RS
Bionic Poster
Yes i saw it but just added it is a very small sample to judge .Re-read my post. I said, unlike Lendl (who lost to Cash), Murray beat the only non-ATG he faced in a Slam final.
Yes i saw it but just added it is a very small sample to judge .Re-read my post. I said, unlike Lendl (who lost to Cash), Murray beat the only non-ATG he faced in a Slam final.
No chance. Sampras had by far hardest ever era
Why is the cutoff not at Agassi/Lendl with eight Slams?
No chance. Sampras had by far hardest ever era
I think Edberg and Becker with 6 slams are usually seen as the split between ATG and not ATG. Though maybe Agassi/Lendl/Connors with 8 could be seen as the cut-off if we are being more strict, leaving Becker/Edberg/Wilander just below (I would still include Mac even if he's one below, everyone would agree he's better than Wilander even they're on the same number). There are still different tiers there, obviously, with Borg and Sampras being a level above those, and the Big 3 are by now pretty much their own tier.
Vilas, Murray, Courier, Nastase are elite players but not ATG in my book.
Mac is a legit ATG.
7 Slams
8 Tour Finals (alternative+official combined) - ( best of 5 setters they were )
He is the Carpet GOAT and and ATG on HCs as well as Grass.
You could put him just below Borg-Sampras's league too if you wanted, definetly a bonafide ATG, definetly ahead of Agassi despite Agassi having 8 slams.
Yeah, I have him in the level of Connors, Lendl and Agassi and ahead of Wilander. But I would put Agassi ahead of him.
Agassi still has one more slam and also the “Career Super Slam” (only player to ever do so). He is also comfortably ahead of clay. It is very close, but I can see a case being made for either one.But he is a more accomplished Grass courter as well as an equally accomplished hard courter + a far more accomplished carpet ATG than anyone
How can Agassi be ahead ??
Mcenroe triumphed over Borg while Agassi was always Sampras's pigeon.
Sounds like Djokovic dethroning Roger and Rafa, except Rafa didn't give up like Borg did the moment a guy with higher level of tennis showed up.connors said once lendl waited until he got old, borg retired, and mac went downhill to make a run for #1, and i can see why he said that..
lendl wasnt mentally or physically in top shape until '85 after working with tony roche, diet, etc... for a while and by that time the above happened..
i think lendls best years were '85-'87 when the old players were fading and the newer players hadnt reached their peaks yet so there was definitely a
window in there.. in that 80s era i actually think mcenroe had tougher competition because he had to dethrone borg and connors..
Sounds like Djokovic dethroning Roger and Rafa, except Rafa didn't give up like Borg did the moment a guy with higher level of tennis showed up.
Ah, yes, meh Raonic as compared to peak Cash.
Also completely ignoring Lendl is 3/4 vs non-ATGs in slam finals. Murray 1/1. All it takes is one slam loss in 3 more slam finals vs non-ATGs for Murray to equalize.
A case where direct comparision is not decidable because of sample size (unlike Murray with only 4/11 well above average performances in slam finals compared to 3/4 or 3/5 for Stan/Roddick/Hewitt)
Was Murray a 8/10 or above in any of his slam finals?You're like the dormouse in the teapot at the Mad Hatter's Party, aren't you?
Was Murray a 8/10 or above in any of his slam finals?
Sounds like Djokovic dethroning Roger and Rafa, except Rafa didn't give up like Borg did the moment a guy with higher level of tennis showed up.
Agassi still has one more slam and also the “Career Super Slam” (only player who ever do so). He is also comfortably ahead of clay). It is very close, but I can see a case being made for either one.
But if he was on the level or Borg or Sampras then he would have automatically emerged ahead of old Borg in the late 70s-early 80s because he was 4 years younger to Borg, he was 8 years younger to Connors and also some months younger to Mcenroe. Why doesn't he have a lot of slams until 1985 when he was 25 years old ? Just 1 slam ?
While I agree with your sentiment that Lendl was a late bloomer that was helped by Connors' aging (the turnaround in their head-to-head is staggering), Borg more or less retired at age 25 so Lendl never faced an "old Borg."
Connors clearly missed many slams, he probably missed a French Open or 2, he missed many of those Aus Opens where journeymen were making the finals and winning it. All that added on his resume he emerges greater than Lendl who pretty much played every AO and did not miss any chance to win slams. He already maximized his winning chances.
If you count the number of head-to-head matches played against opponents who have won at least 3 Slams or if you want 5 Slams, who do you think will come out on top? The count should be done of only matches after those players won that many (3 or 5) Slams and not include matches played prior to that. So, playing a very young Federer, Agassi or McEnroe before they won 3 or 5 Slams should not count.
I have a feeling that the answer might be Djokovic, but am not sure.
lolcount the number of head-to-head matches played against opponents who have won at least 3 Slams or if you want 5 Slams
If you count the number of head-to-head matches played against opponents who have won at least 3 Slams or if you want 5 Slams, who do you think will come out on top? The count should be done of only matches after those players won that many (3 or 5) Slams and not include matches played prior to that. So, playing a very young Federer, Agassi or McEnroe before they won 3 or 5 Slams should not count.
I have a feeling that the answer might be Djokovic, but am not sure.
You're like the dormouse in the teapot at the Mad Hatter's Party, aren't you?
So the 3 Murray won and maybe Wi 2012?Definitely was, in at least 3 of them.
No Sampras dominates his era which had loads of Major champions. Arguably 3rd of all time after Nadal and FedererFacing guys like Pioline/Courier in Wimbledon finals, having Agassi as his best rival in a SNV era instead of another SNV specialist?
Never wining Clay?
From his 26th birthday to his 31st birthday never winning anything outside Grass for 5 years in Slams, failure to capitalize the vacuum era of 00-03?
So many holes in his resume!
Agassi winning all 4 slams and then BIg 3 also winning all 4 slams has raised some legit questions on Sampras !
Courier was a great player but Sampras got better of him as well as a rejuvenated Becker 1995-1996. Then Agassi appeared and Sampras overwhelmed him.Not really, Agassi was on and off as a top player and he was his biggest rival. Also, he didn't have that many really strong rivals at the end of his career. When the likes of Edberg, Becker, Courier, etc. were declining he had a pretty good field at one point to rack up some titles. He had a very strong era when he was breaking through with Mac/Lendl/Connors still around and Becker/Edgberg peaking + Agassi.
so you can't reply to actual points countering yours and resort to utter gibberish.
Typical of the insecure Murray goggle eyed chutiya that you are.
So the 3 Murray won and maybe Wi 2012?
What's the point of trying to counter any of your points? You just enjoy trying to shoot down anything I might point out that favours Murray coz that's the kind of guy you are.
I repeat, you're like the proverbial Dormouse, always popping his little head out when anyone dares to compare Murray with an ATG in any favourable light.
I can't be bothered with you, I really can't and I repeat, please don't take this as any kind of admission on my part that you've won one of your many pathetic arguments. I'm much more interested in having civilised exchanges with civilised and objective posters who may well not be Murray fans but who don't get their skivvies in a twist whenever anyone dares to make a favourable comparison with any of their own personal favourites.
Now go and bore some other poor soul. Cheerio!
Ah, yes, meh Raonic as compared to peak Cash.
Also completely ignoring Lendl is 3/4 vs non-ATGs in slam finals. Murray 1/1. All it takes is one slam loss in 3 more slam finals vs non-ATGs for Murray to equalize.
A case where direct comparision is not decidable because of sample size (unlike Murray with only 4/11 well above average performances in slam finals compared to 3/4 or 3/5 for Stan/Roddick/Hewitt)
No Sampras dominates his era which had loads of Major champions. Arguably 3rd of all time after Nadal and Federer
lol that’s exactly what popped into my head when I saw that post.I have a feeling you thought of your answer and then worked your way back to a question, but am not sure.
Federer beat Murray up in the last 2 sets so who knowsGood call on W2012.
Agassi beat Sampras quite a few times. Only reason Pete had the better record was because Pete wasn't good enough to play Andre on clay. I have Agassi over McEnroe. Mac didn't win two of the slams.
That is this old myth. Agassi is only 3-2 on clay vs Pete so it is not that he would be expected to completely destroy him had they played more often. Same argument you can say Agassi did not reach Sampras often enough on grass where the difference in ability between those two is bigger than on clay. Also those two meetings at the AO were unbelievably close and could have gone either way.Agassi beat Sampras quite a few times. Only reason Pete had the better record was because Pete wasn't good enough to play Andre on clay. I have Agassi over McEnroe. Mac didn't win two of the slams.
Yep, Connors missed a lot of slams that would have helped his resume, but that's another story, not competition. However, it's not like he would have had a realistic shot in all of them. The AOs he missed during his peak are his best chances. At RG he would have struggled in the late '70s against Borg and Vilas, and in the '80s he could have lost to several players at the AO like Lendl, Mac, Wilander, etc. His biggest issue was he wasted a lot of chances in slams he did play, like making 3/3 finals in '75 and losing them all, in slams he had won the previous year. If you blame Lendl for that, the same should apply to Connors. From '75 to '78 he made 7 finals and won only 1 of those. Then he made 8 SF out of 9 slams in 79-81 and couldn't make the final in any of those. He had that renaissance in 82-83, if not his resume would have looked a lot weaker. Both Connors and Lendl have poor conversion when it comes to slam SF and F. They reached very easily the latter stages but struggled to go all the way.
I put Lendl above Connors and only below Borg and Sampras when it comes to Pre-big 3 open era. Agassi, I'd put in the same place as Lendl, despite lesser consistency/dominance, he won the four slams (+OG and YEC) and made the finals of all of them in a row in a very heterogenized era.He
Came awful close to winning the latter during one of the few times he played there.Different era, Mac barely played two of the majors (AO&FO) during his prime.
Different era, Mac barely played two of the majors (AO&FO) during his prime.
That's his own fault. But he was never good enough to win a French because he never had the stamina. And he underperformed the years he played AO in his prime.
That is this old myth. Agassi is only 3-2 on clay vs Pete so it is not that he would be expected to completely destroy him had they played more often. Same argument you can say Agassi did not reach Sampras often enough on grass where the difference in ability between those two is bigger than on clay. Also those two meetings at the AO were unbelievably close and could have gone either way.
Sampras would have a positive H2H regardless against Agassi of any hypotheticals.