Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   General Pro Player Discussion (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   Will Murray ever be in the 100 Greatest of All Time (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=446999)

beast of mallorca 11-30-2012 01:21 PM

Will Murray ever be in the 100 Greatest of All Time
 
Just watching the The 100 Greatest Of All Time show presented by the Tennis Channel, and got me thinking if ( once everything is said and done and Murray calls it adieu,sayounara) Murray will ever be relegated in that elite group. I know he will have to earn it by winning more Slams, which he might and possibly need to achieve the #1 ranking as well. What's the consensus here in TW ?

FYI:The Tennis Channel's presentationof 100 Greatest of All time include the Open and pre-Open era players. Also female and males players were mixed together.

Sabratha 11-30-2012 01:24 PM

I think Murray will get into that group. I'm almost certain he will become #1 at some point and win more slams.

forzamilan90 11-30-2012 01:25 PM

I think Murray will win multiple slams so yeah, 4-5 seems reasonable. He'll be held in high regard one day, if only for that 1st British.....since Perry

Razoredge 11-30-2012 01:26 PM

He's already there.

tennisaddict 11-30-2012 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razoredge (Post 7040296)
He's already there.

The number of people with 1 major or more is greater than 100. So, answer is NO.

Phoenix1983 11-30-2012 01:40 PM

He'll get there.

Razoredge 11-30-2012 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tennisaddict (Post 7040305)
The number of people with 1 major or more is greater than 100. So, answer is NO.

Are you kidding? Murray is probably top 20 GOAT already in his career, dont' be an idiot.

boredone3456 11-30-2012 02:06 PM

I think since winning the US Open one could argue Murray has achieved more than Chang (who made the list) so I would argue he is already there as of now.

1 major
Olympic Gold
8 masters titles
24 overall titles
4 additional major finals

Plus he is, unless he is struck by lightening or some similar disaster, likely to do much more...so even if you want to say no he will be eventually.

Sabratha 11-30-2012 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razoredge (Post 7040321)
Are you kidding? Murray is probably top 20 GOAT already in his career, dont' be an idiot.

Top 20? All time? Uh, at this point, no.

World Beater 11-30-2012 02:16 PM

djokovic has 5 slams and is #40 according to tennis channel.

I dont even think andy roddick made it to top 100. Did he?

Chang was #100

Murray has work to do. I think murray has a decent shot to get to top#30 and possible top 20. But he will need 6+ slams to do so...no easy task...he just won one!

MonkeyBoy 11-30-2012 02:16 PM

More and more tennis experts are regarding the tier 1 of this era to be one of, if not the best ever. Murray is the only other player in the game who can consistently face Djodalrer and you not know what the result is going to be.

BauerAlmeida 11-30-2012 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razoredge (Post 7040321)
Are you kidding? Murray is probably top 20 GOAT already in his career, dont' be an idiot.

Murray TOP 20?? Huge LOL

Federer, Hewitt, Sampras, Agassi, Safin, Becker, Roddick, Edberg, Courier, Djokovic, Nadal, Kafelnikov, Lendl, Wilander, Rafter, Kuerten. I thought of 16 players who were better only since the late or mid 80's only. Then add just a few from before that (let's say Mac, Connors, Borg, Vilas and Nastase) and you don't even have to leave the open era to find 20 players better than Murray.

boredone3456 11-30-2012 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by World Beater (Post 7040377)
djokovic has 5 slams and is #40 according to tennis channel.

I dont even think andy roddick made it to top 100. Did he?

Chang was #100

Murray has work to do. I think murray has a decent shot to get to top#30 and possible top 20. But he will need 6+ slams to do so...no easy task...he just won one!

Roddick was #94

BauerAlmeida 11-30-2012 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonkeyBoy (Post 7040378)
More and more tennis experts are regarding the tier 1 of this era to be one of, if not the best ever. Murray is the only other player in the game who can consistently face Djodalrer and you not know what the result is going to be.

Then they didn't watch the late 70's and early 80's.

NadalAgassi 11-30-2012 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BauerAlmeida (Post 7040382)
Murray TOP 20?? Huge LOL

Federer, Hewitt, Sampras, Agassi, Safin, Becker, Roddick, Edberg, Courier, Djokovic, Nadal, Kafelnikov, Lendl, Wilander, Rafter, Kuerten. I thought of 16 players who were better only since the late or mid 80's only. Then add just a few from before that (let's say Mac, Connors, Borg, Vilas and Nastase) and you don't even have to leave the open era to find 20 players better than Murray.

Roddick, Rafter, Kafelnikov are all highly questionable.

Roddick- Only edge is his year end #1. Otherwise Murray's career trumps Roddick in everyway now.

Rafter- 2 slams but something like only 11 singles titles. Not much longevity as a top player, not much in the way of achievements outside his U.S Open titels and Wimbledon finals.

Kafelnikov- 2 slams but couldnt even win a single Masters vs the 8 Murray has won, many less slam finals and semis than Murray, and Murray also has Olympic Gold.

Razoredge 11-30-2012 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BauerAlmeida (Post 7040382)
Murray TOP 20?? Huge LOL

Federer, Hewitt, Sampras, Agassi, Safin, Becker, Roddick, Edberg, Courier, Djokovic, Nadal, Kafelnikov, Lendl, Wilander, Rafter, Kuerten. I thought of 16 players who were better only since the late or mid 80's only. Then add just a few from before that (let's say Mac, Connors, Borg, Vilas and Nastase) and you don't even have to leave the open era to find 20 players better than Murray.

Roddick is better than Murray? HAHAHAHAHAHAH

Take a look at Roddick's h2h against Fed, Nadal, and Djokovic. Now take a look at Murray's h2h.

Andy's head to head against Roddick himself is 8-3.

NOT TO MENTION MURRAY MADE RODDICK LOOK LIKE A SECOND RATE FOOL AT WIMBLEDON WHEN HE WAS JUST A TEENAGER

Phoenix1983 11-30-2012 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razoredge (Post 7040393)
Roddick is better than Murray? HAHAHAHAHAHAH

Take a look at Roddick's h2h against Fed, Nadal, and Djokovic. Now take a look at Murray's h2h.

Andy's head to head against Roddick himself is 8-3.

NOT TO MENTION MURRAY MADE RODDICK LOOK LIKE A SECOND RATE FOOL AT WIMBLEDON WHEN HE WAS JUST A TEENAGER

At this point I rate Roddick just above Murray, due to his ranking achievements (reached No 1, nine years in top ten). However they are pretty close.

Sabratha 11-30-2012 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983 (Post 7040399)
At this point I rate Roddick just above Murray, due to his ranking achievements (reached No 1, nine years in top ten). However they are pretty close.

Murray: 4.5 years in the top 5, reached as high as #2, has spent the majority of his career ranked at #4, and has had a very consistent career.

Roddick: 3 years as a top five player, reached #1, spent the majority of his career ranked 2-7, has come close to winning Wimbledon a few times, has fallen out of the top ten at some point after achieving the #1 ranking (2006 at #12).

I don't know, I am going to pick Murray over Roddick.

Homeboy Hotel 11-30-2012 02:51 PM

What he's achieved, how he's achieved it, what he's had to put up with, how he's improved....the answers to these questions constitutes a mandate to be in the best 100.

BauerAlmeida 11-30-2012 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi (Post 7040388)
Roddick, Rafter, Kafelnikov are all highly questionable.

Roddick- Only edge is his year end #1. Otherwise Murray's career trumps Roddick in everyway now.

Rafter- 2 slams but something like only 11 singles titles. Not much longevity as a top player, not much in the way of achievements outside his U.S Open titels and Wimbledon finals.

Kafelnikov- 2 slams but couldnt even win a single Masters vs the 8 Murray has won, many less slam finals and semis than Murray, and Murray also has Olympic Gold.

It's true. Roddick's only edge is being #1. But that's good enough, at least untill Murray wins another slam or reachs #1 himself. Rafter and Kafelnikov have 2 slams and #1. Murray may defeat them in everything else, but those are the most important things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razoredge (Post 7040393)
Roddick is better than Murray? HAHAHAHAHAHAH

Take a look at Roddick's h2h against Fed, Nadal, and Djokovic. Now take a look at Murray's h2h.

Andy's head to head against Roddick himself is 8-3.

NOT TO MENTION MURRAY MADE RODDICK LOOK LIKE A SECOND RATE FOOL AT WIMBLEDON WHEN HE WAS JUST A TEENAGER

And Roddick beat Murray at Wimbledon when Murray was in his prime and Roddick was in decline, so?? Murray has a negative H2H against 2 of the 3 players you mentioned. Don't know why you even bring it up. He only has the positive H2H against Federer but facing a much worse Federer than Roddick. And despite the H2H he never beat him at a slam. H2H are more important than being #1?? No.

And let's say Murray is better than Roddick, well, put Newcombe, Kodes or Stan Smith. Multiple slam winners and were ranked #1 (except Kodes).

There you have more than 20 players better than Murray only in the Open Era.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse