Sir Andrew Murray is undoubtedly an alltime great of this sport

cockneyDjoker · Sep 30, 2017

And I'll tell you why.

Has won 3 grand slam championships.

Has reached 11 grand slam finals.

Has reached #1 in an era of the 3 greatest players this sport has ever witnessed.

Has 2 Olympic gold medals.

Andrew Murray is an alltime great of the sport that had to compete with the greatest. In a weaker era he would have 8 grand slams by now.

cockneyDjoker · Sep 30, 2017

Another reason is that he's had to battle through severe back operation and still ended up on top of the world.

Deleted member 307496 · Sep 30, 2017

No, he's not.

Now go back to Twitter.

Deleted member 307496 · Sep 30, 2017

He also reached #1 in a weak era without the other three even in contention lmao.

Olympics are a glorified exo.

Deleted member 307496 · Sep 30, 2017

In another era he could have less GS titles.

2004-2007 for as much flak as Federer gets... No way Murray converts any titles from any finals against a player like that. So he goes slamless then because he isn't beating Nadal at RG and as @vex said before; he'd be "blocked" by both of them across all surfaces until at least 2010 so if he was the same age as Roddick he might be slamless or be as accomplished as Roddick in that regard.

We regularly forget that although Roddick suffered against Federer he had more success against Nadal/Djokovic. And although it never translated into major success there's evidence it could have "in another era".

ojo rojo · Sep 30, 2017

Unecessary thread.. Why feed the haters?

Purplemonster · Sep 30, 2017

Sabratha said:
He also reached #1 in a weak era without the other three even in contention lmao.

Olympics are a glorified exo.

Yes and Loss/Win record in grand slam finals

cockneyDjoker · Sep 30, 2017

Sabratha said:
No, he's not.

Now go back to Twitter.

Twitter is a mug free zone.

So someone like you wouldn't fit in very well on twitter

cockneyDjoker · Sep 30, 2017

Sabratha said:
In another era he could have less GS titles.

2004-2007 for as much flak as Federer gets... No way Murray converts any titles from any finals against a player like that. So he goes slamless then because he isn't beating Nadal at RG and as @vex said before; he'd be "blocked" by both of them across all surfaces until at least 2010 so if he was the same age as Roddick he might be slamless or be as accomplished as Roddick in that regard.

We regularly forget that although Roddick suffered against Federer he had more success against Nadal/Djokovic. And although it never translated into major success there's evidence it could have "in another era".

Federer dominated a weak era where he played titans like Baghdatis and Gonzalez.

Murray also had a positive H2H with Federer in this time so he would likely win some slams.

KINGROGER · Sep 30, 2017

If Murray's prime was in 04 - 07 h'ed have 0 slams... maybe he'd vulture a Wimbledon in 2010.

If there was no Federer?

I could see him winning 2-3 slams, about the same as he has now.

cockneyDjoker said:
Federer dominated a weak era where he played titans like Baghdatis and Gonzalez.

Murray also had a positive H2H with Federer in this time so he would likely win some slams.

Which ones? If you swapped him with Federer that is.

I could see maybe 05 Wimbledon, 06 AO, 06 USO perhaps. Not much else. Same as he has around about now. If Federer was actually there? 0.

Also that same Baghdatis who played better than Murray did in certain AO finals? Same for Gonzalez.

Dope Reign · Sep 30, 2017

Sabratha said:
He also reached #1 in a weak era without the other three even in contention lmao.

Olympics are a glorified exo.

Djokovic made 3 slam finals, winning 2 of them, and won 4 masters last year..

Contention have some unique meaning to you that the rest of the planet is unaware of?

Sabratha said:
In another era he could have less GS titles.

2004-2007 for as much flak as Federer gets... No way Murray converts any titles from any finals against a player like that. So he goes slamless then because he isn't beating Nadal at RG and as @vex said before; he'd be "blocked" by both of them across all surfaces until at least 2010 so if he was the same age as Roddick he might be slamless or be as accomplished as Roddick in that regard.

We regularly forget that although Roddick suffered against Federer he had more success against Nadal/Djokovic. And although it never translated into major success there's evidence it could have "in another era".

Roddick reached #1 with 1 slam, 2 masters. His main competitors were either injured, old or federer before he was Federer.

.

Sysyphus · Sep 30, 2017

Murray equals Fed with 3 slams each in the stronk era of modern tennis, with a great chance of surpassing him in this category in the coming years. He also has defended an Olympic Singles Gold, an unparalleled achievement, the grand prize of the grandest stage of sports as such.

Murray could well end up on the Rushmore of tennis history, that much is clear.

thrust · Sep 30, 2017

cockneyDjoker said:
And I'll tell you why.

Has won 3 grand slam championships.

Has reached 11 grand slam finals.

Has reached #1 in an era of the 3 greatest players this sport has ever witnessed.

Has 2 Olympic gold medals.

Andrew Murray is an alltime great of the sport that had to compete with the greatest. In a weaker era he would have 8 grand slams by now.

Not quite good enough, Sorry. At his best, Andy is a great player but accomplishment wise, neither he or any player with less than 10 slams can be considered an all time great. Great, yes. ATG, no.

thrust · Sep 30, 2017

Dope Reign said:
Djokovic made 3 slam finals, winning 2 of them, and won 4 masters last year..

Contention have some unique meaning to you that the rest of the planet is unaware of?

Roddick reached #1 with 1 slam, 2 masters. His main competitors were either injured, old or federer before he was Federer.

.

Roddick in the HOF, is a pathetic joke!

Pepe Imazzing122 · Sep 30, 2017

Murray only made it far because Rafa and Roger were injured and Djokovic didn't have Pepe Imaz

Deleted member 307496 · Sep 30, 2017

cockneyDjoker said:
Federer dominated a weak era where he played titans like Baghdatis and Gonzalez.

Murray also had a positive H2H with Federer in this time so he would likely win some slams.

Yeah him getting a mug like Raonic is any better.. Lol.

He has a crap H2H VS Fed in slams.

Deleted member 307496 · Sep 30, 2017

Dope Reign said:
Djokovic made 3 slam finals, winning 2 of them, and won 4 masters last year..

Contention have some unique meaning to you that the rest of the planet is unaware of?

And was crushing Murray in the first half of the year - until he fell off at Wimbledon which was when Murray started cleaning up with nobody around.

Dope Reign said:
Roddick reached #1 with 1 slam, 2 masters. His main competitors were either injured, old or federer before he was Federer.

Forget the fact he made the SF of the two other slams which were won by Agassi and Federer - two ATGs (who actually are ATGs) along with various other deep runs in other tournaments.

Federer also displayed a very high level at Wimbledon and the YEC.

Deleted member 307496 · Sep 30, 2017

And one of the finals Djokovic made was with an abysmal draw and making it through via withdrawrals.

Surprise, surprise. In the second half of the year.

Red Rick · Sep 30, 2017

Sysyphus said:
Murray equals Fed with 3 slams each in the stronk era of modern tennis, with a great chance of surpassing him in this category in the coming years. He also has defended an Olympic Singles Gold, an unparalleled achievement, the grand prize of the grandest stage of sports as such.

Murray could well end up on the Rushmore of tennis history, that much is clear.

One cannot be greater than Mury. Only few have the wisdom to pursue other noble feats. Take Phenom Fognini for example. He has achieved Fogginess in all its Fabiousness.

Dope Reign · Sep 30, 2017

Sabratha said:
Yeah him getting a mug like Raonic is any better.. Lol.

He has a crap H2H VS Fed in slams.

Marcos made 2 masters semis in his career, Raonic has made 3 finals and 5 semis. 8 titles versus 4 etc. By basic math Raonic is better.

Sabratha said:
And was crushing Murray in the first half of the year - until he fell off at Wimbledon which was when Murray started cleaning up with nobody around.

Cool story love. So Murray was **** the first half of the year and then when he picked it up, Djokovic started taking a dive to preserve his h2h. No wait that's the Fed-Nadal excuse.

They played 5 times last year with Djokovic winning 3. Crushing also defined differently? Please explain this marvelous lexicon of yours.

NatF · Sep 30, 2017

Mury GOAT. So he's an ATG by extension no?

clayqueen · Sep 30, 2017

Who thinks Murray will reclaim the #1 ranking ever?

Bartelby · Sep 30, 2017

Why not? It's entirely possible.

reaper · Sep 30, 2017

Bartelby said:
Why not? It's entirely possible.

To claim the number 1 he really had to bust himself by playing full bore every week late last year. Now he's achieved that goal and spent an extended period on the sidelines with a significant injury I doubt he'll chase it with the same mania. He's more likely to target specific events off a reduced schedule.

Bartelby · Sep 30, 2017

That is more likely, but we were asked if he could ever do it again and that's entirely possible.

Sysyphus · Sep 30, 2017

Love perennial TTW arguments about the definitions of arbitrary words though

reaper · Sep 30, 2017

Bartelby said:
That is more likely, but we were asked if he could ever do it again and that's entirely possible.

The poster asked will he reclaim number one....not can he reclaim number one?....and as you say he could but it's a tall order.

Bartelby · Sep 30, 2017

I read between the lines and I think correctly. It's clayqueen, after all.

reaper said:
The poster asked will he reclaim number one....not can he reclaim number one?....and as you say he could but it's a tall order.

reaper · Sep 30, 2017

Bartelby said:
I read between the lines and I think correctly. It's clayqueen, after all.

That being the case Murray should be back at number 1 in June 2018, after thumping Nadal in the final at Roland Garros.

Dope Reign · Sep 30, 2017

clayqueen said:
Who thinks Murray will reclaim the #1 ranking ever?

reaper said:
The poster asked will he reclaim number one....not can he reclaim number one?....and as you say he could but it's a tall order.

A year ago this was also a tall order for Nadal.

NatF said:
Mury GOAT. So he's an ATG by extension no?

No. All time great is a level below Murray. Murray is an all dimensional great. All 11 of them. In the 8th dimension Murray is the master. The way he grubers the diagonese through the idioteque is well..incomparable to anything that can be perceived in the 4 dimensions we're familiar with.

Though the 10th dimension is where the Muzziah goes next level. Unfortunately language cannot describe it, but if it could..it would be the guinness of explanations.

reaper · Sep 30, 2017

Dope Reign said:
A year ago this was also a tall order for Nadal.

No. All time great is a level below Murray. Murray is an all dimensional great. All 11 of them. In the 8th dimension Murray is the master. The way he grubers the diagonese through the idioteque is well..incomparable to anything that can be perceived in the 4 dimensions we're familiar with.

Though the 10th dimension is where the Muzziah goes next level. Unfortunately language cannot describe it, but if it could..it would be the guinness of explanations.

It was a tall order for Nadal a year ago....but Nadal's a significantly better player than Murray. He also dominates a major surface which is a massive advantage.

clayqueen · Sep 30, 2017

Dope Reign said:
A year ago this was also a tall order for Nadal.

First of all, Nadal is not Murray and I don't remember anyone thinking it was a tall order for a fit Nadal to get to #1 this year.

Sport · Sep 30, 2017

Sabratha said:
He also reached #1 in a weak era without the other three even in contention lmao.

Olympics are a glorified exo.

Typical Fed fan "logic". If Federer hasn't won a particular title, then it is a glorified exo. If Federer has won it, then it is automatically relevant (Fed fans love to repeat that Federer has won 93 titles, strategically ignoring that 24 of these titles are ATP 250, the less valuable title on the tour).

Mainad · Sep 30, 2017

Pepe Imazzing122 said:
Murray only made it far because Rafa and Roger were injured and Djokovic didn't have Pepe Imaz

I think most of us on here assume that should have been an incentive!

BringBackWood · Sep 30, 2017

Still can't believe Murray's a Sir. Henman deserved a title more than him, since he is way more talented. Henman was just unlucky that pure serve & volley became the hardest play style in his era. Murray lucked out to be competing in an era where success is more & more determined by how long you spend in the 'gym'.

Also wish someone would define an 'ATG' without using the word 'great'.

Mainad · Sep 30, 2017

thrust said:
Not quite good enough, Sorry. At his best, Andy is a great player but accomplishment wise, neither he or any player with less than 10 slams can be considered an all time great. Great, yes. ATG, no.

So that would make for just 8 men (Tilden, Emerson, Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic) and 7 women (Wills Moody, Court, King, Navratilova, Evert, Graf and Serena) as ATGs. Interestingly, all but 2 of these players are still living and 4 are still active. Select little company!

Mainad · Sep 30, 2017

BringBackWood said:
Still can't believe Murray's a Sir. Henman deserved a title more than him, since he is way more talented. Henman was just unlucky that pure serve & volley became the hardest play style in his era. Murray lucked out to be competing in an era where success is more & more determined by how long you spend in the 'gym'.

Also wish someone would define an 'ATG' without using the word 'great'.

Still got a down on Scottish tennis players I see. Is it just the tennis players or Scots in general?

BringBackWood · Sep 30, 2017

Mainad said:
Still got a down on Scottish tennis players I see. Is it just the tennis players or Scots in general?

Only one Scot my friend, only one. Well ok, now you mention it the SNP can take a hike as well.

Mainad · Sep 30, 2017

BringBackWood said:
Only one Scot my friend, only one. Well ok, now you mention it the SNP can take a hike as well.

So why has this one particular Scot upset you so much?

BringBackWood · Sep 30, 2017

Mainad said:
So why has this one particular Scot upset you so much?

I detest his game style 2012 ->, I don't like his cursing and whining, his virtue signalling off court etc

deacsyoga · Sep 30, 2017

I dont really think so but then again 60% of site thinks Sharapova is and if she is, he is. His career is atleast as strong as hers. I would rate a women with the exact same achiements as Murray atleast equal with her.

BringBackWood · Sep 30, 2017

deacsyoga said:
I dont really think so but then again 60% of site thinks Sharapova is and if she is, he is. His career is atleast as strong as hers. I would rate a women with the exact same achiements as Murray atleast equal with her.

I agree neither is, but Sharapova has stronger career than Murray. Career grand slam, winning a slam at 17. Andy doesn't come close to that.

mike danny · Sep 30, 2017

Andy is great. But he isn't an all time great. He only has 3 slams. He would have found a way to win more if he had been one.

And now that Stan who isn't anywhere near ATG status has the same amount of majors as him, I'm afraid Murray has no case.

K-H · Sep 30, 2017

I like Andy a lot but he's not an ATG. I feel he deserves to be ranked higher than a '3 time GS winner' because he's more than that. But not an ATG.

Mainad · Sep 30, 2017

BringBackWood said:
I detest his game style 2012 ->, I don't like his cursing and whining, his virtue signalling off court etc

That just tells me you don't like him on a personal level which is fair enough but that's still no excuse for disrespecting his achievements as a player. You still need to be objective about a player's career irrespective of your personal feelings towards them otherwise you cannot be called a true tennis fan.

-NN- · Sep 30, 2017

It's not undoubted because there are a number of fans who have pretty stringent standards for ATGs.

Mainad · Sep 30, 2017

mike danny said:
Andy is great. But he isn't an all time great. He only has 3 slams. He would have found a way to win more if he had been one.

And now that Stan who isn't anywhere near ATG status has the same amount of majors as him, I'm afraid Murray has no case.

I can see your reasoning if you judge a player's career SOLELY by how they perform at the Slams. Personally, I like to take whole career achievements into consideration and, in that respect, Andy remains far ahead of Stan.

Mainad · Sep 30, 2017

BringBackWood said:
I agree neither is, but Sharapova has stronger career than Murray. Career grand slam, winning a slam at 17. Andy doesn't come close to that.

Neither does Sampras for that matter!

-NN- · Sep 30, 2017

Add a poll please.

User123 · Sep 30, 2017

Murray is very overrated. Overrated mostly by Djokovic fans (see who made the thread by the way) who can't accept the fact that Djokovic dominated in a weak era in 2014-2016, so they try to make Murray look better than he really is. Actually Murray is a good player against the field in general. But against his main rivals he is completely awful. And there are no excuses.

Sir Andrew Murray is undoubtedly an alltime great of this sport

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Deleted member 307496

Guest

Deleted member 307496

Guest

Deleted member 307496

Guest

Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

Legend

New User

Deleted member 307496

Guest

Deleted member 307496

Guest

Deleted member 307496

Guest

Bionic Poster

Banned

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

Legend

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

Bionic Poster

Legend

Banned

Legend

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Professional

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Professional

Bionic Poster

Professional

Banned

Professional

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Similar threads