Andy Murray is not an "all time great"

[Big_Dangerous]

6 Slams at least and 50 weeks at #1 ---> Murray gets ATG status, otherwise no.

Olympic gold in singles should sub in for at least one of the slams. So really, he only needs to win 2 more slams to be considered.

And what about Djokovic and Fed? Neither has an Olympic gold in singles yet, and it's likely one will retire w/o winning a gold in singles, yet they would both be all-time greats on everyone's list.

 

[buscemi]

Olympic gold in singles should sub in for at least one of the slams. So really, he only needs to win 2 more slams to be considered.

And what about Djokovic and Fed? Neither has an Olympic gold in singles yet, and it's likely one will retire w/o winning a gold in singles, yet they would both be all-time greats on everyone's list.

8+ Majors -- two years worth of Majors -- is clearly (IMO) enough for ATG status, regardless of anything else.

McEnroe with 7 Majors also has 4 year-end #1 rankings (1981-1984), and a bunch of titles at WTF(ish) events. Wilander with 7 Majors also has year-end #1 in 1988.

Becker with 6 Majors also has 3 WTF titles, a ton of Masters(ish) titles, and some (brief) time at #1. Edberg with 6 Majors also has a WTF title and two year-end #1 rankings (in 1990 and 1991).

 

[D.Nalby12]

Olympic gold in singles should sub in for at least one of the slams. So really, he only needs to win 2 more slams to be considered.

And what about Djokovic and Fed? Neither has an Olympic gold in singles yet, and it's likely one will retire w/o winning a gold in singles, yet they would both be all-time greats on everyone's list.

Nobody cares about exo. It's all about Slams, domination (weeks #1). Federer and Djokovic are tier one ATGs, that's well established now. I'm surprised you're arguing against this. Murray however barely (1 Slam) above second tier players, he is far from being an ATG.

 

[3fees]

Murray is 2nd best at present and thats not peanuts, ATG No, yet it depends on situs, after Murray won Wimbledon the tennis commentators there almost put a crown on his head, actually this overreaction is counter productive.

Cheers
3Fees

 

[Big_Dangerous]

Nobody cares about exo. It's all about Slams, domination (weeks #1). Federer and Djokovic are tier one ATGs, that's well established now. I'm surprised you're arguing against this. Murray however barely (1 Slam) above second tier players, he is far from being an ATG.

Try telling any pro player that the Olympics is just an exho....

 

[TupeloDanger]

Try telling any pro player that the Olympics is just an exho....

Hard to track them down and tell them, since it's impossible to tell where so many will be during the Olympics.

 

[PeterHo]

Very vague definition of an all time great..

Is courier an atg? If so then murray is very close, in all likelihood he will end up with 4 or more slams, right?

If not then are becker, edberg ATGs? Then murray needs 3 more slams. Not very likely but possible.

I thiNk Murray will end his career as an ATG. Time will tell. 4 - 6 slams is my prediction.

 

[BeatlesFan]

This is literally the fourth thread on this ridiculous topic.

"Would be Murray be an all time great if Federer, Nadal and Djokovic didn't exist?"

Now Muzz fans are reduced to this? It's borderline mental illness at this point.

This type of "what if?" argument works for countless players:

If Nadal didn't exist, Roger Federer would have 26 majors.

If Pete didn't exist, Andre would have 14 majors.

If McEnroe and Becker didn't exist, Lendl would have 14 majors.

Yada, yada, yada.

Nobody with 3 majors is an ATG.

Wishin' ain't gettin'.

 

[Unforgiven79]

1996-1998 was weaker than 2001-2002.

ATP top 10 of 1996:
1 Pete Sampras
14x GS, 2000wks No.1, etc etc etc,
2 Michael Chang
1x GS, 1 GS final, sport changer, etc etc etc.
3 Yevgeny Kafelnikov
2x GS, No.1, greatest Russian player of all time, fathered a beautiful top-model
4 Goran Ivanišević
1x GS, 82 times Wimbledon runner-up, highest amount of smashed racquets
5 Thomas Muster
1x GS, No.1 in the world, funniest player of the decade, greatest Austrian player of all time (until Thiem in a few seasons)
6 Boris Becker
6x GS, No.1, Wimbledon Lord Protector, Bum-Bum, etc etc
7 Richard Krajicek
1x GS, 45x top-model girlfriends
8 Andre Agassi
8x GS, No.1, 1x Hollywood actress, still managed to marry a tennis player better than him, etc etc
9 Thomas Enqvist
1x GS final
10 Wayne Ferreira
Avoided depression by being the only top10 without a GS final

1 Pete Sampras
2 Patrick Rafter
2x GS, 2x Wimbledon finals, idiolized by women
3 Michael Chang
4 Jonas Björkman
9x GS in doubles, No.1 in doubles
5 Yevgeny Kafelnikov
6 Greg Rusedski
1x GS final, stolen from Canada by BTFA
7 Carlos Moyà
8 Sergi Bruguera
2x GS
9 Thomas Muster
10 Marcelo Ríos
No.1 (unfortunately)

 

[Unforgiven79]

1 Pete Sampras
2 Marcelo Ríos
3 Àlex Corretja
1x WTF
4 Patrick Rafter
5 Carlos Moyà
6 Andre Agassi
7 Tim Henman
347x Wimbledon semifinals, etc etc
8 Karol Kučera
this is the only player who would have suited 2001-2002
9 Greg Rusedski
10 Richard Krajicek

------------------------------------------------------------
Now, the 2001 rankings:

1 Lleyton Hewitt
Rusty
2 Gustavo Kuerten
had won his last GS the year before
3 Andre Agassi
31yo, Could have been the godfather of the other 9
4 Yevgeny Kafelnikov
Past his prime
5 Juan Carlos Ferrero
1x GS on clay, No.1
6 Sébastien Grosjean
who?
7 Patrick Rafter
29yo, gently retiring
8 Tommy Haas
No.2, approaching his first surgery
9 Tim Henman
Past his prime
10 Pete Sampras
31yo, "he must have already decided when to retire"

And that says all.

 

[NatF]

1 Pete Sampras
2 Marcelo Ríos
3 Àlex Corretja
1x WTF
4 Patrick Rafter
5 Carlos Moyà
6 Andre Agassi
7 Tim Henman
347x Wimbledon semifinals, etc etc
8 Karol Kučera
this is the only player who would have suited 2001-2002
9 Greg Rusedski
10 Richard Krajicek

------------------------------------------------------------
Now, the 2001 rankings:

1 Lleyton Hewitt
Rusty
2 Gustavo Kuerten
had won his last GS the year before
3 Andre Agassi
31yo, Could have been the godfather of the other 9
4 Yevgeny Kafelnikov
Past his prime
5 Juan Carlos Ferrero
1x GS on clay, No.1
6 Sébastien Grosjean
who?
7 Patrick Rafter
29yo, gently retiring
8 Tommy Haas
No.2, approaching his first surgery
9 Tim Henman
Past his prime
10 Pete Sampras
31yo, "he must have already decided when to retire"

And that says all.

Look at what Sampras had to achieve to get #1 in 1998 compared to any other #1 - he comes off the worst, he also had a losing record against the rest of the players who ended 1998 in the top 10 with him that year. It's the weakest year of the Open Era and quite clearly.

You putting that little quip about Agassi in 2001 is rich when he was better in 2001 than he was in 1996-1998. Shows what you're all about I guess?

And BTW Kuerten won the FO in 2001.

 

[rh310]

How would he rank compared to Pat Rafter ? I think Andy's had more longevity at the top, and still may have a couple more slams in him. But longevity aside, I sorta see him around the Rafter level.

Is Pat an ATG ?

 

[buscemi]

Look at what Sampras had to achieve to get #1 in 1998 compared to any other #1 - he comes off the worst, he also had a losing record against the rest of the players who ended 1998 in the top 10 with him that year. It's the weakest year of the Open Era and quite clearly.

You putting that little quip about Agassi in 2001 is rich when he was better in 2001 than he was in 1996-1998. Shows what you're all about I guess?

And BTW Kuerten won the FO in 2001.

I'm not sure why a spreading of the wealth in 1998 makes it weaker than other years, such as 2002.

In 1998, the Australian Open winner was #7 Petr Korda. In 2002, it was #18 Thomas Johansson.

In 1998, the French Open winner was #12 Carlos Moya. In 2002, it was #22 Albert Costa.

In 1998, the Wimbledon winner was #1 Pete Sampras. In 2002, it was #1 Lleyton Hewitt in 2002.

In 1998, the U.S. Open winner was #3 Pat Rafter. In 2002, the U.S. Open winner was #17 Sampras.

Korda was much better than ToJo, Moya was much better than Costa, and Sampras was much better than Hewitt. And while Sampras was much better than Rafter, 1998 Rafter was easily better than 2002 Sampras (heck, he even beat 1998 Sampras in the U.S. Open SF). 2002 seems significantly weaker to me than 1998. Jiri Novak got as high as #5 in 2002 and finished the year at #7 despite never making it past the 4th round of any Major aside from the 2002 Australian Open, beating no one ranked above #43 to get there.

 

[nolefam_2024]

It won't be end of the world if Murray is not ATG.

But, with 2 slams, I do not think, there were any *sane* fans discussing if he is an ATG. I remember there were some lunatics who were.

At least with slam no.3, the supporters' number increased along with fans who are undecided.

If he wins no.4, a lot more would say this. Because, there is no all approved threshold for an imaginary thing as GOAT.

 

[Mainad]

How would he rank compared to Pat Rafter ? I think Andy's had more longevity at the top, and still may have a couple more slams in him. But longevity aside, I sorta see him around the Rafter level.

Is Pat an ATG ?

Rafter only made 4 Slam finals in his career winning 2 of them (back to back US Open titles 1997-8) and won only 2 Masters titles. In fact he only ever won 11 titles in his whole career. Murray has made 11 Slam finals winning 3 of them and has won 12 Masters titles plus an Olympic gold medal. He has won a total of 38 titles to date. So not much comparison there.

Rafter however did have the distinction of holding the number #1 ranking which is the only thing he has over Murray.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

It won't be end of the world if Murray is not ATG.

But, with 2 slams, I do not think, there were any *sane* fans discussing if he is an ATG. I remember there were some lunatics who were.

At least with slam no.3, the supporters' number increased along with fans who are undecided.

If he wins no.4, a lot more would say this. Because, there is no all approved threshold for an imaginary thing as GOAT.

Yeah, if people don't consider Murray an all time great then fair enough. I don't care enough to debate something like this, or anything really. I just read. lol

But he is still an all time great in my mind and that isn't going to change.

 

[buscemi]

Rafter only made 4 Slam finals in his career winning 2 of them (back to back US Open titles 1997-8) and won only 2 Masters titles. In fact he only ever won 11 titles in his whole career. Murray has made 11 Slam finals winning 3 of them and has won 12 Masters titles plus an Olympic gold medal. He has won a total of 38 titles to date. So not much comparison there.

Rafter however did have the distinction of holding the number #1 ranking which is the only thing he has over Murray.

To me, Murray seems clearly above Rafter and all of the other 2 Major winners, but he's clearly below the 4 Major winners: Courier and Vilas. With 1 more Major, the discussion becomes interesting. With 2 Majors or 1 Major + #1 or WTF title, I think he qualifies as an ATG.

 

[rh310]

Rafter only made 4 Slam finals in his career winning 2 of them (back to back US Open titles 1997-8) and won only 2 Masters titles. In fact he only ever won 11 titles in his whole career. Murray has made 11 Slam finals winning 3 of them and has won 12 Masters titles plus an Olympic gold medal. He has won a total of 38 titles to date. So not much comparison there.

Rafter however did have the distinction of holding the number #1 ranking which is the only thing he has over Murray.

Good reply, thanks. I agree. For some reason, I'd thought Rafter had a few more titles.

 

[TupeloDanger]

Yeah, if people don't consider Murray an all time great then fair enough. I don't care enough to debate something like this, or anything really. I just read. lol

But he is still an all time great in my mind and that isn't going to change.

But why not strive for a mind that isn't deprived of sense?

 

[Poisoned Slice]

But why not strive for a mind that isn't deprived of sense?

I can't face reality.

 

[metsman]

Look at what Sampras had to achieve to get #1 in 1998 compared to any other #1 - he comes off the worst, he also had a losing record against the rest of the players who ended 1998 in the top 10 with him that year. It's the weakest year of the Open Era and quite clearly.

You putting that little quip about Agassi in 2001 is rich when he was better in 2001 than he was in 1996-1998. Shows what you're all about I guess?

And BTW Kuerten won the FO in 2001.

yeah 98 was a joke year and I say that as a Sampras fan. Although at the majors the competition wasn't bad (97 was worse) but outside it was ugly. 96 was decent at the majors with the resurgence of Becker and Krajiceck's magic and Muster as well but 97-98 was bad. Then again Sampras basically didn't really add anything to his resume as a result of the weak era so it doesn't really matter

 

[buscemi]

Good reply, thanks. I agree. For some reason, I'd thought Rafter had a few more titles.

He was a later bloomer and then retired with injuries when he otherwise likely still had a lot of good tennis in him. He had had 1 title prior to 1997 and finished year-end #66, #20, #66, and #62 in 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996. 1997-2001 was when his game finally clicked, but he called it a day in 1997 despite making the SF at the Australian Open, the final at Wimbledon, and the final in Canada and Cincinnati (again, because of injuries).

 

[JRAJ1988]

I'll add, from a British perspective (Cornwall though is like the Alabama of the UK), personally I think Andy is one of the greatest sports persons to have ever represented these isles.

 

[NatF]

I'm not sure why a spreading of the wealth in 1998 makes it weaker than other years, such as 2002.

In 1998, the Australian Open winner was #7 Petr Korda. In 2002, it was #18 Thomas Johansson.

In 1998, the French Open winner was #12 Carlos Moya. In 2002, it was #22 Albert Costa.

In 1998, the Wimbledon winner was #1 Pete Sampras. In 2002, it was #1 Lleyton Hewitt in 2002.

In 1998, the U.S. Open winner was #3 Pat Rafter. In 2002, the U.S. Open winner was #17 Sampras.

Korda was much better than ToJo, Moya was much better than Costa, and Sampras was much better than Hewitt. And while Sampras was much better than Rafter, 1998 Rafter was easily better than 2002 Sampras (heck, he even beat 1998 Sampras in the U.S. Open SF). 2002 seems significantly weaker to me than 1998. Jiri Novak got as high as #5 in 2002 and finished the year at #7 despite never making it past the 4th round of any Major aside from the 2002 Australian Open, beating no one ranked above #43 to get there.

Sampras won one slam and 3 other small titles - against those other YE top 10 opponents he was 7-8. Doesn't compare to Hewitt in 2002. I find it hard to believe the top 10 was stronger when no one could manage to topple those results.

 

[metsman]

98 Rafter easily better than 02 Sampras?? That implies 98 USO SF Sampras better than 02 USO Sampras?

Stop scouting the frieakin score line and rankings people I mean cmon. Sampras was up 2-1 in the semi before he hurt himself and his form wasn't that sharp anyways. Sampras from the 4R on in 02 played amazing tennis as he left it all out there to win that last major. It's like saying 12 Fed>15 Fed at the USO or 10 Fed>14 Fed at Wimby just because he was younger.

 

[buscemi]

Sampras won one slam and 3 other small titles - against those other YE top 10 opponents he was 7-8. Doesn't compare to Hewitt in 2002. I find it hard to believe the top 10 was stronger when no one could manage to topple those results.

Again, I don't see how 1998 being a year in which the wealth was spread makes 1998 "the weakest year of the Open Era and quite clearly."

In 1991, Edberg was #1 despite (1) winning just 1 Major (U.S. Open); (2) winning no Masters Series events; and (3) not even playing WTF. But 1991 was a great year, with Becker winning the Australian Open over Lendl, Courier beating Agassi at the French Open, Stich taking out Edberg and Becker to win Wimbledon, Edberg beating Lendl and Courier to win the U.S. Open, and Sampras beating Lendl and Courier (and Stich and Agassi) to win WTF.

Sure, 2002 Hewitt accomplished more than 1998 Sampras to get YE #1, but he also accomplished more than 1991 Edberg, and 1991 is miles better than 2002.

 

[buscemi]

98 Rafter easily better than 02 Sampras?? That implies 98 USO SF Sampras better than 02 USO Sampras?

Stop scouting the frieakin score line and rankings people I mean cmon. Sampras was up 2-1 in the semi before he hurt himself and his form wasn't that sharp anyways. Sampras from the 4R on in 02 played amazing tennis as he left it all out there to win that last major. It's like saying 12 Fed>15 Fed at the USO or 10 Fed>14 Fed at Wimby just because he was younger.

Sampras was 20-17 and ranked #17 in the world heading into the 2002 U.S. Open. Rafter was 45-16 and ranked #3 in the world heading into the 1998 U.S. Open and had won both Canada and Cincinnati, beating Sampras in the final of the latter. Sure, Pete caught lightning in a bottle for 4 matches at the 2002 U.S. Open, but, overall, 1998 Rafter was clearly better than 2002 Sampras.

 

[metsman]

Sampras was 20-17 and ranked #17 in the world heading into the 2002 U.S. Open. Rafter was 45-16 and ranked #3 in the world heading into the 1998 U.S. Open and had won both Canada and Cincinnati, beating Sampras in the final of the latter. Sure, Pete caught lightning in a bottle for 4 matches at the 2002 U.S. Open, but, overall, 1998 Rafter was clearly better than 2002 Sampras.

Points taken, but that doesn't mean that 98 USO rafter was a better player than 02 USO Sampras which is what the point of the comparison was I believe.

 

[buscemi]

Points taken, but that doesn't mean that 98 USO rafter was a better player than 02 USO Sampras which is what the point of the comparison was I believe.

Well, the question is: Which tennis year was worse, 1998 or 2002? So, if we're comparing the entirety of 1998 vs. the entirety of 2002, we're looking at Rafter's play throughout 1998 vs. Sampras's play throughout 2002. Even if Sampras's level at the 2002 U.S. Open was higher than Rafter's play at the 1998 U.S. Open, it seems pretty clear that Rafter's level during the rest of 1998 was much higher than Sampras's level during the rest of 2002.

The same goes for Moya vs. Costa. Who played better: Moya at the 1998 French or Costa at the 1998 French? I would say Moya, but, regardless, Moya also won Monte Carlo, made the WTF finals, and made the U.S. Open SF in 1998. Meanwhile, in 2002, Costa didn't make it past the 4th round of any other Major, didn't make it past the QF of any Masters Series event, and went 1-2 in RR play at WTF.

 

[abmk]

To me, Murray seems clearly above Rafter and all of the other 2 Major winners, but he's clearly below the 4 Major winners: Courier and Vilas. With 1 more Major, the discussion becomes interesting. With 2 Majors or 1 Major + #1 or WTF title, I think he qualifies as an ATG.

I don't think Vilas is above Murray. He won 2 AOs in depleted fields. Yeah, he won the YEC in 74, which was major level tournament, that still makes it 3 'majors', not 4.

 

[buscemi]

I don't think Vilas is above Murray. He won 2 AOs in depleted fields. Yeah, he won the YEC in 74, which was major level tournament, that still makes it 3 'majors', not 4.

I agree that the 2 AO titles are diminished, but I also think that Vilas should have been #1 in 1977 over Connors. Murray vs. Vilas is definitely a closer call than Murray vs. Courier, but I'd still give Guillermo the slight edge. But I expect Murray to pass Vilas pretty soon. We'll see.

 

[cockneyDjoker]

Murray is an ATG and when he retires he'll go down as a greater player than Becker and Edberg and greater than Nadal off clay.

 

[buscemi]

Murray is an ATG and when he retires he'll go down as a greater player than Becker and Edberg and greater than Nadal off clay.

He might very well get past Edberg and Becker, but he's clearly not there yet. Edberg had 6 Majors, a WTF title, and 72 weeks at #1 (YE #1 in 1990 and 1991). Becker had 6 Majors, 3 WTF titles, and 12 weeks as #1.

 

[cockneyDjoker]

He might very well get past Edberg and Becker, but he's clearly not there yet. Edberg had 6 Majors, a WTF title, and 72 weeks at #1 (YE #1 in 1990 and 1991). Becker had 6 Majors, 3 WTF titles, and 12 weeks as #1.

Murray should end his career with 4-6 slams but that's not all that matters. Murray is in the upper echelons in most of the stats you see in the open era records.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Era_tennis_records_–_men's_singles

 

[buscemi]

Murray should end his career with 4-6 slams but that's not all that matters. Murray is in the upper echelons in most of the stats you see in the open era records.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Era_tennis_records_–_men's_singles

Right. Majors aren't all that matters, but most people agree that the big 3 criteria are Majors, weeks at #1, and WTF titles. Murray might have the edge on Edberg and Becker on other criteria, but those wouldn't be nearly enough to overcome his deficits in the big 3 criteria. Again, though, we'll see how he does the next few years.

 

[abmk]

I agree that the 2 AO titles are diminished, but I also think that Vilas should have been #1 in 1977 over Connors. Murray vs. Vilas is definitely a closer call than Murray vs. Courier, but I'd still give Guillermo the slight edge. But I expect Murray to pass Vilas pretty soon. We'll see.

one could argue borg for #1 in 77 as well.

I agree Vilas vs Murray is close.

 

[nowhereman]

Not yet, but he could get there if he stays healthy past 30. Another 2 slams and at least one stint at #1 would make him an ATG IMO. Not sure if he can pull this off, though.

 

[JRAJ1988]

Why am I hearing this "Mury is an ATG" all of a sudden? From Journalists now?

Are we in some kind of tennis hyperbole? He's an all time good player but great? He has to dominate especially next year.

As Nowhereman states, if Murray wins say 2-3 more slams (Bare in mind he turns 30 next may) and has a stint (which he is having) at number one then he's in Becker, Edberg and Newcome territory.

 

[BGod]

I'd never put Andy in the all-time discussion because he fed off the scraps in a homogenized era but, on paper it's titillating:

Assume he ends with 5 Slams, 9 Finals, 15th at Weeks #1, a WTF and 19 Masters.

That would probably put him just below Agassi/McEnroe/Connors level. I mean, to the casual people who forget who Wilander was and think Edberg/Becker having 1 more Slams but a lot less Finals is an issue.

 

[BGod]

I personally don't think Murray touches Becker/Edberg/Wilander because those guys had serious periods of dominance in a deep field.

Even if Murray trashes everybody for 2 seasons, if he's doing it against hacks then I'm still going with the above guys.