Will Murray ever be in the 100 Greatest of All Time

[Fedex]

Originally Posted by vive le beau jeu !

good one !

That sheep looks terrified. And rightly so!

[Goosehead]

Originally Posted by Fedex

It's a well known Glaswegian term of endearment.

Do you remember Alan Partridge had a nervous break down and drove bare foot to Dundee?

aahh haaaaaaaa

dont forget he was eating loads of bars of toblerone "and i dont mean the small bars of toblerone..i mean the MEDIUM SIZED ones"

[sonicare]

Murray isn't even above Delpotro. Del potro demolished a peak Nadal and beat federer back to back to win his first USO.

Murray had a gassed out djokovic in terrible playing conditions.

Also Murray has a repelling personality. Del potro is much more likeable which is worth an extra slam or two.

Come at me Muzzatards!! I am ready and loaded.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by sonicare

Murray isn't even above Delpotro. Del potro demolished a peak Nadal and beat federer back to back to win his first USO.

Murray had a gassed out djokovic in terrible playing conditions.

Also Murray has a repelling personality. Del potro is much more likeable which is worth an extra slam or two.

Come at me Muzzatards!! I am ready and loaded.

Del Potro's USO win was certainly more impressive then Murray's. Murray still can't beat Fed at a slam. ROFL

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Del Potro's USO win was certainly more impressive then Murray's. Murray still can't beat Fed at a slam. ROFL

that's a tough feat for anybody.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

that's a tough feat for anybody.

Murray should have been able to do it by now if hes truly supposed to be the "next big thing".. Nadal, Djoker have done it on numerous occasions.

[volleygirl]

Originally Posted by BauerAlmeida

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

Thats the way it seems to be in all sports. So many people just assume the best ever HAVE to be the ones playing today.

[Sabratha]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Murray should have been able to do it by now if hes truly supposed to be the "next big thing".. Nadal, Djoker have done it on numerous occasions.

And spending a little while at #1 doesn't mean he has to be the "next big thing". He's already the next big thing in Britian anyway, as he's a national icon over there. If he spends over 13 weeks at #1, he will be in the top 100 for certain.

[Hawkeye7]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Murray should have been able to do it by now if hes truly supposed to be the "next big thing".. Nadal, Djoker have done it on numerous occasions.

They only played 3 slam matches and all were finals. Djokovic has never beaten Federer in a slam final either. In fact in 2 of those 3 slams, Djokovic lost to Federer as well and in the 3rd one (AO 2010) he lost to Tsonga who Federer then went on to beat with ease. It's not like Murray had that many opportunities. In fact only 2 men ever beat Federer in a slam final: Nadal and Del Potro.

[rocketassist]

Originally Posted by sonicare

Murray isn't even above Delpotro. Del potro demolished a peak Nadal and beat federer back to back to win his first USO.

Murray had a gassed out djokovic in terrible playing conditions.

Also Murray has a repelling personality. Del potro is much more likeable which is worth an extra slam or two.

Come at me Muzzatards!! I am ready and loaded.

Who has the bigger career accomplishments?

Most impressive slam win doesn't mean better career. Safin's AO 05 win was at a far higher level than a lot of players, doesn't put him above them.

Regarding the topic, easily, he's already top 30 Open Era (just below Roddick and just above Chang IMO). Before you WTA ***** get ****y, I don't count WTA players.

[Sabratha]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye7

They only played 3 slam matches and all were finals. Djokovic has never beaten Federer in a slam final either. In fact in 2 of those 3 slams, Djokovic lost to Federer as well and in the 3rd one (AO 2010) he lost to Tsonga who Federer then went on to beat with ease. It's not like Murray had that many opportunities. In fact only 2 men ever beat Federer in a slam final: Nadal and Del Potro.

Agreed. Entirely.

[Mainad]

Originally Posted by sonicare

Murray isn't even above Delpotro. Del potro demolished a peak Nadal and beat federer back to back to win his first USO.

LOL!

How many Slam finals has Del Potro been in? Answer = 1.
How many Slam finals has Murray been in? Answer = 5.
How many Masters titles has Murray won? Answer = 8.
How many Masters titles has Del Potro won. Answer = 0.

Case closed.

Originally Posted by sonicare

Murray had a gassed out djokovic in terrible playing conditions.

ROTFWL! I don't recall the final being interrupted because of the "terrible playing conditions" like the AO, FO and Wimby finals all were!

Originally Posted by sonicare

Also Murray has a repelling personality. Del potro is much more likeable which is worth an extra slam or two.

I bet you've just got the hots for big, hairy, Argies haven't you?
And I'm afraid you don't win Slams just by being a nice guy. Fact.

Originally Posted by sonicare

Come at me Muzzatards!! I am ready and loaded.

Hardly worth it. Firing blanks as usual!

[beast of mallorca]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Del Potro's USO win was certainly more impressive then Murray's. Murray still can't beat Fed at a slam. ROFL

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

that's a tough feat for anybody.

Haha. Nadal did it 8/10x.
Humbalito is so freaking arrogant !!.............

[Hawkeye7]

Originally Posted by Mainad

I bet you've just got the hots for big, hairy, Argies haven't you?
And I'm afraid you don't win Slams just by being a nice guy. Fact.

DelPo isn't even that nice. I have seen him use gamesmanship in order to win matches many times. He's not better than the rest of them, a myth.

[BauerAlmeida]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Chang may be overrated in some circles but he isnt overrated on that list. Can you name alot (or any) players who werent ranked above him by the TC list who should have been? Even Kafelnikov and Roddick (who I dont even agree with you are superior to Chang or Murray and who I think you drastically overrate, especialy Kafelnikov the worst 2 slam winner in history by far excluding Kriek) were ranked above him. It is pretty safe to say Chang is at worst a top 70 player all time, and Murray is definitely better than Chang. Sorry I think the idea Murray isnt a top 100 mens player of all time is laughable at this point, even for those who think he is weaker than people like Roddick and Kafelnikov, those people themselves are way inside the top 100 so it doesnt matter.

Chang's ranked fine there. But he is not Hall of Fame material imo.

And of course Murray is TOP 100, what I said is he doesn't come close to the TOP 20. I never said he shouldn't be included, he is probably around 50 or so. But people saying he is TOP 10 is laughable.

Kafelnikov maybe the worst 2 slam winner but neither Chang, Roddick and Murray have 2 slams. Besides that he was #1 and an olympic gold winner. He is ahead of the other 3 in terms of achievements. If Murray wins another slam and has at least a week at number 1 his career will be far superior to the other 3. He is already ahead of Chang and would be ahead of Roddick if it wasn't for Roddick being 1 in 2003.

At the moment is probably something like this imo:

1-Kafelnikov
2-Roddick/Murray (Is till give Roddick the edge because of being #1)
4-Chang

At the end of his career Murray will be the better player of those 4.

[Sabratha]

I see Murray ending his career with (maybe) three slams (probably two) and some time at #1.

Ranked at #1 - Probably around 20 weeks.
Slams - 2012 US Open, 2013 Australian Open/2013 Wimbledon.
YEC - (Maybe) 2013.
Masters - Probably around 12-14.

With that, he will trump Roddick in every single way.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by BauerAlmeida

Chang's ranked fine there. But he is not Hall of Fame material imo.

And of course Murray is TOP 100, what I said is he doesn't come close to the TOP 20. I never said he shouldn't be included, he is probably around 50 or so. But people saying he is TOP 10 is laughable.

Kafelnikov maybe the worst 2 slam winner but neither Chang, Roddick and Murray have 2 slams. Besides that he was #1 and an olympic gold winner. He is ahead of the other 3 in terms of achievements. If Murray wins another slam and has at least a week at number 1 his career will be far superior to the other 3. He is already ahead of Chang and would be ahead of Roddick if it wasn't for Roddick being 1 in 2003.

At the moment is probably something like this imo:

1-Kafelnikov
2-Roddick/Murray (Is till give Roddick the edge because of being #1)
4-Chang

At the end of his career Murray will be the better player of those 4.

Chang or Roddick probably isn't HOF material if they were strict on who they induct but since they aren't. Chang deserves to be in there. Youngest Slam champion ever, spent quite a long time at the top, and won quite a few titles winning 34 in all. . He had fantastic results all around the world tour during his career.

[BauerAlmeida]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Chang or Roddick probably isn't HOF material if they were strict on who they induct but since they aren't. Chang deserves to be in there. Youngest Slam champion ever, spent quite a long time at the top, and won quite a few titles winning 34 in all. . He had fantastic results all around the world tour during his career.

Yeah, he had a great career for sure, and he accomplished what seems to be needed to be in the HOF as it is now, but they should be stricter in my opinion.

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by beast of mallorca

Haha. Nadal did it 8/10x.
Humbalito is so freaking arrogant !!.............

no doubt Nadal is great

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by beast of mallorca

Haha. Nadal did it 8/10x.
Humbalito is so freaking arrogant !!.............

Well Nadal is a great player. He does things that few other players can do.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye7

They only played 3 slam matches and all were finals. Djokovic has never beaten Federer in a slam final either. In fact in 2 of those 3 slams, Djokovic lost to Federer as well and in the 3rd one (AO 2010) he lost to Tsonga who Federer then went on to beat with ease. It's not like Murray had that many opportunities. In fact only 2 men ever beat Federer in a slam final: Nadal and Del Potro.

I agree that Murray hasn't played enough slam matches vs Federer to really compare with Djokovic, but I don't think the difference between final and semis makes any difference really. Plus saying that Murray has not had that many opportunities is right, but Djokovic with one slam final vs Federer which happened to be his first has has even less opportunity to beat Fed in a slam final than Muray has had to beat him in a slam.