Andy Murray - 21 slam titles
- Thread starter Spider
- Start date
Towny
Hall of Fame
Although people like to take the Big 3 out of the equation to extrapolate how many slams Murray should have won, the reality is that no ATG has been able to play in an era without other ATGs there. 2008-present without the Big 3 would have been a joke in terms of competition. Put Becker, Edberg or any other lower tier ATG in that period and they would clean up.
We've also got to remember that not every time Murray lost to one of the Big 3 would he have gone on to win the title were they not there. There were other players who could take Murray out in slams. He doesn't suddenly become a GOAT candidate with 20 slams.
Murray probably wins more if he plays in a other era. It's very subjective how much more so we can't really be too specific. I think anything between about 4 and 10 is reasonable, with my view being on the lower end of the spectrum. But he would have never won a number of slams matching the Big 3.
We've also got to remember that not every time Murray lost to one of the Big 3 would he have gone on to win the title were they not there. There were other players who could take Murray out in slams. He doesn't suddenly become a GOAT candidate with 20 slams.
Murray probably wins more if he plays in a other era. It's very subjective how much more so we can't really be too specific. I think anything between about 4 and 10 is reasonable, with my view being on the lower end of the spectrum. But he would have never won a number of slams matching the Big 3.
If we put Egberg and Becker in the current era and eliminate the big 3, they still wouldn't stand a chance at any slam beyond Wimbledon.
Towny
Hall of Fame
I meant with modern equipment/training etc but even then, they were both excellent on hard courts too. The idea that they wouldn't win any slams outside Wimbledon but guys like Cilic would is ridiculous
CYGS
Legend
2003-2007.
I mean it will be very difficult for them with modern equipment. Murray would run circles around them. I see the likes of Wawrinka & co doing much better.
Something like -
Murray - 17 slams
Wawrinka - 7 slams
Del Potro - 5 slams
Edgerb - 4 slams
Becker - 3 slams
Lastmanstanding
New User
Watch Hannover 1996. You will change your mind.
Becker and Edberg would have decimated Murrays 2nd serve. Edberg would be in at net and becker would have gone for broke off it.
Towny
Hall of Fame
Nadal was active for all of those years, and winning big titles from 2005 onwards. Agassi was making slam and masters finals until 2005. Djokovic made his first slam final in 2007. So that's 3
TenS_Ace
Professional
shoulda, coulda, might of, ROFLMAO ....If Fed didn't play tennis , just imagine how many other players could have had CHANCE to win SLAMS!! Ohhhhh the parity there could have been in tennis
Towny
Hall of Fame
Like I said, I'm not talking about taking old Becker and Edberg and dumping them in the modern era or even taking prime Edberg and Becker and making them play with no training in modern conditions. Assuming that they grew up at the same time as Murray and were active as tennis players at the same time, they'd likely both win more slams than him
Lastmanstanding
New User
Nadal was not anywhere near his best. Even on clay he was far inferior to his 2008-2013 level his peak years probably. Nadal was the dominant player 2008-2013 but what is a massive shock is he has come back to dominate 2017-2019. Has any player in history had two dominant spells?
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
What's up with all those novelty accounts? Their styles are all similar, must be a couple of dedicated mugs mass-producing 'new users'.
Towny
Hall of Fame
My original statement was about ATGs playing in an era, not necessarily playing their absolute best. How many ATGs were at their peak during 2014-16 for Novak, or from 2008-10 for Rafa?
In any case, Nadal was exceptionally good on clay in 2005-7. From Monte Carlo 2005 - RG 2007, he lost just one match on clay. To Federer at Hamburg, a 4 time champion there. From 2008-10, he lost 3 matches, including at RG. From 2011-13, he lost 5 matches. 2008-13 was not a cut above 2005-7. 2008, 10 and 12 maybe, although 2007 was pretty much on a par. Nadal also had 2 of his 5 Wimbledon finals in this period, 2007 especially being at a very high level.
I expect I won't change your opinion, which is fine. Everyone's entitled to hold one. But saying that Federer didn't play ATGs from 2003-07 as CYGS said, is factually inaccurate
Last edited:
Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
Think about this, Murray has lost 18 times from QF or later, and a total of 19 times to the the big 3 in slams.
Another 20 times in QF's or later at masters to the big 3.
Two times lost in SF of WTF's too.
Simply put, if he could have been just slightly better against the big 3, he would be considered an ATG.
The dude was legit, just picked a wrong time to be born.
Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
How didn’t it occur to you before?
Yes. Very unfortunate.
See my reply at https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...der-andy-murray-a-legend-of-the-sport.654354/, I feel the same.
Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
Tested it in Top Spin 4. Murray won 20 slams. Proof and relevance.
Start da Game
Hall of Fame
thread of the year.....congrats.....
Yeah, no.
In most of those losses, he was not in the kind of form he needed to be to win a slam anyway. Plenty of early losses before he had really matured, and even something like US Open 2014, where he lost to Djokovic but was still getting back to form after back surgery the previous fall.
And even in the ones where he was playing great, it was his mentality more than his tennis skills that let him down. Take the feather incident, which completely distracted him and led to him losing meekly in a slam final where he was going toe-to-toe with Djokovic. That to me seems indicative of him having issues racking up slams in any era. He just didn’t have the mentality of a GOAT, regardless of who he played.
Or the 2008 US Open final. Sure, it was his first slam final, but even guys like Tsonga or Baghdatis didn’t wilt so badly in their first slam final, and 2008 was Federer at his most vulnerable. Hadn’t won a slam or even a Masters all year. Yet Murray completely wilted, far more so than most first-time slam finalists do. (Just compare that to Medvedev this year...)
I do think he could have nabbed a couple more majors had he he not had the Big 3 in his way so often, but even so, they weren’t the only things stopping him from winning more.
In most of those losses, he was not in the kind of form he needed to be to win a slam anyway. Plenty of early losses before he had really matured, and even something like US Open 2014, where he lost to Djokovic but was still getting back to form after back surgery the previous fall.
And even in the ones where he was playing great, it was his mentality more than his tennis skills that let him down. Take the feather incident, which completely distracted him and led to him losing meekly in a slam final where he was going toe-to-toe with Djokovic. That to me seems indicative of him having issues racking up slams in any era. He just didn’t have the mentality of a GOAT, regardless of who he played.
Or the 2008 US Open final. Sure, it was his first slam final, but even guys like Tsonga or Baghdatis didn’t wilt so badly in their first slam final, and 2008 was Federer at his most vulnerable. Hadn’t won a slam or even a Masters all year. Yet Murray completely wilted, far more so than most first-time slam finalists do. (Just compare that to Medvedev this year...)
I do think he could have nabbed a couple more majors had he he not had the Big 3 in his way so often, but even so, they weren’t the only things stopping him from winning more.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Don't dignify that troll with a response.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Several, in fact.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Lol all 3 of them used to tear Andy up
Legend of Borg
G.O.A.T.
don't forget about Gong Gate at the USO 2016
D
Deleted member 762343
Guest
Will win the CYGS every year and get to 21 slams in 5 years.
King No1e
G.O.A.T.
Murray would've cleaned house in the late 90's/early 00's. Take Hewitt, who dismantled Pete Sampras and stayed at #1 for some time. Now make him 6'3 with more firepower, but the same counterpunching game designed to take down serve-volleyers like Sampras and Rafter, and you have a wrecking machine.
O
OhYes
Guest
Wish Serbian tennis Federation had more vision and approached Andy when he was young so he could play under Serbian flag. If for nothing else - tax from his wins would be huge boost to Serbian economy.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Agassi was there until 2005 as a contender, as was Nadal from 2005 onwards. Also Novak Djokovic made his first slam final in 2007.
Plus there were many other top players around. To win the AO in 2004, Federer defeated Hewitt, Nalbandian, Ferrero and Safin in succession.
Thus your theory of a weak era from 2003-2007 is incorrect.
It’s Novak Djokovic who has benefitted most from weak competition, as there have been mug generations below him.
Lastmanstanding
New User
Would u mind listing them as off top of my head i cant think. Here is my recollection
Mcenroe 1981-1984
Lendl 1985-1988
Edberg 1988-1991
Courier 1992-1993
Sampras 1994-1998
Agassi 1999-2001
Hewitt 2001-2003
Federer 2004-2007
Nadal 2008-2013 and 2017-present
Djokovic 2014-2016
Obviously there some overlaps in the above where in a period there was another better player eg Connors 1982, becker 1989, djokovic 2011 and 2018 but i think the above is reasonably accurate but feel free to disagree. Obviously certain periods of the above were far more dominant than others eg sampras 1994-1998 and federer 2004-2007.
But Nadal the only one with two periods of being the dominant player although neither period an utter domination.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Djokovic first dominated 2011- early 2012. Just a correction. Nadal also was not the dominant player in 2009 or 2011 as already stated. You're cherry picking years to suit your opinion.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Lastmanstanding
New User
Read my post more carefully please.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
I did. You can't claim Nadal was dominant from 2008-2013 when he was not dominant the whole period. Maybe the most successful player across that whole period, but you're still cherry picking stats. He was top dog for a year in 2008-2009, again from mid 2010 to the end of that year, and then "sorta" top dog in 2013.
It's your phrasing that is problematic. Djokovic was undisputed 2011. As Nadal was 2010. Djokovic was undisputed in 2015 and 2016, though he fell away mid year. And again in 2018. If anything, djokovic has a better track record of comebacks to dominate than Nadal [emoji23]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
