Andy Murray is not an "all time great"

  • Thread starter Thread starter JRAJ1988
  • Start date Start date
J

JRAJ1988

Guest
He's been in the top 10 since 2008, usually around 4th spot year end. The 3 players in front of him in the past 8 years have been 3 of the all time greats. He's a top player but he isn't an all time great. I don't want to be that "W*nk Biscuit, T*sspot" who rains on peoples parades but there needs to be clarity.

Would Murray be an all time great if Federer, Nadal and Djokovic didn't exist? I don't know, I do think those 3 have helped Murray raise his game and utilize his ability.

I'm an ardent Murray fan but come on let's be realistic, his slam conversion rate has been a topic of criticism, he hasn't been number one which to some add to the "legacy". He does very well at 250s and 500s, 12 Masters - 6 Runners up, 18 Masters finals since 2008, 11 slam finals since 2008, Gold in 2012, within the last 2 years he's becoming even more consistent in all tournaments.

He's a top player but he is a step below Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, who else is on the all time great list? Sampras? He had 14 slams, Agassi? Lendl? Borg? Murray though has the time to add to his collection.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Murray was an almost slam-winner. Lots of those. Then a one-slam wonder. Quite a few of those.

Then two slams. We could count how many players have two slams.

But now he has three, in an era when he had to play 3rd fiddle to Federer and Nadal on grass and clay and had to compete with one of the best HC players of all time post 2011.

He's never been #1, and as a guy who has at best been #2 I think he may be just about the strongest player ever in that position. He's the fastest big guy I've ever seen, and he now has two slams in England.

I think that's pretty damn good!
 
I think his resume is fine for an all time great.




I don't consider him an all time great because I don't find his game exciting in the slightest, and can't remember any epic matches he's been involved in.
 
****igrade said:
I think his resume is fine for an all time great.




I don't consider him an all time great because I don't find his game exciting in the slightest, and can't remember any epic matches he's been involved in.
Click to expand...
2012 US Open final was decent, as well as the 2012 Australian Open SF and French Open 2015 SF.
 
TheMuzziah said:
Well, my heart certainly can!
Click to expand...

If you had to pick the top 5 matches in each of the slams for the past 16 years, Murray's name would not feature in any of them. I wont remember any of Murray's matches in twenty years time. Hence, in my opinion, he is not an all time great. It's not to do with his resume though.

Firstservingman said:
The RG one was Murray getting lucky to some extent.
His 5th set at USO 2012 tho.
Click to expand...

All I remember from that match was the weather.
 
Old Man Fed routed Murray last september at the USO.

Devaluation of the term ALL TIME Great is an extremely imprudent, sneaky, and dangerous thing to do. Murray is not even one of the great"est" of his own generation. He comes in as a great number 4, still half a cut below the top 3.

Even wily old Czech Stepanek at 36 years of age outplayed an uber-prepped Murray the first two sets with technically superior play...
 
A couple more Slams puts him there, above Jim Courier and the like, and in with the 3rd tier greats.
But anything could happen, he could finish up now like many before him have, or go on and win the next 3 and a Career Grand Slam.
Really needs a stint at Number 1 as well, even if only briefly.
 
He won the US Open in a tornado, Wimbledon when his opponent had head stroke, and another when a Mug was in the final.

Should be at zero slams if conditions were fair.....
 
JRAJ1988 said:
He's been in the top 10 since 2008, usually around 4th spot year end. The 3 players in front of him in the past 8 years have been 3 of the all time greats. He's a top player but he isn't an all time great. I don't want to be that "W*nk Biscuit, T*sspot" who rains on peoples parades but there needs to be clarity.

Would be Murray be an all time great if Federer, Nadal and Djokovic didn't exist? I don't know, I do think those 3 have helped Murray raise his game and utilize his ability.

I'm an ardent Murray fan but come on let's be realistic, his slam conversion rate has been a topic of criticism, he hasn't been number one which to some add to the "legacy". He does very well at 250s and 500s, 12 Masters - 6 Runners up, 18 Masters finals since 2008, 11 slam finals since 2008, Gold in 2012, within the last 2 years he's becoming even more consistent in all tournaments.

He's a top player but he is a step below Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, who else is on the all time great list? Sampras? He had 14 slams, Agassi? Lendl? Borg? Murray though has the time to add to his collection.
Click to expand...
Preach it, brother
 
Depends on your definition. Courier often gets called one with 4 slams, which Murray doesn't seem too far away from now. So there's an arguments for it. Frankly though people get too hung up on this sort of thing. All time great or not, he's a great player. Just enjoy that.
 
Slice'n'dice said:
Depends on your definition. Courier often gets called one with 4 slams, which Murray doesn't seem too far away from now. So there's an arguments for it. Frankly though people get too hung up on this sort of thing. All time great or not, he's a great player. Just enjoy that.
Click to expand...

Spot on really.

Also, Murray's career isn't finished.

It's facile to compare him to the likes of Edberg, Wilander and Becker.
 
I think before we can decide whether Andy Murray is, or is not, an all time great

we need to define what "All time great" means.

Not a subjective definition but one that can be accurately, evenly, and clearly objectified across all players throughout history.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RSH
cknobman said:
I think before we can decide whether Andy Murray is, or is not, an all time great

we need to define what "All time great" means.

Not a subjective definition but one that can be accurately, evenly, and clearly objectified across all players throughout history.
Click to expand...

During the Open Era -- 1968-2016 -- 15 players won 5 or more Majors: (1) Federer; (2) Sampras; (3) Nadal; (4) Djokovic; (5) Laver; (6) Borg; (7) Connors; (8) Lendl; (9) Agassi; (10) McEnroe; (11) Wilander; (12) Edberg; (13) Becker; (14) Rosewall; and (15) Newcombe. Each of these players also reached #1 at some point in their careers.

So, are those 2 criteria fair? To be an Open Era ATG, you need (1) 5+ Majors; and (2) some time at #1. Or is 15 players in 48 years (1 every 3.2 years) too exclusive? If so, we could lower it to 4+ Majors and some time at #1 or a WTF crown. That would allow for inclusion of (1) Courier (4 Majors + 58 weeks at #1); and (2) Vilas (4 Majors + 1 WTF crown + many claiming that Vilas should have been #1 in 1977). That would take us to 17 ATGs in 48 years (1 every 2.8 years).

Or is that still to exclusive? If so, we could lower it to 3+ Majors and some time at #1 or a WTF crown. That would allow for the inclusion of (1) Ashe (3 Majors + #1 in 1968); and (2) Gustavo Kuerten (3 Majors + 43 weeks at #1 + 1 WTF crown). That would take us to 19 ATGs in 48 years (1 every 2.5 years).

Under these criteria, Murray would fall just a little short, but could definitely become an ATG in the next few years.
 
buscemi said:
During the Open Era -- 1968-2016 -- 15 players won 5 or more Majors: (1) Federer; (2) Sampras; (3) Nadal; (4) Djokovic; (5) Laver; (6) Borg; (7) Connors; (8) Lendl; (9) Agassi; (10) McEnroe; (11) Wilander; (12) Edberg; (13) Becker; (14) Rosewall; and (15) Newcombe. Each of these players also reached #1 at some point in their careers.

So, are those 2 criteria fair? To be an Open Era ATG, you need (1) 5+ Majors; and (2) some time at #1. Or is 15 players in 48 years (1 every 3.2 years) too exclusive? If so, we could lower it to 4+ Majors and some time at #1 or a WTF crown. That would allow for inclusion of (1) Courier (4 Majors + 58 weeks at #1); and (2) Vilas (4 Majors + 1 WTF crown + many claiming that Vilas should have been #1 in 1977). That would take us to 17 ATGs in 48 years (1 every 2.8 years).

Or is that still to exclusive? If so, we could lower it to 3+ Majors and some time at #1 or a WTF crown. That would allow for the inclusion of (1) Ashe (3 Majors + #1 in 1968); and (2) Gustavo Kuerten (3 Majors + 43 weeks at #1 + 1 WTF crown). That would take us to 19 ATGs in 48 years (1 every 2.5 years).

Under these criteria, Murray would fall just a little short, but could definitely become an ATG in the next few years.
Click to expand...

If we go by this then no he is not an all time great but I still consider him a hall of fame player.

I'd say that if he can bag 5 majors he would be an all time great regardless of the #1 ranking.
 
cknobman said:
If we go by this then no he is not an all time great but I still consider him a hall of fame player.

I'd say that if he can bag 5 majors he would be an all time great regardless of the #1 ranking.
Click to expand...

Chang is in the Hall of Fame, so Murray definitely deserves inclusion, even if he stopped playing today. I also agree on 5 Majors alone being enough. I think that would definitely put Murray ahead of Vilas and Courier, even if Murray never got to #1 or won a WTF title.
 
I am big fan of Murray but I think you need to have 6 majors + wtf to be called as ATG.
Wilander don't have yec but he won 7 majors and finished a year as no.1 one.
 
buscemi said:
Chang is in the Hall of Fame, so Murray definitely deserves inclusion,...
Click to expand...
He's definitely getting in the HoF - because they've lowered the bar considerably (I assume they don't want to go 3 yrs straight with no new members).

I agree with the majority that he has some work to do to get to ATG level.
 
West Coast Ace said:
He's definitely getting in the HoF - because they've lowered the bar considerably (I assume they don't want to go 3 yrs straight with no new members).
Click to expand...

How high did the bar used to be? American players who have won a Slam seem to be guaranteed automatic entry at some point. At least I can't think of any who have met the qualification criteria who are not yet in. Roddick will meet the criteria next year and I fully expect him to go straight in.

West Coast Ace said:
I agree with the majority that he has some work to do to get to ATG level.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Mainad said:
How high did the bar used to be? American players who have won a Slam seem to be guaranteed automatic entry at some point. At least I can't think of any who have met the qualification criteria who are not yet in. Roddick will meet the criteria next year and I fully expect him to go straight in.
Click to expand...

Tanner, Gerulaitis, and Teacher are three American Major (Australian Open) winners who aren't in the Hall of Fame.
 
I think "all time great" is too vague a term to use in a yes/no question.
I would like to ask the question: Is Murray likely to finish as a Top 10 player in the open era?
In the open era, 8 players have won 8 or more GS. Laver won 5 but should certainly be put near the top for his CYGS and short career in the open era.
Therefore, I think Murray needs at least 5 more GS titles to be considered a Top 10.
In my tennis greatness index that includes GS titles, weeks at #1, winning percentage against top 10 opponents, non-GS titles, I've started to include Murray recently in addition to the 12 GS title leaders to monitor the trajectory of his career.
tennis_July_2016.jpg
 
buscemi said:
Tanner, Gerulaitis, and Teacher are three American Major (Australian Open) winners who aren't in the Hall of Fame.
Click to expand...

Surprised about Gerulaitis. Didn't Tanner get involved in something dodgy and go to prison? Don't really know much about Teacher apart from his AO title.
 
Mainad said:
Surprised about Gerulaitis. Didn't Tanner get involved in something dodgy and go to prison? Don't really know much about Teacher apart from his AO title.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Gerulaitis is pretty surprising. The Australian Open title was no great shakes given the opposition, but it's still a Major title, and Vitas also had finals at the French Open and U.S. Open, plus two semifinals at Wimbledon. 25 titles, several of them at big events, including 1978 WCT Finals, 1980 WCT Tournament of Champions (over McEnroe), a Rome (twice, including one 5 set final victory over Vilas). Year-end top 5 four times, year-end top 10 two other times, career-high #3. Plus, he won Wimbledon doubles in 1975.

Tanner had a number of legal issues that likely kept him out of the Hall of Fame.

Teacher definitely doesn't deserve the HOF. He beat no one of note to win that Australian Open and never made it past the QF of any other Major.
 
Murray has passed Courier to me despite never being number one. With as good as his form has been in 2016, I would be surprised if he doesn't finish up with at least 5 majors and right there with Wilander/Edberg/Becker on that composite score.
 
bjsnider said:
This argument is irrational since there's no agreed-upon definition of "all-time great".
Click to expand...

Yes, and I've noticed the more slams Murray wins, the higher the bar seems to go. When Murray had one slam, the bar was set at 4. Of course no one thought he would reach 4. Now that he's close, it's 5, with the newly added kicker- an entire year at #1. Lol
 
Murray must win three more slams, couple of WTF titles and at least 26 weeks of world no.1 position. Otherwise, Murray will remain an all time great in British tennis history.
 
Sunny Ali said:
Well he has clearly passed Lleyton Hewitt on the list and that's good enough for me at the moment. No more arguments claiming Hewitt is on the same level as Andy Murray.
Click to expand...
Give Hewitt Murray's draw this year and he wins a 3rd major too. I can play this game too, see?
 
Of course he's not an all time great, he is 29 and has 3 slams, he really needs to get to 7,8 to be considered an ATG ... possible but bot that likely at this stage, how many slams did Federer and Nadal have at 29 ?
Djokovic has 12 at 29...
Agassi had about 5 ?
Sampras would have had about 11/12 ...
 
Antonio Puente said:
Yes, and I've noticed the more slams Murray wins, the higher the bar seems to go. When Murray had one slam, the bar was set at 4. Of course no one thought he would reach 4. Now that he's close, it's 5, with the newly added kicker- an entire year at #1. Lol
Click to expand...

This is the Vilas/Courier conundrum. Is Courier an ATG because of his 4 Majors, 2 Majors in a year, and YE #1 in 1992? Or was he a transitional champ who never won a big title after Rome 1993 and finished #13 in 1994, #8 in 1995, #26 in 1996, #21 in 1997, #77 in 1998, #34 in 1999, and #290 in 2000 (when he retired)?

And is Vilas an ATG because of his 4 Majors, 2 Majors in a year, unofficial #1 status in 1977, and WTF title in 1974? Or are his Australian Open titles diminished by the weak competition (John Marks and John Sadri in the finals)?

If you think Vilas and Courier are ATGs, then Murray would join their ranks with 1 more Major and the #1 ranking or a WTF title. If not, then Murray needs at least 2 more Majors plus the #1 ranking or a WTF title to get ATG status.
 
So Hewitt is a better player because he didn't win as much as Murray due to tougher draws? That's some weird logic :)

Sabratha said:
Give Hewitt Murray's draw this year and he wins a 3rd major too. I can play this game too, see?
Click to expand...
 
Sabratha said:
Give Hewitt Murray's draw this year and he wins a 3rd major too. I can play this game too, see?
Click to expand...

Murray got this draw at age 29. At age 29, Hewitt lost in the 2nd round of Wimbledon to Soderling, who proceeded to get straight setted by Tomic in the 3rd round.

Beyond that, let's look at Murray's draw: Tsonga in the QF: Tsonga was 4-0 against Hewitt, including straight set wins at Queen's Club in 2007 (when Tsonga was #121 and Hewitt was #16) and Wimbledon in 2012. Berdych in the SF: Berdych was 3-0 against Hewitt, including straight set wins in indian Wells in 2006 (when Berdych was #25 and Hewitt was #10) and at the U.S. Open in 2014. Raonic in the F: Raonic was 1-1 against Murray, losing to Lleyon at the 2012 Australian Open but winning at D.C. in 2014.

Obviously, the Raonic results don't tell us too much, but I have a tough time seeing Hewitt beating both Tsonga and Berdych.
 
buscemi said:
Murray got this draw at age 29. At age 29, Hewitt lost in the 2nd round of Wimbledon to Soderling, who proceeded to get straight setted by Tomic in the 3rd round.

Beyond that, let's look at Murray's draw: Tsonga in the QF: Tsonga was 4-0 against Hewitt, including straight set wins at Queen's Club in 2007 (when Tsonga was #121 and Hewitt was #16) and Wimbledon in 2012. Berdych in the SF: Berdych was 3-0 against Hewitt, including straight set wins in indian Wells in 2006 (when Berdych was #25 and Hewitt was #10) and at the U.S. Open in 2014. Raonic in the F: Raonic was 1-1 against Murray, losing to Lleyon at the 2012 Australian Open but winning at D.C. in 2014.

Obviously, the Raonic results don't tell us too much, but I have a tough time seeing Hewitt beating both Tsonga and Berdych.[/QUOTE]
Click to expand...

Hewitt at age 29 obviously wouldn't be favoured to make it through that draw. I think Saby meant Hewitt was he was #1 and a top 4 player in 01-02 and 04-05.
 
NatF said:
Hewitt at age 29 obviously wouldn't be favoured to make it through that draw. I think Saby meant Hewitt was he was #1 and a top 4 player in 01-02 and 04-05.
Click to expand...

Well, Hewitt already won Wimbledon in 2002 with a pretty weak draw. In 2001, he lost to Escude in the 4th round, so it's tough to see him getting by Tsonga and Berdych (two players he never beat) plus Kyrgios and Raonic. 2004-2005 Hewitt would have a better shot, but who did he actually beat those years who compares to Tsogna/Berdych/Kyrgios/Raonic on grass? Here's the lineup: Jurgen Melzer, Irakli Labadze, Ivanišević (#415 at the time), Moya, Christophe Rochus, Jan Hernych, Justin Gimelstob, and Taylor Dent.

The bottom line is that I just don't see 2004/2005 Hewitt getting by both Tsonga and Berdych, who were terrible matchups for him. Their wins over him in 2006 and 2007 when Lleyton was the "better" player are pretty damning in addition to their overall 70 record against him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

deacsyoga
If Sharapova is an all time great, then is Murray as well?
Replies
28
Views
2K
Dope Reign
Dope Reign
D
Could Murray be hitting his prime?
2
Replies
53
Views
6K
cork_screw
cork_screw
Zardoz7/12
I don't like Andy Murray's forehand, attitude on court and 2nd serve and he's not an ATG.
2
Replies
73
Views
4K
Lleytonstation
Lleytonstation
M
As I stated 2 months ago, Murray IS top 15 of all time.
2 3
Replies
126
Views
5K
Deleted member 688153
D
S
Andy Murray is officially an all time great now
3 4 5
Replies
218
Views
12K
base615
base615
Back
Top