Compromise on Murray

Do you support the Muzzah line?

  • Total voters
    52
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
Not for me according to my definition. Three slams just isn't enough IMO. I have Becker/Edberg/Wilander as the cut off point and regardless of era I don't see Murray quite in that company. If he had made more of his slam finals close and had one more I would possibly (probably) relent and say he's an ATG. Right now probably still 1-2 slams away.
 
Wurm

Wurm

Professional
buscemi said:
If anyone in the former group has a case, it's Courier, with 4 Majors and 58 weeks at #1.
Click to expand...

But that's the usual reductionist case of cherry picking the only two things about Courier's career that can support the case.

Courier has 23 career titles to Murray's 46.
Courier has 5 Masters titles to Murray's 14.
Courier made 8 slam finals to Murray's 11.
Courier made a further 3 slam semi-finals to Murray's 10.
Courier has 0 WTF titles (2 finals though) to Murray's 1.
Courier has 0 Olympic golds to Murray's 2.
Courier won 5 titles in his most successful season. Murray won 6 in '09 and 9 in '16.
Courier's longest winning streak, in 1992, was 25 matches. Murray did 29 at the end of '16 going into '17.

And let's not forget Murray spent more weeks at #1 than Wilander and Becker.

All of Courier's notable achievements came in a three year period 91-93 when the only ATG around consistently somewhere close to their prime over that time was Edberg (Becker's 92/93 were clouded by his personal life, Agassi and Sampras weren't entirely there yet, Lendl's career was on the downturn due to his back, Connors and McEnroe were still around but largely also rans and Wilander had lost interest). Edberg was hardly a dominant player - never had a two slam season... only actually ever made two slam finals in a single season - and Courier was better than him on slow courts anyway.

The reality is that the players who're not the outstanding talent of their generation are not entirely in control of their achievements - as Federer's achievements at the FO amply demonstrate.

Courier is exactly the kind of player who proves the point about Murray (chief among others) being unfortunate to be competing with the three GOATs as Courier had a three season window of opportunity and he took it. Once that window closed he basically had a Ferrer-like career. Wawrinka's three slam titles provides the obvious counter argument but that's a different discussion.

Ultimately it's only on forums like this where people get into the "is he an ATG" debate and with 3 slam titles from 11 finals he's never going to satisfy some people. Whatever.
 
AnOctorokForDinner

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
Wurm said:
But that's the usual reductionist case of cherry picking the only two things about Courier's career that can support the case.

Courier has 23 career titles to Murray's 46.
Courier has 5 Masters titles to Murray's 14.
Courier made 8 slam finals to Murray's 11.
Courier made a further 3 slam semi-finals to Murray's 10.
Courier has 0 WTF titles (2 finals though) to Murray's 1.
Courier has 0 Olympic golds to Murray's 2.
Courier won 5 titles in his most successful season. Murray won 6 in '09 and 9 in '16.
Courier's longest winning streak, in 1992, was 25 matches. Murray did 29 at the end of '16 going into '17.

And let's not forget Murray spent more weeks at #1 than Wilander and Becker.

All of Courier's notable achievements came in a three year period 91-93 when the only ATG around consistently somewhere close to their prime over that time was Edberg (Becker's 92/93 were clouded by his personal life, Agassi and Sampras weren't entirely there yet, Lendl's career was on the downturn due to his back, Connors and McEnroe were still around but largely also rans and Wilander had lost interest). Edberg was hardly a dominant player - never had a two slam season... only actually ever made two slam finals in a single season - and Courier was better than him on slow courts anyway.

The reality is that the players who're not the outstanding talent of their generation are not entirely in control of their achievements - as Federer's achievements at the FO amply demonstrate.

Courier is exactly the kind of player who proves the point about Murray (chief among others) being unfortunate to be competing with the three GOATs as Courier had a three season window of opportunity and he took it. Once that window closed he basically had a Ferrer-like career. Wawrinka's three slam titles provides the obvious counter argument but that's a different discussion.

Ultimately it's only on forums like this where people get into the "is he an ATG" debate and with 3 slam titles from 11 finals he's never going to satisfy some people. Whatever.
Click to expand...

I agree Murray>Courier but no need to diss Courier. By that lolgic, had Murray failed to recover from the 2013 back surgery he could've been dissed just the same, as if his 2012-13 success would've been tainted by lack of longevity.
 
Service Ace

Service Ace

Hall of Fame
In any other era, Murray wins 12 slams EASILY. Only the most pigheaded of fools can’t recognize that Murray is hands down a HOF ATG and one of the top 10 players to ever pick up a racquet. And spare me his finals record, what matters is piling up stats and eeking out a couple slams to round out your resume.
 
Breakpointerer

Breakpointerer

Legend
Service Ace said:
In any other era, Murray wins 12 slams EASILY. Only the most pigheaded of fools can’t recognize that Murray is hands down a HOF ATG and one of the top 10 players to ever pick up a racquet. And spare me his finals record, what matters is piling up stats and eeking out a couple slams to round out your resume.
Click to expand...
How many do you think Murray wins in 04-07 era? 16/16?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSH
chjtennis

chjtennis

G.O.A.T.
If people are talking about the status of Murray in GOAT discussion, I have a firm opinion that he is NOT a GOAT. He simply hasn't achieved enough. His achievement is about as good as Gustavo Kuerten's but nobody even sees Kuerten as a GOAT, he is not even in the discussion. You can't argue against statistics. However, When you talk about how great Murray has been as a player, it's more about your personal opinion and thousands of different assessments can be made by thousands of different people. I just would like to point out that Murray has been the only consistent and legitimate threat to Big 3, being able to match and beat them on merit. That in itself makes him a player with a high caliber of abilities. No one has even come close to Murray in the past 15 years in terms of achievement on consistent basis outside Big 3, even Wawrinka and Delpo. He is clearly below Big 3, but clearly above the rest, and YE#1 in 2016 was a well deserved reward. There's also one important bit of history in Murray's career that needs to be considered and that is his back surgery in 2013. He was matching Djokovic in late 2012 to early 2013, his absolute peak year, in terms of level of play. I have a strong conviction Murray would've won more than twice more slams than he has now had his career not been disturbed by that back injury. Think of all those wasted time lost in rehabs, and the momentum in his career. It took strong will and determination for him to get back on track and finally got to world number one. I certainly believe he deserves huge respect and to me, he has been right up there with Big 3 in men's tennis since 2007 as a member of Big 4. He has his own place in the Golden Era of men's tennis, and I just feel sorry for him for not being able to achieve more by losing out a big chunk of his prime years. He could have probably won a couple more Wimbledon and US Open titles, two slams his style really suits. And Big 3 would've had less slams than now, for sure, if healthy Murray was always there.
 
Lew II

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
Slam matches against GOATs (Laver, Rosewall, Borg, Sampras, Big3)

Murray 25
Becker 3
Edberg 2
Wilander 1
 
Steve0904

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
Breakpointerer said:
How many do you think Murray wins in 04-07 era? 16/16?
Click to expand...

Anybody that thinks Murray wins a load of slams in any other era (never mind 12) is just either dismissing his first 2 slam finals until Wimbledon 2012 or didn't see them. It was so clear that he had bad stage fright until he played well in a loss at Wimbledon 2012. Not only that, he would never win double digits in any other era because his second serve and FH were average at best. His FH (and mental) improvement under Lendl is the main reason Murray has the slams he does, and I'm very happy for him. I've always liked to see him succeed, but he was never winning double digit slams no matter when he played. That was obvious from the start to anyone who paid attention. He might've had a Becker/Edberg slam total, and that's being nice IMO.

Impossible to compare across eras, first of all, but there were many good/great players in the 80's-90's to stop Murray from winning slams. Starting with Sampras and prime Agassi in the 90's for two, lol. Also, no surface homogenization So I'll focus on 04-07.

Roddick beat him at Wimbledon in 2009 when he wasn't even in his prime, really. He just had one last great tournament and that was it. Not even mentioning guys like Hewitt, Ancic, Scud, Grosjean, Johansson and his compatriot Henman. So even without Fed (and also Nadal to be nice), it's far from a guarantee that Murray wins Wimbledon in his early years. He probably has to take a loss or two in a final to Hewitt and/or Roddick before he actually wins Wimbledon so it's not that much different from his true career trajectory.

His USO performances are up and down to say the least. He won in 2012 sure, but he has a lot of early losses for a player of his caliber as well. And even without Federer and Nadal he has to beat a very good, if old, Agassi, Hewitt (a former champion), Nalbandian, Davydenko, Roddick again, James Blake, who beat Nadal in 05. Even Ferrer who beat Nadal in 2007 was never an easy out for Murray. Remember, Murray has losses to Cilic, Wawrinka (in 2010 and 2013 so pre Stanimal, especially 2010) Anderson, and Nishikori on his record at the USO. Pretty good players sure, but not at all noticeably better than the aforementioned group, worse tbh.

He might win an AO, maybe 2 considering he was really good there, but even there he'd have to beat the same guys mentioned above that he would probably struggle with at the USO, and that too on Rebound Ace, not plexi. On plexi he'd probably beat those guys, but on Rebound Ace it's far from a guarantee. And I shouldn't forget Safin who was awesome at the AO, and guys like Baghdatis, Gonzalez and Tsonga who had the tournaments of their lives there. Lots of depth of competition in 04-07, just not top heavy like it's been post that time.

And re Murray and RG: Not even worth discussing.
 
Last edited:
zagor

zagor

Bionic Poster
I think Murray's relative weaknesses (2nd serve, FH not a dominant shot) would have stopped him from becoming this 8-10 slam winner people see in any era basically.

The one exception would maybe be if he was part of the current young gen but then again, maybe he'd also spend all day vlogging then. Impossible to know.
 
mike danny

mike danny

Bionic Poster
The Guru said:
Hmm. I don't think I can agree with that. Would Kuerten be a lesser player if he was born the same year as Nadal and never got an RG? I think you should judge people for what they are not necessarily their results. Kuerten wouldn't be a worse player in that scenario he just would've been unlucky. We can debate whether Murray was unlucky or not but if he was that certainly elevates his status.
Click to expand...
We can make that argument for a slew of other players. Murray wasn't unlucky, he just wasn't good enough.

Everybody always bring up all the slams Murray could have won. But what about the slams he did win? He barely won even his 3 slams so Murray fans should be grateful he even won those.

And yes, we shouldn't start considering Fedovic Kuerten level players on clay just because they had Nadal to deal with. As proven by 2015 and 2004, even when Nadal was out of the picture, they still couldn't win RG. We don't award players statuses they didn't earn.
 
Phoenix1983

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
Mainad said:
The definition of who is an ATG is, of course, entirely subjective but I think we could do worse than adopt the Hall of Fame's definition for those players it grants automatic qualification for entry:

Automatic Inclusion

A Player Category candidate will bypass Enshrinee Nominating Committee review and shall be automatically included on the ballot in the candidate’s first year of eligibility if the candidate satisfies any of the following criteria:

Singles Players

  • Won at least three major singles titles and was World Number 1 for at least 13 total weeks; or
  • Won at least five major singles titles
Click to expand...

By this definition then, the ATGs would be the 12 who everyone agrees on (listed by Buscemi), plus Courier, Murray and Kuerten.

Not sure I quite agree.
 
MeatTornado

MeatTornado

Talk Tennis Guru
Well it's definitely the fortune/misfortune of match-ups, but it's also not simply cherry picking. Stan took him to 5 sets every time they played there, backing up that the 14 win wasn't a fluke. Andy only got to a 5th set once in the 5 cracks he had at Novak there.
 
MeatTornado

MeatTornado

Talk Tennis Guru
and Re: Muzz winning double digit slams without the Big 3

Aside from Andy's own fans, the ones usually saying this are Nole fans trying to prop Andy up as great competition. The same people who believe the game is constantly evolving and improving. By that logic, idk if Andy would be half the player he became without having been pushed by the Big 3 throughout his career. No one in tennis history has ever had a bigger obstacle to break through than Andy did with Fed/Rafa/Nole. Maybe he stagnates as that 08-11ish version of himself without them and never hires Lendl. Maybe he was better as a chaser and didn't have the mentality to be a king long term like Federer or Djokovic.

I've never felt comfortable saying that if you just put him in another era or remove the Big 3 from his era that he'd automatically be this 10+ slam champion. There's too many variables at play.
 
bjsnider

bjsnider

Hall of Fame
Antonio Puente said:
When the slam record was 14 the common number for ATG was 4. Now that Nadal and Fed have pushed it to 19 and 20, the current number seems to be 6, which makes sense. If players are sitting at 20 and beyond(if tennis ever returns), placing ATG status on someone at 4 seems a little generous.
Click to expand...
How did you establish any of this?
 
Antonio Puente

Antonio Puente

Hall of Fame
bjsnider said:
How did you establish any of this?
Click to expand...

I didn't establish anything. I'm giving you what seems to be the consensus opinion among tennis fans.

There's nothing to establish. GOAT, ATG, etc. - they're just opinions. Slam champion - tangible fact. GOAT - opinion. Slam winner - tangible fact. ATG - opinion.
 
Fridge

Fridge

Professional
NatF said:
Not for me according to my definition. Three slams just isn't enough IMO. I have Becker/Edberg/Wilander as the cut off point and regardless of era I don't see Murray quite in that company. If he had made more of his slam finals close and had one more I would possibly (probably) relent and say he's an ATG. Right now probably still 1-2 slams away.
Click to expand...
Not only this but I feel like he never even played amazing in his slam final wins. Sure he was the better player in the finals but I don't think it was some unreachable level and I argue that he player better at other slams and still lost
 
mike danny

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Fridge said:
Not only this but I feel like he never even played amazing in his slam final wins. Sure he was the better player in the finals but I don't think it was some unreachable level and I argue that he player better at other slams and still lost
Click to expand...
Exactly. People always mention the slams he could have won but forget the fact that he struggled to even win the slams that he won. None of his slam wins were easy.
 
Mainad

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Phoenix1983 said:
By this definition then, the ATGs would be the 12 who everyone agrees on (listed by Buscemi), plus Courier, Murray and Kuerten.

Not sure I quite agree.
Click to expand...

I'm always slightly amused that people would object to any of those 3 because of their 'low' Slam count but have no problem accepting Edberg and Becker whose Slam count gap with the Big 3 is roughly 3 times as great as their's is with the 3 players you object to. :cool:
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
Fridge said:
Not only this but I feel like he never even played amazing in his slam final wins. Sure he was the better player in the finals but I don't think it was some unreachable level and I argue that he player better at other slams and still lost
Click to expand...

For sure. Maybe by law of averages he wins more slams in another era because he might be able to beat some other players in five as opposed to losing in three/four to the Big 3? But that's basically all consistency, other lesser players have taken those guys to four sets or even five on their day but they weren't able to bring that level for 6 years like Murray was - which is why he's a greater player than anyone else in this era, but he's not necessarily a shoe in to rack up heaps of majors in another one.
 
Phoenix1983

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
Mainad said:
I'm always slightly amused that people would object to any of those 3 because of their 'low' Slam count but have no problem accepting Edberg and Becker whose Slam count gap with the Big 3 is roughly 3 times as great as their's is with the 3 players you object to. :cool:
Click to expand...

Well obviously there are tiers within the ATG category - the big 3 (plus Sampras and Borg) are in Tier 1, while Wilander/Becker/Edberg are in Tier 3. There has to be a cut off for ATG status though, and this is generally recognised as 5+ or 6+ slams.

Btw Kuerten can by no means even be considered as an ATG. The guy never even reached a slam semi-final outside the FO.
 
Breakpointerer

Breakpointerer

Legend
Steve0904 said:
Anybody that thinks Murray wins a load of slams in any other era (never mind 12) is just either dismissing his first 2 slam finals until Wimbledon 2012 or didn't see them. It was so clear that he had bad stage fright until he played well in a loss at Wimbledon 2012. Not only that, he would never win double digits in any other era because his second serve and FH were average at best. His FH (and mental) improvement under Lendl is the main reason Murray has the slams he does, and I'm very happy for him. I've always liked to see him succeed, but he was never winning double digit slams no matter when he played. That was obvious from the start to anyone who paid attention. He might've had a Becker/Edberg slam total, and that's being nice IMO.

Impossible to compare across eras, first of all, but there were many good/great players in the 80's-90's to stop Murray from winning slams. Starting with Sampras and prime Agassi in the 90's for two, lol. Also, no surface homogenization So I'll focus on 04-07.

Roddick beat him at Wimbledon in 2009 when he wasn't even in his prime, really. He just had one last great tournament and that was it. Not even mentioning guys like Hewitt, Ancic, Scud, Grosjean, Johansson and his compatriot Henman. So even without Fed (and also Nadal to be nice), it's far from a guarantee that Murray wins Wimbledon in his early years. He probably has to take a loss or two in a final to Hewitt and/or Roddick before he actually wins Wimbledon so it's not that much different from his true career trajectory.

His USO performances are up and down to say the least. He won in 2012 sure, but he has a lot of early losses for a player of his caliber as well. And even without Federer and Nadal he has to beat a very good, if old, Agassi, Hewitt (a former champion), Nalbandian, Davydenko, Roddick again, James Blake, who beat Nadal in 05. Even Ferrer who beat Nadal in 2007 was never an easy out for Murray. Remember, Murray has losses to Cilic, Wawrinka (in 2010 and 2013 so pre Stanimal, especially 2010) Anderson, and Nishikori on his record at the USO. Pretty good players sure, but not at all noticeably better than the aforementioned group, worse tbh.

He might win an AO, maybe 2 considering he was really good there, but even there he'd have to beat the same guys mentioned above that he would probably struggle with at the USO, and that too on Rebound Ace, not plexi. On plexi he'd probably beat those guys, but on Rebound Ace it's far from a guarantee. And I shouldn't forget Safin who was awesome at the AO, and guys like Baghdatis, Gonzalez and Tsonga who had the tournaments of their lives there. Lots of depth of competition in 04-07, just not top heavy like it's been post that time.


And re Murray and RG: Not even worth discussing.
Click to expand...
Yeah I agree.
 
mike danny

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Steve0904 said:
Anybody that thinks Murray wins a load of slams in any other era (never mind 12) is just either dismissing his first 2 slam finals until Wimbledon 2012 or didn't see them. It was so clear that he had bad stage fright until he played well in a loss at Wimbledon 2012. Not only that, he would never win double digits in any other era because his second serve and FH were average at best. His FH (and mental) improvement under Lendl is the main reason Murray has the slams he does, and I'm very happy for him. I've always liked to see him succeed, but he was never winning double digit slams no matter when he played. That was obvious from the start to anyone who paid attention. He might've had a Becker/Edberg slam total, and that's being nice IMO.

Impossible to compare across eras, first of all, but there were many good/great players in the 80's-90's to stop Murray from winning slams. Starting with Sampras and prime Agassi in the 90's for two, lol. Also, no surface homogenization So I'll focus on 04-07.

Roddick beat him at Wimbledon in 2009 when he wasn't even in his prime, really. He just had one last great tournament and that was it. Not even mentioning guys like Hewitt, Ancic, Scud, Grosjean, Johansson and his compatriot Henman. So even without Fed (and also Nadal to be nice), it's far from a guarantee that Murray wins Wimbledon in his early years. He probably has to take a loss or two in a final to Hewitt and/or Roddick before he actually wins Wimbledon so it's not that much different from his true career trajectory.

His USO performances are up and down to say the least. He won in 2012 sure, but he has a lot of early losses for a player of his caliber as well. And even without Federer and Nadal he has to beat a very good, if old, Agassi, Hewitt (a former champion), Nalbandian, Davydenko, Roddick again, James Blake, who beat Nadal in 05. Even Ferrer who beat Nadal in 2007 was never an easy out for Murray. Remember, Murray has losses to Cilic, Wawrinka (in 2010 and 2013 so pre Stanimal, especially 2010) Anderson, and Nishikori on his record at the USO. Pretty good players sure, but not at all noticeably better than the aforementioned group, worse tbh.

He might win an AO, maybe 2 considering he was really good there, but even there he'd have to beat the same guys mentioned above that he would probably struggle with at the USO, and that too on Rebound Ace, not plexi. On plexi he'd probably beat those guys, but on Rebound Ace it's far from a guarantee. And I shouldn't forget Safin who was awesome at the AO, and guys like Baghdatis, Gonzalez and Tsonga who had the tournaments of their lives there. Lots of depth of competition in 04-07, just not top heavy like it's been post that time.

And re Murray and RG: Not even worth discussing.
Click to expand...
Yeah, even in his slam wins Murray struggled with guys who weren't better than the guys Fed competed against, but he would wrack up the slams Federer-style in 2004-2007.... Sure thing....
 
Wurm

Wurm

Professional
MeatTornado said:
and Re: Muzz winning double digit slams without the Big 3

Aside from Andy's own fans, the ones usually saying this are Nole fans trying to prop Andy up as great competition.
Click to expand...

But then there's Agassi who reckons Murray would've had 3x the career he's had without the big 3 (so 9 slams then).

I think there's a certain amount of people seeing the number of times he's lost from the semi-final stage of slams onwards to the big-3 and just assumed he'd win the bulk of those events without them and that's a bit of a stretch, imo.

However, it's worth noting that Murray's lost precisely one big final to someone not in the big-3 (Cilic, Cincinnati Masters 2016) out of 9 (1 slam, 7 Masters and 1 Olympics) and his record in finals of any sort without the big 3 is 31-5 (three of those losses were pre-2008).

Against the big-3 his record in non-slam finals is 12-8, btw.

FWIW I think Murray "should" be on about 6 or 7 slams. I very much put him alongside Edberg and Becker when it comes to overall "greatness" since outside of slam final results his career matches up pretty closely to theirs and I don't see Becker winning Wimbledon in 93-2000 with Sampras around, for example, unless he was the eventual benefactor of the 96 QF surprise.
 
Poisoned Slice

Poisoned Slice

Bionic Poster
hehe I always love how the it takes 6 slams to be considered but there is never anything to back it up with. lolz Why don't you find me some pros that say Murray is not ATG. Yes, maybe you can find one. Find me more than 6. :)

Yes, ATG without doubt.
 
Poisoned Slice

Poisoned Slice

Bionic Poster
Compromise? I did 20 freakin years.
lol.png


But really, winning one Wimbledon would have been enough for this particular fella to be ATG. Surpassed that, I think.
 
Phoenix1983

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
Poisoned Slice said:
hehe I always love how the it takes 6 slams to be considered but there is never anything to back it up with. lolz Why don't you find me some pros that say Murray is not ATG. Yes, maybe you can find one. Find me more than 6. :)

Yes, ATG without doubt.
Click to expand...

Well, what are you backing up Murray being an ATG with? The eye test?
 
Phoenix1983

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
Poisoned Slice said:
It's just how I feel about him. I think he has done more than enough to be considered ATG. If there was an official rule that gave certain stats that he doesn't have then fair enough.
Click to expand...

OK, well then I could claim that Del Potro has done more than enough to be considered an ATG, because it's how I feel about him.
 
Poisoned Slice

Poisoned Slice

Bionic Poster
Phoenix1983 said:
So you're saying we should just go on subjective feelings about who is ATG, rather than setting down criteria like 6+ slams?
Click to expand...

haha No. I think the 6 slam criteria can ignore things like being the first Brit to win Wimbledon in so many years. I'd give that more value in my ATG rules. Haven't really thought about it much. I just know that I consider Murray ATG.
 
Phoenix1983

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
alexio88 said:
it's always subjective because even if two guys having equal slam number (3 - murray and kuerten) but in fact there's a gap between them
Click to expand...

Reasonable point. Murray is of course a fair amount greater than the other 3-slam champs of the Open Era (I guess you could argue Ashe was greater, but that would be for wider non-tennis related reasons).
 
R

Ray Mercer

Hall of Fame
Murray was a great player but is never adored because of his whiny personality, weak forehand and passive playing style. You’re never going to be loved playing conservative tennis.
 
Mainad

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Ray Mercer said:
Murray was a great player but is never adored because of his whiny personality, weak forehand and passive playing style. You’re never going to be loved playing conservative tennis.
Click to expand...

Lol...how many recent great players have been 'adored'? Guys like Connors, McEnroe, Nastase and Lendl would smile at the very notion.
 
Fridge

Fridge

Professional
is there another case of a player going 3-8 in GS finals and making it in? Other than winning 2 gold medals I don't see anything that he has done exceptionally well.
 
Mainad

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Fridge said:
is there another case of a player going 3-8 in GS finals and making it in? Other than winning 2 gold medals I don't see anything that he has done exceptionally well.
Click to expand...

14 Masters titles (more than most on the list), 41 weeks at #1 (more than some on the list), Y/E #1 (unachieved by some on the list), 46 titles overall (more than some on the list). Maybe you haven't been looking very hard?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

clout
  • Poll
Would you consider Andy Murray a legend of the sport?
2
Replies
92
Views
4K
victorcruz
victorcruz
6august
Murray is more exciting to watch than Wawrinka and Thiem.
2 3
Replies
116
Views
4K
skip1969
skip1969
Lleytonstation
  • Poll
ZERO ATG's present or in the making: Going on 13 years
2 3 4
Replies
165
Views
4K
mike danny
mike danny
batz
Big 4 Popularity Metrics
Replies
13
Views
3K
10is
10is
G
If at the end of their careers, Rafael Nadal finishes with more US Open title than Novak Djokovic?
2 3 4
Replies
168
Views
7K
BringBackSV
B
Top