that league yet, don't know if he will ever be. Still, he's the best player after the top 3 and he can beat any of the top 3 on a good day. I also think the top 3 can win on all surfaces. Murray is more specialized (one has to exclude clay).

He is beating Federer and Djokovic regardless of what they've done in the past. Excuse the speculation but I am fairly sure he would have handed Nadal his backside had they met in this year's hard court season. You cannot arbitrarily decide to marginalise the guy because he is a late bloomer. That's like me saying Nadal and Djokovic combined come short of Federer's career achievements, hence they should be a sub-top-2-3 group never to be mentioned in the same breath as my idol. It doesn't work like that.
Top anything describes the top dogs at any given time and Murray is a part of that group whether you like it or not.

veroniquem
10-16-2012, 11:40 PM
He is beating Federer and Djokovic regardless of what they've done in the past. Excuse the speculation but I am fairly sure he would have handed Nadal his backside had they met in this year's hard court season. You cannot arbitrarily decide to marginalise the guy because he is a late bloomer. That's like me saying Nadal and Djokovic combined come short of Federer's career achievements, hence they should be a sub-top-2-3 group never to be mentioned in the same breath as my idol. It doesn't work like that.
Top anything describes the top dogs at any given time and Murray is a part of that group whether you like it or not.

That he can beat any of the top 3 is just what I wrote. Still, his achievements are not comparable to the top 3 at this point. I'm not trying to marginalize him, just pointing out he's not quite in the same class yet. Maybe you haven't noticed but the top 3 have had some colossal results and they've all had years with 3 slams. What's the best Murray has ever done? It's not an insult. Saying he's not quite in the same class doesn't mean he's worthless. Tsonga has also beaten Fed, Nadal and Djoko. That doesn't mean he's in the same class as them, does it?

Prisoner of Birth
10-16-2012, 11:42 PM
That he can beat any of the top 3 is just what I wrote. Still, his achievements are not comparable to the top 3 at this point. I'm not trying to marginalize him, just pointing out he's not quite in the same class yet. Maybe you haven't noticed yet but the top 3 have had some colossal results and they've all had years with 3 slams. What's the best Murray has ever done? It's not an insult. Saying he's not quite in the same class doesn't mean he's worthless. Tsonga has also beaten Fed, Nadal and Djoko. That doesn't mean he's in the same class as them, does it?

"League" is different from a "class".

veroniquem
10-16-2012, 11:44 PM
What's the difference?

Russeljones
10-16-2012, 11:48 PM
I think you are trying to rationalise your discrimination. Yes he is an annoying brat but he works damn hard and clearly has the talent. By arguing for a discrepancy in definitons of 'Top' you're just admitting to having a double standard.

Jackuar
10-17-2012, 12:47 AM
@OP

If that's the question, then I'd say its not even Big 3, just the Big-2, small-2 and others. Seriosuly, if not for his 2011 year, I wouldn't consider Djoker anywhere in the same sentence with Nadal and Fed. But again, it is "If not" - but he did it, so can't take that credit away from him.

Like someone else said, Right now, in terms of form - its Big 4; career wise it will always be Big-2 for me. They changed the face of tennis - the impact was huge; Djoker and Murray are just slip-streaming in that glory; they never created one (They never will, if you want to consider the future).

cc0509
10-17-2012, 12:58 AM
No, he is not in the same league as Federer and Nadal for sure. He is not even in Djokovic's league yet at least. However, he is much better than the next level starting at the player ranked number five on down.

Sentinel
10-17-2012, 01:21 AM
Murray and Nole are the big 2.

Federer and Rafa are out.

Sabratha
10-17-2012, 04:10 AM
Yes, Murray is in the same league as the rest of the top four, and has been for a while, despite not winning a slam until this year.

Mainad
10-17-2012, 08:02 AM
IMO, he has a foot in and a foot out.

In: Like them is a Slam winner and has won multiple Masters titles and at least 1 other big title: the Olympic gold medal. Has as good a H2H with the others as they have with each other.

Out: Unlike them is not yet a multi-Slam winner, still has a habit of losing in the early rounds of some tournaments to much lower-ranked players, has not yet won titles on all 3 surfaces (missing clay).

Terenigma
10-17-2012, 08:41 AM
Even when he didnt have a slam, he was almost always in the last 4 of all the big tournements, last 2 years if you had anyone other than a fed/djok/nadal/murray in a semi-final you would be suprised and even then, i doubt many people would put him in the same catagory of the players ranked below him when he was clearly superior.

Before the slam it could be argued it was top 3 / murray / everyone else. Now its top 4 / everyone else.

batz
10-17-2012, 08:54 AM
I guess it depends how you define 'league'. If it's the league of double digit slam winners then he's not - but neither is Novak. If it's the league of players who are demonstrably superior to every other player on tour then he is.

beast of mallorca
10-17-2012, 08:56 AM
IMO, he has a foot in and a foot out.

In: Like them is a Slam winner and has won multiple Masters titles and at least 1 other big title: the Olympic gold medal. Has as good a H2H with the others as they have with each other.

Out: Unlike them is not yet a multi-Slam winner, still has a habit of losing in the early rounds of some tournaments to much lower-ranked players, has not yet won titles on all 3 surfaces (missing clay).

This I fully endorsed.
But wait for him to complete his career and I'm sure that both of his feet will be in:)

batz
10-17-2012, 08:58 AM
This I fully endorsed.
But wait for him to complete his career and I'm sure that both of his feet will be in:)

I also thought it was an excellent summation of the situation - but I would say that as I'm one of his vicious acolytes.

beast of mallorca
10-17-2012, 09:18 AM
I also thought it was an excellent summation of the situation - but I would say that as I'm one of his vicious acolytes.

I am too . But not as vicious as you. I reserve that for Rafa :)

jaggy
10-17-2012, 09:38 AM
Yes, I do believe he is

Antonio Puente
10-17-2012, 09:58 AM
IMO, he has a foot in and a foot out.

In: Like them is a Slam winner and has won multiple Masters titles and at least 1 other big title: the Olympic gold medal. Has as good a H2H with the others as they have with each other.

Out: Unlike them is not yet a multi-Slam winner, still has a habit of losing in the early rounds of some tournaments to much lower-ranked players, has not yet won titles on all 3 surfaces (missing clay).

To date, two characteristics have differentiated him from the group. One, consistency. Murray has a habit of disappearing for months at a time, through stretches where he's not even competitive. You just don't see that from the other three. Two, prior to the Olympics and U.S. Open, clutch play in big events. So, in late 2012, having one foot in and one foot out is an apt description. The fear with Murray, however, is that he could, at any time, pull the foot out and go on a three month walkabout.

heftylefty
10-17-2012, 10:03 AM
Yes, Murray is in the same league as the rest of the top four, and has been for a while, despite not winning a slam until this year.

Quoted from making sense.

Tony48
10-17-2012, 10:34 AM
In the sense of having a slam, yes he's in the same league.

But the same could be said about del Potro, but in 2009, no one called it a "Big 5" or a "Big 4" (excluding Murray in favor of del Potro). Djokovic, Nadal and Murray have consistency across all surfaces, so perhaps when Murray becomes a much more formidable contender on clay, his status as a member of the "Big 4" will be less in doubt.

Steve0904
10-17-2012, 10:53 AM
It took me a while to vote because it's a tough question, but ultimately I voted no. Obviously he can beat any of those guys much more often than anybody else on the tour. He even has a winning record over one of them, but I only put Novak in the same sentence as Federer and Nadal after his 2011 season. The reason he's in the same sentence now is because of the consistency, and overall level of play, which was some of the highest level play that's ever been witnessed, maybe better than both Federer and Nadal's best seasons. I literally ran out of superlatives last year trying to describe Novak's level of play, especially his returns.

The big thing is the consistency for me. Murray still went on auto pilot this year at IW, he's not as good on clay, and he still doesn't have that "aura" where you just believe there's no way in hell that he'll lose to anyone ranked outside the top 4. That's the feeling I get when I watch the other 3, and often times they prove me right no matter if there playing Ferrer, or Tsonga or Berdych etc... I mean, yes they can lose to someone outside the top 4, but I guess what I'm trying to say is I think when players outside the top 4 walk onto the court against Murray they think they have a chance even if it is slim, but I'm not sure all the players think that against 1 of the other 3. IMHO Murray is more susceptible to an upset, even now, and that is the main reason why I voted no. When one of the other 3 play sometimes I just think: Yeah this guy is going to get destroyed. I don't feel like that no matter who Murray plays especially the later in the tournament it gets.

beast of mallorca
10-17-2012, 12:41 PM
In the sense of having a slam, yes he's in the same league.

But the same could be said about del Potro, but in 2009, no one called it a "Big 5" or a "Big 4" (excluding Murray in favor of del Potro). Djokovic, Nadal and Murray have consistency across all surfaces, so perhaps when Murray becomes a much more formidable contender on clay, his status as a member of the "Big 4" will be less in doubt.

Del Potro was not consistent enough to be included in the big 4. Yes he won a Slam, but before that and even now he was never consistent enough to amass Masters 1000 and be in the finals of GS consistently. Murray has.

5555
10-21-2012, 05:28 AM
If that's the question, then I'd say its not even Big 3, just the Big-2




http://www.gfxtra.com/uploads/posts_images/2/5/252592/wT7HdaYR.jpg

TTMR
10-21-2012, 06:59 AM
@OP

If that's the question, then I'd say its not even Big 3, just the Big-2, small-2 and others. Seriosuly, if not for his 2011 year, I wouldn't consider Djoker anywhere in the same sentence with Nadal and Fed. But again, it is "If not" - but he did it, so can't take that credit away from him.

Like someone else said, Right now, in terms of form - its Big 4; career wise it will always be Big-2 for me. They changed the face of tennis - the impact was huge; Djoker and Murray are just slip-streaming in that glory; they never created one (They never will, if you want to consider the future).

In reality, there's only a Big One. Nadal has only shown consistency and dominance on clay. He has fewer slams on non-clay surfaces than Djokovic, and if it weren't for a systematic slowdown of hard courts and grass, he'd probably have even fewer. He's just never been a recurrent threat off clay, only an intermittent one. He's also riding Federer's coattails; he emerged solely as a Hegelian rival to Federer (again, thanks to favourable conditions and
Federer's decline post-2006/2007).

adil1972
10-21-2012, 10:23 PM
murray won us open because of rain delayed djokovic semi final match, if it was other way around, he would have lost the us open final

my point is that murray won because of rain

Prisoner of Birth
10-21-2012, 10:25 PM
murray won us open because of rain delayed djokovic semi final match, if it was other way around, he would have lost the us open final

my point is that murray won because of rain

Why didn't you win any Slams because of rain? Why didn't I? Why didn't Berdych? Why just Murray?

Mainad
10-21-2012, 11:22 PM
murray won us open because of rain delayed djokovic semi final match, if it was other way around, he would have lost the us open final

my point is that murray won because of rain

So it's the rain now is it? What happened to the wind?? :)

Incidentally, Murray had a rain-delayed semi-final at 2008 USO. I take it that was the only reason Federer won? :wink:

adil1972
10-21-2012, 11:28 PM
So it's the rain now is it? What happened to the wind?? :)

Incidentally, Murray had a rain-delayed semi-final at 2008 USO. I take it that was the only reason Federer won? :wink:

yes rain helps the winner

Mainad
10-21-2012, 11:30 PM
yes rain helps the winner

In that case, whoever won this year's USO would have won because of the weather?

joeri888
10-22-2012, 12:48 AM
He is in terms of level. Will be interesting to see if he is in terms of consistency. He's had a great summer, but still lost to guys like Chardy this year, which you will hardly see the rest of the top 4 lose to. THe year before it was Donald Young and Bogomolov. I think in terms of peaking he is approaching Federer and Djokovic rather quickly, might even have passed Federer for good already.

Amelie Mauresmo
10-22-2012, 07:33 PM
No Andy Murray is still not a part of the elite group he only has one grand slam. Andy Murray is terrible on clay never won a clay ATP tour title never reached the French Open final. Murray is a step below the great Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic.

The Shanghai final proves Murray's inability to win when having match points he had 5 against Novak and blew it. Many times in Murray's career he crumbles under the pressure. At the US OPEN Murray was lucky he squeaked through and won that grand slam but he's proven he's still very inconsistent.

The reason Murray has generated a lot of press is because he's from a western nation and the western media want one of their own on top.

Murray is a solid player nobody is disputing this fact BUT he is still not as consistent as Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Novak Djokovic. Murray has NEVER been number one and I doubt Murray would hold the number one ranking for long.

Murray is still a bit inconsistent he can still lose early while the top 3 are more solid.

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 07:44 PM
No Andy Murray is still not a part of the elite group he only has one grand slam. Andy Murray is terrible on clay never won a clay ATP tour title never reached the French Open final. Murray is a step below the great Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic.

The Shanghai final proves Murray's inability to win when having match points he had 5 against Novak and blew it. Many times in Murray's career he crumbles under the pressure. At the US OPEN Murray was lucky he squeaked through and won that grand slam but he's proven he's still very inconsistent.

The reason Murray has generated a lot of press is because he's from a western nation and the western media want one of their own on top.

Murray is a solid player nobody is disputing this fact BUT he is still not as consistent as Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Novak Djokovic. Murray has NEVER been number one and I doubt Murray would hold the number one ranking for long.

Murray is still a bit inconsistent he can still lose early while the top 3 are more solid.

How many Slams have you won by getting "lucky" and squeaking through? Why didn't Rosol get lucky? Why didn't Tsonga? Why didn't Berdych? Why just Murray?

Mainad
10-22-2012, 08:53 PM
The Shanghai final proves Murray's inability to win when having match points he had 5 against Novak and blew it. Many times in Murray's career he crumbles under the pressure.

Actually, Murray is 3-2 v Djokovic in Masters finals and 2-0 v Federer. His failure to convert those match points in Shanghai was highly unusual. It was definitely the exception, not the rule. You don't get to win 24 titles including this year a grand slam and an Olympic gold medal by always crumbling under pressure, do you?


At the US OPEN Murray was lucky he squeaked through and won that grand slam but he's proven he's still very inconsistent.

How exactly was he luckier than any other player who played at the USO this year?? :rolleyes:


The reason Murray has generated a lot of press is because he's from a western nation and the western media want one of their own on top.

Well, Federer and Nadal are also from western nations so, according to you, that must be the reason why they too generate a lot of press!

Fedex
10-23-2012, 07:03 AM
The reason Murray has generated a lot of press is because he's from a western nation and the western media want one of their own on top.

The West owes it's very existence to Serbia and Spain both countries that played a major role in halting the Islamic hoards from over running Western Europe in the fourteenth century at the heroic battle of Kosovo and the Iberian Moorish conflicts.
We'd all be praying 5 times a day, beating women for flashing their ankles and banning music and kite flying were it not for the countries whom both Djokovic and Nadal hail from.