Are we agreed or not that Murray is placed within Courier and Kuerten in some kind of "list"?

[Zardoz7/12]

Murray has had the same achievements to Kuerten and Courier barring Courier with 4 slams.

Do people see Courier as an all time great or Kuerten for that matter?

There was a thread about if Murray is an all time great, If Murray had like 6 or 7 slams I would consider him to be yes but I don't consider him to be one, he's a or was a top player but not an elite player. Federer/Djokovic/Nadal are elite players, they are the measuring stick Men's tennis, if a player could get through Murray then they would take on the elite, Murray to me was the bridge between the elite to the rest, he wasn't as consistent as those 3, although his form on the 2nd half of the 2016 season was incredible, he literally destroyed himself to become number 1 and the effects of that run linger with him to this day.

One could argue Wawrinka is very close to this group of Murray/Kuerten/Courier also. I just don't see categorising Murray in a list that hard, he is not an all time great but his career will be seen as a huge success given he competed against 3 of the all time greats of men's tennis.

 

[MeatTornado]

"Agree" is not a word in TTW's vocabulary.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Do people see Courier as an all time great or Kuerten for that matter?

8 trillioneth time:

ATG's all have this amount of majors at a minimum:

 

[Federer and Del Potro]

That image is maybe the creepiest thing I've ever seen.

 

[Third Serve]

Well, that image isn't getting out of my head any time soon.

 

[BeatlesFan]

"Agree" is not a word in TTW's vocabulary.

I thought everyone here agree Fed was a POS on clay?

 

[BeatlesFan]

That image is maybe the creepiest thing I've ever seen.

It was supposed to be since I'm f-cking sick to death of the endless "Murray is an ATG" posts when he has 3 slams. I realize we're in a pandemic, but these people need to get some new material.

 

[buscemi]

Do people see Courier as an all time great or Kuerten for that matter?

Pretty much no one views Courier or Kuerten as an ATG. Most view the cut-off as Becker/Edberg w/6 Majors.

Below that is the Courier/Vilas tier, which probably includes:

-Courier​

-Vilas​

-Murray​

-Kuerten​

-[Edit: Ashe]​

-Nastase​

-Hewitt​

-Smith​

You could also maybe include Wawrinka and Kodes.

 

[Third Serve]

Pretty much no one views Courier or Kuerten as an ATG. Most view the cut-off as Becker/Edberg w/6 Majors.

Below that is the Courier/Vilas tier, which probably includes:

-Courier​

-Vilas​

-Murray​

-Kuerten​

-Nastase​

-Hewitt​

-Smith​

You could also maybe include Wawrinka and Kodes.

You think Ashe could be included in that list as well? I haven't ever watched any of his matches but his results seem comparable to the above group.

 

[Federer and Del Potro]

It was supposed to be since I'm f-cking sick to death of the endless "Murray is an ATG" posts when he has 3 slams. I realize we're in a pandemic, but these people need to get some new material.

I can't see yours actually, there's just an x there.

Was referring to Op's:

 

[buscemi]

You think Ashe could be included in that list as well? I haven't ever watched any of his matches but his results seem comparable to the above group.

Oops. Left him off by accident. I just added him in.

 

[Federer and Del Potro]

Hmmm this is the new meme template

 

[Federer and Del Potro]

I thought everyone here agree Fed was a POS on clay?

TTW would agree Fed is the only one not allowed to get old.

 

[Third Serve]

Oops. Left him off by accident. I just added him in.

Yeah, that list seems about accurate. Multiple-Slam winners who have some weeks at #1 and a YEC title or plenty of Masters.

 

[buscemi]

Yeah, that list seems about accurate. Multiple-Slam winners who have some weeks at #1 and a YEC title or plenty of Masters.

Yes, that's my thinking exactly.

 

[King No1e]

I thought everyone here agree Fed was a POS?

FTFY, Fed devotee

 

[King No1e]

Courier, Vilas, and Kuerten are not ATG's, but they're close.
Murray is more than an ATG. Mury is GOAT.

 

[bjsnider]

When I define ATG, I do not only include the elite of the elite, eg. Ra, Horus, Zeus, Odin, Jesus, Jupiter et al. in which case you'd be limited to Federer, Sampras, Laver, McEnroe, Lendl and a handful of other players. I mean to include Apollo, Thor, Hermes/Mercury et al. in which case it would be something like the 50 or more greatest players. Murray is certainly part of that pantheon.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Murray better and more versatile.

 

[daggerman]

Even if Murray isn't an "all-time great," he's a better player than Courier and Kuerten and belongs in a tier above them.

 

[Mainad]

Always makes me smile at this 'magic' cut off point of 6 Slams so many on here religiously adhere to ie. 6 Slams and you're great, below 6 Slams and you're a bum!

Real life and real careers are a lot more nuanced than that simplistic reasoning. For many of us not obsessed with the Slam count, players like Courier, Kuerten and Murray qualify as great players because of the nature and variety of their achievements and it's just absurd to us not to view them as such.

So no to the OP's question. We are not necessarily agreed (as some of these responses make clear).

 

[Third Serve]

Always makes me smile at this 'magic' cut off point of 6 Slams so many on here religiously adhere to ie. 6 Slams and you're great, below 6 Slams and you're a bum!

Real life and real careers are a lot more nuanced than that simplistic reasoning. For many of us not obsessed with the Slam count, players like Courier, Kuerten and Murray qualify as great players because of the nature and variety of their achievements and it's just absurd to us not to view them as such.

So no to the OP's question. We are not necessarily agreed (as some of these responses make clear).

I don't think most people are willing to call them "bums". Players like Murray, Courier, and Vilas are more like "mini-ATGs", imo. Still great players, but just a tier below the sport's most accomplished stars.

 

[buscemi]

Even if Murray isn't an "all-time great," he's a better player than Courier and Kuerten and belongs in a tier above them.

Tiers by necessity include "better" and "worse" players unless you think a collection of players are absolutely equal. Most people include Wilander, Edberg, and Becker in the same tier as ATGs. Murray would then have to be in the next tier, which would logically include 3 & 4 Major winners as well as possibly some 2 Major winners with other big achievements (e.g., Nastase w/4 WTF titles).

 

[125downthemiddle]

Murray's like those guys that almost made the Hall of fame in NFL. They were good but they just didn't quite accomplish enough. As Skip Bayless says "if you have to question it, they're not Hall material"

 

[PMChambers]

He's an AATG
Almost All Time Great.
Needs 3 more for most. 6/7 cut off is generally ATG.

 

[beard]

On my list Murray is not at same place on the list as two mentioned players... He is above them... Best example how era you play at, can influence you results...

 

[ForehandRF]

That image is maybe the creepiest thing I've ever seen.

What has TTW done to you ?

 

[BGod]

In my personal opinion it's:

1. Murray
2. Courier
3. Wawrinka
4. Vilas
5. Kuerten
6. Kodes
7. Ashe

In that 3-4 Slam group.

 

[Gazelle]

Oh dear, we have unleashed the beast again.

Endless 'is Murray Goat?' debates again for the next few weeks. And I thought it had been settled by a poll.

I'm just gonna answer 'yes' to this question to avoid prosecution. After all, virtual Wimby is not far off and Murray's status always grows during this period.

 

[Red Rick]

Only player to have won a tournament both IRL and virtually

 

[blablavla]

"Agree" is not a word in TTW's vocabulary.

while "agree to disagree" is employed occasionally.

 

[blablavla]

TTW would agree Fed is the only one not allowed to get old.

with one remark.
He gets better with age, meaning he ether just entered his prime, or is just about to enter his prime.

 

[Mainad]

I don't think most people are willing to call them "bums". Players like Murray, Courier, and Vilas are more like "mini-ATGs", imo. Still great players, but just a tier below the sport's most accomplished stars.

In a similar way players like Edberg and Becker are a tier below the sport's most accomplished stars and yet most on here have no hesitation in grouping them all together just because they won 6 Slams.

 

[Third Serve]

In a similar way players like Edberg and Becker are a tier below the sport's most accomplished stars and yet most on here have no hesitation in grouping them all together just because they won 6 Slams.

True, it's also fair to say that only Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Laver, Sampras, and Borg are ATGs since it wraps up at 10+ Slams. The problem is that guys with well over 100 weeks at number 1 like Connors, Lendl, and McEnroe are ignored. I guess you could cut it off to players just below that group, but then you have to realize that Becker, Edberg, and Wilander have nearly identical Slam counts to that group. How can you exclude them then?

 

[Red Rick]

Guy hasn't lost at one major tournament for 12 years.

 

[Mainad]

True, it's also fair to say that only Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Laver, Sampras, and Borg are ATGs since it wraps up at 10+ Slams. The problem is that guys with well over 100 weeks at number 1 like Connors, Lendl, and McEnroe are ignored. I guess you could cut it off to players just below that group, but then you have to realize that Becker, Edberg, and Wilander have nearly identical Slam counts to that group. How can you exclude them then?

Exactly, it's not an exact science and judging a player's worth in the grand scheme of things has to depend on the type of career they have had and the variety and nuances in what they have achieved. It's a lot more complex than just cutting them off at 6 Slams which is my point.

 

[daggerman]

Tiers by necessity include "better" and "worse" players unless you think a collection of players are absolutely equal. Most people include Wilander, Edberg, and Becker in the same tier as ATGs. Murray would then have to be in the next tier, which would logically include 3 & 4 Major winners as well as possibly some 2 Major winners with other big achievements (e.g., Nastase w/4 WTF titles).

It's not by necessity, but yes, it's true that players of different quality can be (and often are) in the same tier.

Murray, however, is of different quality from Courier and Kuerten and on a different tier from them. I personally believe he belongs on the same tier as Becker/Edberg/Wilander, but I'm willing to compromise and say he belongs in his own tier just below them.

 

[buscemi]

It's not by necessity, but yes, it's true that players of different quality can be (and often are) in the same tier.

Murray, however, is of different quality from Courier and Kuerten and on a different tier from them. I personally believe he belongs on the same tier as Becker/Edberg/Wilander, but I'm willing to compromise and say he belongs in his own tier just below them.

Courier has an extra Major on Murray and 17 extra weeks at #1 during a hugely difficult era. It would be tough to argue they belong on different tiers.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

I disagree, Murray is a day late and a dollar short once more.

 

[daggerman]

Courier has an extra Major on Murray and 17 extra weeks at #1 during a hugely difficult era. It would be tough to argue they belong on different tiers.

I'm not asking this question to spark disagreement; I'm just curious: what information do you use to determine the difficulty of an era?

 

[buscemi]

I'm not asking this question to spark disagreement; I'm just curious: what information do you use to determine the difficulty of an era?

Mainly the top 10 players. Here was the top 10 the year Courier finished #1:

1​	Jim Courier​
2​	Stefan Edberg​
3​	Pete Sampras​
4​	Goran Ivanisevic​
5​	Boris Becker​
6​	Michael Chang​
7​	Petr Korda​
8​	Ivan Lendl​
9​	Andre Agassi​
10​	Richard Krajicek​

That's hugely impressive. And, of course, Courier continued at #1 for a good part of 1993, when the top 10 also included players like Stich, Bruguera, and Muster.

 

[Deleted member 748597]

Murray was destroyed in the 6+ Slams = ATG poll. That poll showed that Sir Murray is far from being an all time great.

 

[Djokodalerer31]

We have to ask what makes all those 6+ slam winners so special aside from well...just winning 6 slams? Its not just about winning 6 grand slams throughout the course of one's career! Almost all of them (if not all!) defended grand slam title at least once! Every single one of them has won at least one grand slam title in 5 different seasons (not neccessary consecutive though...considering that most careers back in the day spanned only about 10-15 seasons it speak volumes to their consistency, minus Wilander's sudden decline in the end of 80's), every single one of them became world number one, every single one of them has won at least TWO grand slams in at least ONE of their 5 grand slam winning seasons! Etc...its many factors that earned them ATG status and that is the reason why there is a certain line between weakest in their link (which i still believe is Wilander, not Edberg, but you are welcome to disagree...) and the rest of those, who has won grand slam less than 6 times! Murray on another hand has played tennis for at least as long as Djoker, but won grand slam only 3 times and in 3 different seasons and that includes the one, which he had the biggest and most realistic chances to win 2 instead of 1 (yes i am talking about 2016...), sorry, but i am not convinced it is an ATG status worthy type of career...

 

[Third Serve]

Mainly the top 10 players. Here was the top 10 the year Courier finished #1:

1​	Jim Courier​
2​	Stefan Edberg​
3​	Pete Sampras​
4​	Goran Ivanisevic​
5​	Boris Becker​
6​	Michael Chang​
7​	Petr Korda​
8​	Ivan Lendl​
9​	Andre Agassi​
10​	Richard Krajicek​

That's hugely impressive. And, of course, Courier continued at #1 for a good part of 1993, when the top 10 also included players like Stich, Bruguera, and Muster.

That has to be the most stacked top 10 I've ever seen. Literally everyone on that list has won a Slam at some point. I also count five ATGs.

 

[Mainad]

Murray was destroyed in the 6+ Slams = ATG poll. That poll showed that Sir Murray is far from being an all time great.

They're just biased.

 

[Mainad]

Mainly the top 10 players. Here was the top 10 the year Courier finished #1:

1​	Jim Courier​
2​	Stefan Edberg​
3​	Pete Sampras​
4​	Goran Ivanisevic​
5​	Boris Becker​
6​	Michael Chang​
7​	Petr Korda​
8​	Ivan Lendl​
9​	Andre Agassi​
10​	Richard Krajicek​

That's hugely impressive. And, of course, Courier continued at #1 for a good part of 1993, when the top 10 also included players like Stich, Bruguera, and Muster.

Every one of those names a Grand Slam champion. Maybe a candidate for best Top 10 of all time?

 

[ericarnett88]

..

 

[Crazy Finn]

Mainly the top 10 players. Here was the top 10 the year Courier finished #1:

1​	Jim Courier​
2​	Stefan Edberg​
3​	Pete Sampras​
4​	Goran Ivanisevic​
5​	Boris Becker​
6​	Michael Chang​
7​	Petr Korda​
8​	Ivan Lendl​
9​	Andre Agassi​
10​	Richard Krajicek​

That's hugely impressive. And, of course, Courier continued at #1 for a good part of 1993, when the top 10 also included players like Stich, Bruguera, and Muster.

Every one of those names a Grand Slam champion. Maybe a candidate for best Top 10 of all time?

Chang, Goran, Korda, and Krajicek are the least accomplished on that list and they each have a slam. Pretty solid bunch.

 

[Samprodal]

Courier had his own "mini-era" so to speak before Pete took the keys from him. #1 for over a year, 4 slams, youngest ever to reach finals of all 4 slams, one of 4 to win the Australian and French in the same year, etc. etc. so I don't think Murray really compares.

Having said that, yes, I would place Murray above Guga, below Jim.

 

[Enceladus]

Always makes me smile at this 'magic' cut off point of 6 Slams so many on here religiously adhere to ie. 6 Slams and you're great, below 6 Slams and you're a bum!

Real life and real careers are a lot more nuanced than that simplistic reasoning. For many of us not obsessed with the Slam count, players like Courier, Kuerten and Murray qualify as great players because of the nature and variety of their achievements and it's just absurd to us not to view them as such.

So no to the OP's question. We are not necessarily agreed (as some of these responses make clear).

It is necessary to have a set frontier, because if we say that Murray belongs to the ATG, then someone can say - and why not Hewitt? And if we include Hewitt, why not del Potro, Cash or Gerulaitis? By questioning the limits, exclusivity decreases. This phenomenon IMO is responsibility for that, that THOF now includes on its list players who have only 1 GS title.

I already explained to you that number 6 has a special meaning in tennis. A tennis player needs to get at least 6 games to win a set. And 6 grandslams a tennis player needs to win to be ATG.