Andy Murray

Hamnavoe

Hall of Fame
#1
I'm not a particularly emotional person, but today I felt my eyes filling with tears. It takes a lot to do that, but seeing Andy Murray - the man who I have supported for years now, the man who has done indescribable amounts for the game here, the man who has achieved so much in his career - announce his retirement did it alright. The thing that stung more than anything was having to watch Andy walk away from the game he loves so much.

I can't even imagine what it must have been like to be in Andy's position throughout his life. At eight years old to be present in a school as children are being massacred. At 15 to move to a foreign country, away from all of his family and friends back home. To have the eyes of the media focused in on you at all times, to feel the weight of expectation of a whole nation pressing down on your shoulders, to train relentlessly in order to stave off competition from below and try and catch up with your contemporaries, who just happen to be three of the greatest players of all time.

But he did us all proud. The boy from a wee town off the A9 has won Wimbledon twice, under the immense pressure of becoming the first Brit to take the title since 1936. He's won the US Open. He's brought home two Olympic gold medals, and guided his country to the Davis Cup. He's held the number one ranking for 41 weeks. He's won 663 matches and 45 titles. He's established himself as one of the greatest British sportsmen of all time.

Thanks for the memories, Sir Andy.











 

Hamnavoe

Hall of Fame
#6
Fantastic post from a genuine and passionate Murray fan. @Hamnavoe do you think you will be able to get equally passionate about tennis after Murray's retirement? Or was Murray the main reason why you loved tennis?
Thanks for the compliment pal.

Murray was a big reason why I love tennis. I'm not sure if I'll passionately support a player like I have Andy, but I'll still be passionate about tennis, whatever happens.
 
#7
I'm not a particularly emotional person, but today I felt my eyes filling with tears. It takes a lot to do that, but seeing Andy Murray - the man who I have supported for years now, the man who has done indescribable amounts for the game here, the man who has achieved so much in his career - announce his retirement did it alright. The thing that stung more than anything was having to watch Andy walk away from the game he loves so much.

I can't even imagine what it must have been like to be in Andy's position throughout his life. At eight years old to be present in a school as children are being massacred. At 15 to move to a foreign country, away from all of his family and friends back home. To have the eyes of the media focused in on you at all times, to feel the weight of expectation of a whole nation pressing down on your shoulders, to train relentlessly in order to stave off competition from below and try and catch up with your contemporaries, who just happen to be three of the greatest players of all time.

But he did us all proud. The boy from a wee town off the A9 has won Wimbledon twice, under the immense pressure of becoming the first Brit to take the title since 1936. He's won the US Open. He's brought home two Olympic gold medals, and guided his country to the Davis Cup. He's held the number one ranking for 41 weeks. He's won 663 matches and 45 titles. He's established himself as one of the greatest British sportsmen of all time.

Thanks for the memories, Sir Andy.











 
#9
45 titles.

That's a serious haul.

4 more than Stefan Edberg and 4 less than Boris Becker. Why not as many Slams? Not all eras are created equal. The Big Three are greedy.
I think most people can adjust for the era

3 slams
6 finals (including a french)

Out of the 9 finals only once did he not meet Fed or Djokovic

2 gold metals including beating Fed and keeping him gold metal less.

3 slams, 2 gold metals, and 6 finals would be great in any era but in the one he was in I think it equates to 7 or 8 in a normal era and roughly equivelnty to players like Aggasi or McEnroe personally in the Panthon of Tennis.
 
#10
I think most people can adjust for the era

3 slams
6 finals (including a french)

Out of the 9 finals only once did he not meet Fed or Djokovic

2 gold metals including beating Fed and keeping him gold metal less.

3 slams, 2 gold metals, and 6 finals would be great in any era but in the one he was in I think it equates to 7 or 8 in a normal era and roughly equivelnty to players like Aggasi or McEnroe personally in the Panthon of Tennis.

I think Agassi McEnroe is a bit too far, but I'm happy to lump him in the Wilander, Edberg, Becker band. However, this is an EXTREMELY unpopular opinion on this board. Murray is simply too many Slams away for most to entertain the thought that he's in league with that group. People are obsessed with numbers, marginalising context (specifically # of Slams... Slam-centric). That doesn't mean I'm right - if we could simulate it maybe he's just not on their level. But it's not an opinion I hold for any old player. Murray is a special case, as is the present era.
 
#12
I think Agassi McEnroe is a bit too far, but I'm happy to lump him in the Wilander, Edberg, Becker band. However, this is an EXTREMELY unpopular opinion on this board. Murray is simply too many Slams away for most to entertain the thought that he's in league with that group. People are obsessed with numbers, marginalising context
Not to rain on anyone's parade, but the suggestion that Andy is an ATG or anywhere near the achievements of Agassi or Mac is just hyperbole. It's not just on this board that this is accepted, it's anywhere where one discusses tennis. Let's just leave it at that and celebrate the great player Andy was.
 
#13
Not to rain on anyone's parade, but the suggestion that Andy is an ATG or anywhere near the achievements of Agassi or Mac is just hyperbole. It's not just on this board that this is accepted, it's anywhere where one discusses tennis. Let's just leave it at that and celebrate the great player Andy was.
Rich coming from the queen of hyperbole.

How is it hyperbole to suggest Andy Murray is ATG? Don't shout at me for bringing this thread into a mess, you're always the one going on about how he is not ATG. ATG doesn't even have a set bar that you need to hit. Countless people have said he is ATG. I believe he is.
 
#14
Rich coming from the queen of hyperbole.

How is it hyperbole so suggest Andy Murray is ATG? Don't shout at me for bringing this thread into a mess, you're always the one going on about how he is not ATG. ATG doesn't even have a set bar that you need to hit. Countless people have said he is ATG. I believe he is.
he is most certainly an all time great. Imo one can still be critical of him/his career w/e if they choose to be but I don't think there is any denying he is considered an all time great. he has multiple slams, multiple masters, ye #1, I mean list goes on. I think people take an all time great to mean that they are in contention to be among the greatest of all time, but that is not it.
 
#16
I think Agassi McEnroe is a bit too far, but I'm happy to lump him in the Wilander, Edberg, Becker band. However, this is an EXTREMELY unpopular opinion on this board. Murray is simply too many Slams away for most to entertain the thought that he's in league with that group. People are obsessed with numbers, marginalising context (specifically # of Slams... Slam-centric). That doesn't mean I'm right - if we could simulate it maybe he's just not on their level. But it's not an opinion I hold for any old player. Murray is a special case, as is the present era.
I do disagree with the idea that Murray's on a par with Becker or Edberg, but not because I don't think context matters. I do think it matters. However, I disagree that the present era is clearly stronger or tougher than the one in which Becker and Edberg played. If anything, I would say it's the reverse. So, I don't think we should say, "Well, Murray would have got more Slams were it not for Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic," so much as, "Well, Murray might have been upset in the early rounds more often were it not for 32 seeds, relative lack of strength in depth throughout most of his career, being better rested due to not playing best of five sets so often in minor events, etc." That is, context has to be interpreted, and there can be considerable disagreement about how to interpret it.
 
Last edited:
#17
I do disagree with the idea that Murray's on a par with Becker or Edberg, but not because I don't think context matters. I do think it matters. However, I disagree that the present era is clearly stronger or tougher than the one in which Becker and Edberg play. If anything, I would say it's the reverse. So, I don't think we should say, "Well, Murray would have got more Slams were it not for Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic," so much as, "Well, Murray might have been upset in the early rounds more often were it not for 32 seeds, relative lack of strength in depth throughout most of his career, being better rested due to not playing best of five sets so often in minor events, etc." That is, context has to be interpreted, and there can be considerable disagreement about how to interpret it.

I think the top-heavy nature of the era blocked Murray off in a way that wouldn't have happened if this era had a dynamic more like the '80s. I see the Big Three as all being better than Lendl. At the same time I don't think Murray would just stockpile Slams freely without the presence of the Big Three (even dedicated threads to it). Ultimately, I think the quality at the very top is the biggest determinant when evaluating the difficulty of winning Slams.
 
#18
I think Agassi McEnroe is a bit too far, but I'm happy to lump him in the Wilander, Edberg, Becker band. However, this is an EXTREMELY unpopular opinion on this board. Murray is simply too many Slams away for most to entertain the thought that he's in league with that group. People are obsessed with numbers, marginalising context (specifically # of Slams... Slam-centric). That doesn't mean I'm right - if we could simulate it maybe he's just not on their level. But it's not an opinion I hold for any old player. Murray is a special case, as is the present era.
I think you could actually make the case he is higher.

He's 9th all time in Semi Finals and he was done at 30 years old, so it's not like he even hung around as long as Aggassi or McEnroe more into their mid 30's.

1. Roger Federer 43
2. Novak Djokovic 33
3. Jimmy Connors 31
4. Rafael Nadal 29
5. Ivan Lendl 28
6. Andre Agassi 26
7. Ken Rosewall 25
8. Pete Sampras 23
9. Andy Murray 21
10. Bill Tilden 20

When you consider 3 of the top 4 were all his era it shows just how dominate he was vs everyone else. Of course McEnroe was a different time where they didn't play the AO as much and Aggassi skipped slams early too etc etc but Murray is up there IMO. The gold medals help separate him as well IMO.
 
#19
I think you could actually make the case he is higher.

He's 9th all time in Semi Finals and he was done at 30 years old, so it's not like he even hung around as long as Aggassi or McEnroe more into their mid 30's.

1. Roger Federer 43
2. Novak Djokovic 33
3. Jimmy Connors 31
4. Rafael Nadal 29
5. Ivan Lendl 28
6. Andre Agassi 26
7. Ken Rosewall 25
8. Pete Sampras 23
9. Andy Murray 21
10. Bill Tilden 20

When you consider 3 of the top 4 were all his era it shows just how dominate he was vs everyone else. Of course McEnroe was a different time where they didn't play the AO as much and Aggassi skipped slams early too etc etc but Murray is up there IMO. The gold medals help separate him as well IMO.
I don't see him as quite being there but at the same time I think you attack the idea with good reasoning. It's reasonable to consider that overall picture and put it against the amount of times Murray has been denied by players in the same era who happened to have collectively reached more than 100 SFs in Slams and come to the idea that he might be in league with players who have won several more Slams than he has. I can't go as far as Agassi and McEnroe personally tho. It's controversial enough to say he might be in the same band as the group behind Lendl in the '80s already. ;)

Ultimately, the era has had an unusual glut of extreme tennis anomalies having overlapping primes - the sort of talents who are supposed to be generational whose paths crossed in a single era.
 

Azure

Hall of Fame
#20
You can't change when you are born, which country you represent in an individual sport (the irony!) but you can fight to the best of your abilities and fight adversities by staring into its eyes. Murray did that. Ifs and buts apart, he did what he could and more.
 
#21
You can't change when you are born, which country you represent in an individual sport (the irony!) but you can fight to the best of your abilities and fight adversities by staring into its eyes. Murray did that. Ifs and buts apart, he did what he could and more.

It's funny as I was just in private convo with somebody talking about how Murray didn't do all he could regarding making the most of his athletic gifts, his speed and explosiveness and strength, when considering how he often decided to play the game (somewhat defensively). The idea was put to me as to what another mind might have achieved in the same body. Yet there's no doubting that regardless of his curious outlook and style, that he was incredibly smart, tactically astute, and poured his heart and soul into the game.
 

Azure

Hall of Fame
#23
It's funny as I was just in private convo with somebody talking about how Murray didn't do all he could regarding making the most of his athletic gifts, his speed and explosiveness and strength, when considering how he often decided to play the game (somewhat defensively). The idea was put to me as to what another mind might have achieved in the same body. Yet there's no doubting that regardless of his curious outlook and style, that he was incredibly smart, tactically astute, and poured his heart and soul into the game.
I am curious to know what further he could have done. To be honest at the start I saw three players showing equal promise - Novak, Murray and Gasquet. Gasquet was the one touted to have the most talent. He did not fulfil his potential in my view. Novak turned into a monster of a player that forgot to take his foot off the accelerator.

Murray had loads of pressure. He handled it very well and bagging not one, but two wimbledons is incredible. Regardless of weak or strong years, history will see him grab the number one ranking when the big three were playing.
 
#25
45 titles.

That's a serious haul.

4 more than Stefan Edberg and 4 less than Boris Becker. Why not as many Slams? Not all eras are created equal. The Big Three are greedy.
Has about the same number of major finals as them aswell.

Becker had finals against Curren, Chang and Stich, all of whom Murray would have beaten. Becker won 3 out of 3 hardcourt finals, Murray won 1 out of 7 (having faced a double digit major winner in each one.) The competition Becker faced overall was very strong, but there was no double digit major winners there except Pete Sampras, who won all 3 of their matches at WImbledon.

In a different era, Murray has the same career as Becker/Edberg IMO.
 
#26
I am curious to know what further he could have done. To be honest at the start I saw three players showing equal promise - Novak, Murray and Gasquet. Gasquet was the one touted to have the most talent. He did not fulfil his potential in my view. Novak turned into a monster of a player that forgot to take his foot off the accelerator.

Murray had loads of pressure. He handled it very well and bagging not one, but two wimbledons is incredible. Regardless of weak or strong years, history will see him grab the number one ranking when the big three were playing.
I think the conditions of the tour trended more toward Djokovic than Murray, but that isn't to explain away the discrepancy in their achievements - Djokovic is simply better regardless.

I agree on Gasquet but peeps were probably too optimistic about him in general also, as has happened in more recent times perhaps with Dimitrov and Kyrgios?

Murray did really well. What I wonder about is how he could have utilised his natural athleticism to develop a more potent and consistent power game to further supplement his tremendous defence. That second serve has also been a bugbear, and I'm not sure it ever needed to be. Regardless, like you say, he'll go down in history with a great ledger.
 
#28
Has about the same number of major finals as them aswell.

Becker had finals against Curren, Chang and Stich, all of whom Murray would have beaten. Becker won 3 out of 3 hardcourt finals, Murray won 1 out of 7 (having faced a double digit major winner in each one.) The competition Becker faced overall was very strong, but there was no double digit major winners there except Pete Sampras, who won all 3 of their matches at WImbledon.

In a different era, Murray has the same career as Becker/Edberg IMO.

I know one thing for sure. Murray is gonna be the first player the next gen pass, and as they do in Slam count there's gonna be all sorts of delightful threads on TTW.
 
#29
I'm not a particularly emotional person, but today I felt my eyes filling with tears. It takes a lot to do that, but seeing Andy Murray - the man who I have supported for years now, the man who has done indescribable amounts for the game here, the man who has achieved so much in his career - announce his retirement did it alright. The thing that stung more than anything was having to watch Andy walk away from the game he loves so much.

I can't even imagine what it must have been like to be in Andy's position throughout his life. At eight years old to be present in a school as children are being massacred. At 15 to move to a foreign country, away from all of his family and friends back home. To have the eyes of the media focused in on you at all times, to feel the weight of expectation of a whole nation pressing down on your shoulders, to train relentlessly in order to stave off competition from below and try and catch up with your contemporaries, who just happen to be three of the greatest players of all time.

But he did us all proud. The boy from a wee town off the A9 has won Wimbledon twice, under the immense pressure of becoming the first Brit to take the title since 1936. He's won the US Open. He's brought home two Olympic gold medals, and guided his country to the Davis Cup. He's held the number one ranking for 41 weeks. He's won 663 matches and 45 titles. He's established himself as one of the greatest British sportsmen of all time.

Thanks for the memories, Sir Andy.











Honestly I was feeling teary this morning - so can't imagine how his fans are feeling.

I hope @Mainad is OK. Let us know you're all right if you're up that.
 
#30
I think the top-heavy nature of the era blocked Murray off in a way that wouldn't have happened if this era had a dynamic more like the '80s. I see the Big Three as all being better than Lendl. At the same time I don't think Murray would just stockpile Slams freely without the presence of the Big Three (even dedicated threads to it). Ultimately, I think the quality at the very top is the biggest determinant when evaluating the difficulty of winning Slams.
Yeah, it's the last sentence that I most disagree with. But I can understand your point of view.
 
#31
Murray and Kuerten are surely similar in ATG rankings lists? 3 slams, WTF, World number 1 and numerous titles, ended careers because of hip issues.

I hope Mainad and co are doing ok, I feel a lot better, I've got to be a sad act being a 30 year old bloke getting consoled by ones Girlfriend because a tennis player one has followed for 14 years retires. 14 years is nearly half my life, time really does fly after you leave School!
 
#34
I don't see him as quite being there but at the same time I think you attack the idea with good reasoning. It's reasonable to consider that overall picture and put it against the amount of times Murray has been denied by players in the same era who happened to have collectively reached more than 100 SFs in Slams and come to the idea that he might be in league with players who have won several more Slams than he has. I can't go as far as Agassi and McEnroe personally tho. It's controversial enough to say he might be in the same band as the group behind Lendl in the '80s already. ;)

Ultimately, the era has had an unusual glut of extreme tennis anomalies having overlapping primes - the sort of talents who are supposed to be generational whose paths crossed in a single era.
Just looking at the all time SF's list and thinking he is actually younger than Sampras was when he retired got me thinking how many majors they each play and what the percentage of SF's they reached were.

Djokovic 55 Majors / 33 SF's.....60%
Federer 74 Majors /43 SF's.... ...59%
Nadal 54 Majors / 29 SF's........54%
Lendel 57 Majors / 28 SF's........50%
McEnroe 40 Majors / 19 SF's....48%
Sampras 52 Majors / 23 SF's....45%
Murray 47 Majors / 21 SF's.......45%
Aggassi 60 Majors / 26 SF's.....44%
Becker 46 Majors / 18 SF's.......40%
Edberg 54 Majors / 18 SF's.....34%

When you look at it that way knowing that once he made it to the Final 4 that he had to deal with 3 of the top 4 if not the 3 best players players ever, I think it puts it in a different perspective. As far as getting to the SF's he did that better than the Edbergs and Beckers. I think he's more in the Aggassi/McEnroe tier personally or somewhere inbetween them and the Becker and Edbergs. I think this is a pretty good way to adjust for who was blocking him as far as tiers.

Sampras is just kind of weird when you look at it this way, his weakness in the French really shines. Bjorg 17 of 27 .....63% but he retired in his prime., probably would have fallen off into the 50's had he stayed around longer.
 
Last edited:
#35
Gut wrenching. Heart wrenching. Breaks my heart. Suffering a debilitating chronic injury july 2017 and still battling to heal it 100% i understand and sympathize with the great Scott. Just enjoy your fabulous wife and you have a great mom.
 
#38
At 31, he is not old and could possibly come back.....
Depending on prognosis by the specialists, I feel he could withdraw from AO, take further surgery and have a final run for the grass and hard court season.
 
#41
I hope @Mainad is OK. Let us know you're all right if you're up that.
I'm very down at the moment but I'm okay. I feel chiefly down for Andy because I know he doesn't want to retire but is being forced to do so because of his damned hip. It must be agony for him (the decision to retire more so than the hip) and I can feel it for him. The worst possible start to the new year. Very very sad!
 
#43
I'm very down at the moment but I'm okay. I feel chiefly down for Andy because I know he doesn't want to retire but is being forced to do so because of his damned hip. It must be agony for him (the decision to retire more so than the hip) and I can feel it for him. The worst possible start to the new year. Very very sad!
Glad you're able to do this.

I hope the genuine outpouring of affection for Andy from fellow players and fans is some comfort. He came a long way from "that grumpy Scot"
 
#44
Murray fought with everything he had to the very last, never giving up. He is, without any doubt, one of the greats of all time! He will be missed, most definitely. Being one of the 4 greatest players of his era for over a decade has never been achieved before and he was a worthy member of that select group of players who regularly made the last 4 in every tournament they entered.

I hope he gets his hip sorted out so that he can enjoy a good quality of life from here. So sad for him that it has to end like this.
 
#46
I'm very down at the moment but I'm okay. I feel chiefly down for Andy because I know he doesn't want to retire but is being forced to do so because of his damned hip. It must be agony for him (the decision to retire more so than the hip) and I can feel it for him. The worst possible start to the new year. Very very sad!
Cheer up buddy! I know this is hard, but from now until Wimbledon we should celebrate the man and what he brought to the sport.

I wasn't always the most appreciative of his game or on-court demeanor, but over the years, knowing Andy, knowing the struggles and sacrifices he came through, his warm and self-deprecating humor, he grew on a lot of folks like myself.

Looking back, it is astounding indeed what he achieved with what he was up against all his life. It may not have ended on his terms, as is life, but he damn well fought the fight on his terms and for that alone he is a sporting hero, a legend whose place in the annals of Tennis history can never be questioned again.
 
Top