As I stated 2 months ago, Murray IS top 15 of all time.

M

McEnborg

Semi-Pro
Made this case a couple of months ago and got lambasted by some. I argued that even though Murray had just 2 slams, he lost 8 slam finals to probably the 2 greatest players of all time. I think Novak will go down as 2nd best ever, behind Fed. He's close to passing Nadal as 2nd best.

Now, he's won 3 slams, 2 Olympic Golds, led GB to Davis Cup title, has a 81.5 winning percentage in majors, 38 titles overall and 12 Masters' Titles. 27 times in slams, he's gotten to at least the quarters. He's been in 20 semis or better in slams.

When you consider the era he's played in...against the top 3 ever...it's incredibly impressive.

Borg never won the US Open. Sampras got to ONE French semi in 13 tries, and got blown out. Laver maybe can be put in top 3 or 4 ever, but when you do the "eye" test, he is below Fed, Novak and Rafa.

Is it Murray's fault that he was in the same era as the 3 best ever?? If anyone honestly thinks Murray is not as good as Newcombe, or Wilander, or Courier....yes he is. I personally think he's better than all 3 of those guys, who have more majors. Andy Murray is top 15 of all time, possibly top 12...there is no question.
 
Without a doubt he's top 10 in terms of consistency, his records blow all 1~5 slam winners out of the water. In terms of actual "greatness" I wouldn't put him above Newcombe or Courier though, they were both beasts in their time and dominated the field pretty emphatically. Murray would need to pull an Agassi now and scoop up 3 Australian titles, hopefully against stronger competition, to put this to bed.
 
McEnborg said:
Made this case a couple of months ago and got lambasted by some. I argued that even though Murray had just 2 slams, he lost 8 slam finals to probably the 2 greatest players of all time. I think Novak will go down as 2nd best ever, behind Fed. He's close to passing Nadal as 2nd best.

Now, he's won 3 slams, 2 Olympic Golds, led GB to Davis Cup title, has a 81.5 winning percentage in majors, 38 titles overall and 12 Masters' Titles. 27 times in slams, he's gotten to at least the quarters. He's been in 20 semis or better in slams.

When you consider the era he's played in...against the top 3 ever...it's incredibly impressive.

Borg never won the US Open. Sampras got to ONE French semi in 13 tries, and got blown out. Laver maybe can be put in top 3 or 4 ever, but when you do the "eye" test, he is below Fed, Novak and Rafa.

Is it Murray's fault that he was in the same era as the 3 best ever?? If anyone honestly thinks Murray is not as good as Newcombe, or Wilander, or Courier....yes he is. I personally think he's better than all 3 of those guys, who have more majors. Andy Murray is top 15 of all time, possibly top 12...there is no question.
Click to expand...
Hopefully our Murray wins USO and then goes all the way in Australian Open....
 
McEnborg said:
Made this case a couple of months ago and got lambasted by some. I argued that even though Murray had just 2 slams, he lost 8 slam finals to probably the 2 greatest players of all time. I think Novak will go down as 2nd best ever, behind Fed. He's close to passing Nadal as 2nd best.

Now, he's won 3 slams, 2 Olympic Golds, led GB to Davis Cup title, has a 81.5 winning percentage in majors, 38 titles overall and 12 Masters' Titles. 27 times in slams, he's gotten to at least the quarters. He's been in 20 semis or better in slams.

When you consider the era he's played in...against the top 3 ever...it's incredibly impressive.

Borg never won the US Open. Sampras got to ONE French semi in 13 tries, and got blown out. Laver maybe can be put in top 3 or 4 ever, but when you do the "eye" test, he is below Fed, Novak and Rafa.

Is it Murray's fault that he was in the same era as the 3 best ever?? If anyone honestly thinks Murray is not as good as Newcombe, or Wilander, or Courier....yes he is. I personally think he's better than all 3 of those guys, who have more majors. Andy Murray is top 15 of all time, possibly top 12...there is no question.
Click to expand...
He's a slightly better Hewitt. Next.
 
HipRotation said:
Without a doubt he's top 10 in terms of consistency, his records blow all 1~5 slam winners out of the water. In terms of actual "greatness" I wouldn't put him above Newcombe or Courier though, they were both beasts in their time and dominated the field pretty emphatically. Murray would need to pull an Agassi now and scoop up 3 Australian titles, hopefully against stronger competition, to put this to bed.
Click to expand...
When did Newcombe dominate the field? (Maybe late 73 early 74 but can't think of any period of newcome dominance. His claim to Ye 1 in 1970 is solely based on his Wimbledon win that year - his only other wins that year were minor titles)
 
timnz said:
When did Newcombe dominate the field? (Maybe late 73 early 74 but can't think of any period of newcome dominance. His claim to Ye 1 in 1970 is solely based on his Wimbledon win that year - his only other wins that year were minor titles)
Click to expand...
When has MURRAY "dominated" the field? Novak is the one who's truly 'dominated' the field and Murray had no answers for him. He didn't face him at Wimbledon or at the Olympics, but when he does I bet it will be the same old story.
 
Sabratha said:
When has MURRAY "dominated" the field? Novak is the one who's truly 'dominated' the field and Murray had no answers for him. He didn't face him at Wimbledon or at the Olympics, but when he does I bet it will be the same old story.
Click to expand...
See the context of what I wrote - I was responding to a post that said that Murray hasn't dominated like Newcome. I disagreed given that Newcombe never dominated.
 
1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Borg
4. Nadal
5. Djokovic
6. Mcenroe
7. Lendl
8. Agassi
9. Connors
10. Becker
11. Edberg
12. Wilander
13. Newk
14. Courier

That's 14 better in the open era alone

pre-open era :

1. Laver
2. Gonzales
3. Tilden
4. Rosewall
5. Budge
6. Perry
7. Vines
8. Hoad
9. Cochet
10. Lacoste
11. Johnston
12. Kramer
13. Sedgman

that's 13 better in the pre-open era

so out of top 25 of all time ..
 
Murray has 2 years before his age catches up on him, I believe. Better make the most of it. If he wins 3 more slams and gets to no. 1, he'll be regarded even higher than Becker or Edberg, IMHO, but we'll see what he does.
 
giphy.gif
 
abmk said:
1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Borg
4. Nadal
5. Djokovic
6. Mcenroe
7. Lendl
8. Agassi
9. Connors
10. Becker
11. Edberg
12. Wilander
13. Newk
14. Courier

That's 14 better in the open era alone

pre-open era :

1. Laver
2. Gonzales
3. Tilden
4. Rosewall
5. Budge
6. Perry
7. Vines
8. Hoad
9. Cochet
10. Lacoste
11. Johnston
12. Kramer
13. Sedgman

that's 13 better in the pre-open era

so out of top 25 of all time ..
Click to expand...
 
abmk said:
1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Borg
4. Nadal
5. Djokovic
6. Mcenroe
7. Lendl
8. Agassi
9. Connors
10. Becker
11. Edberg
12. Wilander
13. Newk
14. Courier

That's 14 better in the open era alone

pre-open era :

1. Laver
2. Gonzales
3. Tilden
4. Rosewall
5. Budge
6. Perry
7. Vines
8. Hoad
9. Cochet
10. Lacoste
11. Johnston
12. Kramer
13. Sedgman

that's 13 better in the pre-open era

so out of top 25 of all time ..
Click to expand...
Murray is clearly better than Courier. He's been in 11 slam finals. Courier was in 7. And then there's the two Gold Medals. I think he's better than Newcombe in terms of his overall game. At their best, Murray beats Newk due to his return and passing shots.

Murray has won 5 more titles than Wilander and is still only 29.

In terms of the Pre-Open era, that's hard to compare because of the difference in technology and fitness training. I think Murray would beat them all just because of his return, consistency and range of game. It's almost impossible to compare though.
 
McEnborg said:
Made this case a couple of months ago and got lambasted by some. I argued that even though Murray had just 2 slams, he lost 8 slam finals to probably the 2 greatest players of all time. I think Novak will go down as 2nd best ever, behind Fed. He's close to passing Nadal as 2nd best.

Now, he's won 3 slams, 2 Olympic Golds, led GB to Davis Cup title, has a 81.5 winning percentage in majors, 38 titles overall and 12 Masters' Titles. 27 times in slams, he's gotten to at least the quarters. He's been in 20 semis or better in slams.

When you consider the era he's played in...against the top 3 ever...it's incredibly impressive.

Borg never won the US Open. Sampras got to ONE French semi in 13 tries, and got blown out. Laver maybe can be put in top 3 or 4 ever, but when you do the "eye" test, he is below Fed, Novak and Rafa.

Is it Murray's fault that he was in the same era as the 3 best ever?? If anyone honestly thinks Murray is not as good as Newcombe, or Wilander, or Courier....yes he is. I personally think he's better than all 3 of those guys, who have more majors. Andy Murray is top 15 of all time, possibly top 12...there is no question.
Click to expand...

Wow can't believe we are now debating whether someone is worthy of a place in the Top 15 or not.

Let it go buddy and let Murray's titles do the talking....he is really well positioned to collect a few more over the next 18 months and if he's able to do that there will be no need to start such ridiculous threads!
 
McEnborg said:
Murray is clearly better than Courier. He's been in 11 slam finals. Courier was in 7. And then there's the two Gold Medals. I think he's better than Newcombe in terms of his overall game. At their best, Murray beats Newk due to his return and passing shots.

Murray has won 5 more titles than Wilander and is still only 29.

In terms of the Pre-Open era, that's hard to compare because of the difference in technology and fitness training. I think Murray would beat them all just because of his return, consistency and range of game. It's almost impossible to compare though.
Click to expand...
Courier has an extra slam, time at 1 and b2b wtf finals. Gold and slam finals dont make that up. Also made much more of the slam finals he got to.
 
McEnborg said:
Murray is clearly better than Courier. He's been in 11 slam finals. Courier was in 7. And then there's the two Gold Medals. I think he's better than Newcombe in terms of his overall game. At their best, Murray beats Newk due to his return and passing shots.

Murray has won 5 more titles than Wilander and is still only 29.

In terms of the Pre-Open era, that's hard to compare because of the difference in technology and fitness training. I think Murray would beat them all just because of his return, consistency and range of game. It's almost impossible to compare though.
Click to expand...
LOL in terms of game he's barely ahead of Lleyton Hewitt, he's just lucky he's peaking in arguably the weakest era ever. Just stop.
 
McEnborg said:
Murray is clearly better than Courier. He's been in 11 slam finals. Courier was in 7. And then there's the two Gold Medals. I think he's better than Newcombe in terms of his overall game. At their best, Murray beats Newk due to his return and passing shots.

Murray has won 5 more titles than Wilander and is still only 29.

In terms of the Pre-Open era, that's hard to compare because of the difference in technology and fitness training. I think Murray would beat them all just because of his return, consistency and range of game. It's almost impossible to compare though.
Click to expand...

no, Murray is not better than Courier.

Courier has one more slam , a year at #1 and did better at the YEC.

I don't think Murray is better than Newk. I'd take Newk on the faster courts and Murray on slow HC. clay, newk before murray of 2015 and after that, maybe about even or slight edge to murray.

As far as Wilander is concerned, he's won 4 more slams. Its not even remotely close at this stage.

you need to make a comparison with all things being fair/equal ...just dismissing all open-era players like that is not correct. All of those players were clearly better than Murray with respect to their own eras.

Murray is just top 15 in the open era alone, that's it.
 
abmk said:
no, Murray is not better than Courier.

Courier has one more slam , a year at #1 and did better at the YEC.

I don't think Murray is better than Newk. I'd take Newk on the faster courts and Murray on slow HC. clay, newk before murray of 2015 and after that, maybe about even or slight edge to murray.

As far as Wilander is concerned, he's won 4 more slams. Its not even remotely close at this stage.

you need to make a comparison with all things being fair/equal ...just dismissing all open-era players like that is not correct. All of those players were clearly better than Murray with respect to their own eras.

Murray is just top 15 in the open era alone, that's it.
Click to expand...

Murray absolutely needs time at number 1 to reach Courier.
 
McEnborg said:
Laver maybe can be put in top 3 or 4 ever, but when you do the "eye" test, he is below Fed, Novak and Rafa.
Click to expand...

Lavers game would translate best to todays game, he was all court. Was this a 3.0 eye test? Laver and fed are tier 1, the only two based on this.
 
125downthemiddle said:
Murray absolutely needs time at number 1 to reach Courier.
Click to expand...

I might consider it if Murray wins one more slam , because Murray's longevity is clearly more than Courier's (who burnt out rather quickly in comparision ), on top of his achievements in Masters tournaments.
 
abmk said:
I might consider it if Murray wins one more slam , because Murray's longevity is clearly more than Courier's (who burnt out rather quickly in comparision ), on top of his achievements in Masters tournaments.
Click to expand...

For awhile Courier was the top dog with Sampras and Agassi as peers, Even with Fedalovic as his peers, if Murray can't become number 1 even briefly when the first 2 have faded and his only real rival is Novak, then I think it reflects poorly on him. I'd consider it at 5 with no number 1, at 4 they're just tied and Murray's missing an integral part (being the top dog).

Don't agree with this, but maybe you could argue Murray's slams won are more prestigious (2 Wimbledons, 1 US) vs. Courier (2 AO/2 FO). I generally don't like that argument, but the fact Courier never won Wimbledon is a bit of a mark against him.
 
125downthemiddle said:
For awhile Courier was the top dog with Sampras and Agassi as peers, Even with Fedalovic as his peers, if Murray can't become number 1 even briefly when the first 2 have faded and his only real rival is Novak, then I think it reflects poorly on him. I'd consider it at 5 with no number 1, at 4 they're just tied and Murray's missing an integral part (being the top dog).

Don't agree with this, but maybe you could argue Murray's slams won are more prestigious (2 Wimbledons, 1 US) vs. Courier (2 AO/2 FO). I generally don't like that argument, but the fact Courier never won Wimbledon is a bit of a mark against him.
Click to expand...
not to mention WTF....Courier made b2b finals(beating Sampras and Agassi in the semis), Murray's WTF record is lacking.

Don't think the slam prestige argument has any merit, I agree. AO was taken seriously in the early 90's. He's also shown a clearly higher peak level to Murray at slams, taking some fairly deep draws (AO 93, French 92) and ripped straight through them.

Murray needs a slam, WTF title, or time at #1 to be considered above Courier. I think if he gets any one of those, his longevity would be enough to put him over Courier.
 
What if the man to wing a CYGS is Murray. Think about it. He can make it to the final of all GS. This year he has. AO, FO, Wimb so far. If he makes it to the USO final. I wouldn't be surprise if Murray is the actual man to pull it off. If he achieves that. I would put him above all. #1 of all time.
 
He is greater than his numbers suggest. I have watched Murray since 2004 when i was 13 years old, I am now 25 years of age. His fighting instincts are on the level of fedalovic and while he may have played second fiddle to three of the greatest players ever he never gave up in achieving his own goals. He could have easily have accepted that he would forever be a player who could not achieve the heights many had predicted for him and could have taken the route of a roddick, safin, gonzales, davydenko, nalbandian, berdych, tsonga etc. But he never did, crushing defeat after crushing defeat to the big three enabled him to understand that if he was to ever be a great player he would need to be consistent across tournaments to be near the top of the rankings, he would have to improve his game and his fitness to rival that of the very best week in week out. He would have to accept failure but rise and win, Andy has always been talented as Djokovic and Nadal. He grew up playing both when they were kids, Murray and Nadal to this day still train with each other and Nadal more than any other player has said that Andy is one of the greatest talents that the ATP has ever seen.

Murray is now doing his career justice, he is in his prime years and he is taking full advantage. Expect him to win more and increase his numbers across all tournaments for the next couple of years a la Agassi. Both Murray and Agassi have had great players as their most dominant rivals but have dusted themselves and won more tournaments to do their talents justice and that is what counts.
 
Last edited:
Sabratha said:
When has MURRAY "dominated" the field? Novak is the one who's truly 'dominated' the field and Murray had no answers for him. He didn't face him at Wimbledon or at the Olympics, but when he does I bet it will be the same old story.
Click to expand...
Not sure Andy has ever been dominant but between mid 2012 and 2013 he won Olympics, US Open, Wimbledon, and Miami, made Wimbledon/Aus Open finals,
and was 4-4 vs. Novak with his wins coming at two major finals, Olympic final, and Dubai semi (3-3 vs. Fed, 1-1 vs. Nadal same period)...not a bad run.
 
abmk said:
1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Borg
4. Nadal
5. Djokovic
6. Mcenroe
7. Lendl
8. Agassi
9. Connors
10. Becker
11. Edberg
12. Wilander
13. Newk
14. Courier

That's 14 better in the open era alone

pre-open era :

1. Laver
2. Gonzales
3. Tilden
4. Rosewall
5. Budge
6. Perry
7. Vines
8. Hoad
9. Cochet
10. Lacoste
11. Johnston
12. Kramer
13. Sedgman

that's 13 better in the pre-open era

so out of top 25 of all time ..
Click to expand...
Could I respectfully ask how old you are and how much tennis you saw the likes of Sedgman, Vines, and Cochet play?
 
Zain786 said:
He is greater than his numbers suggest. I have watched Murray since 2004 when i was 14 years old, I am now 24 years of age. His fighting instincts are on the level of fedalovic and while he may have played second fiddle to three of the greatest players ever he never gave up in achieving his own goals. He could have easily have accepted that he would forever be a player who could not achieve the heights many had predicted for him and could have taken the route of a roddick, safin, gonzales, davydenko, nalbandian, berdych, tsonga etc. But he never did, crushing defeat after crushing defeat to the big three enabled him to understand that if he was to ever be a great player he would need to be consistent across tournaments to be near the top of the rankings, he would have to improve his game and his fitness to rival that of the very best week in week out. He would have to accept failure but rise and win, Andy has always been talented as Djokovic and Nadal. He grew up playing both when they were kids, Murray and Nadal to this day still train with each other and Nadal more than any other player has said that Andy is one of the greatest talents that the ATP has ever seen.

Murray is now doing his career justice, he is in his prime years and he is taking full advantage. Expect him to win more and increase his numbers across all tournaments for the next couple of years a la Agassi. Both Murray and Agassi have had great players as their most dominant rivals but have dusted themselves and won more tournaments to do their talents justice and that is what counts.
Click to expand...

That's clearly a lie because if you were 14 then you would be 26 by now.
 
Moby Dick said:
Murray's results would maybe look better had he won AO or RG this year. But he didn't. Through his career he proved many times he has NO CHANCE against the likes of Federer and Djokovic. Beating players like Raonic and very VERY tired Del Potro (I'm pretty sure had it not been the final after such a long tournament and Del Potro would have owned him) is not the same. Murray lost ALL the real finals.
Click to expand...

He's beaten Novak in the 2012 US Open Final and 2013 Wimbledon Finals, 2012 Olympics came over Fed; that's three of his five (or six if you include DC title) biggest titles coming over Novak/Fed. Got a young and tired opponent in the other two finals and won accordingly.
 
Moby Dick said:
Murray's results would maybe look better had he won AO or RG this year. But he didn't. Through his career he proved many times he has NO CHANCE against the likes of Federer and Djokovic. Murray lost ALL the real finals.
Click to expand...

Olympics 2012, US Open 2012, Wimbledon 2013...
 
Murray has some great wins over the Big 3, but not as many as I would expect of a top 15 all time player with this many major meetings with them. Top 15 all time is Becker/Edberg sort of territory, both were better than Murray in their own era's.
 
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
3K
Dope Reign
Dope Reign
J
Is Murray as crap as most "Tennis fans" make out?
2
Replies
56
Views
5K
Deleted member 688153
D
clout
  • Poll Poll
Where does Murray rank in open era?
4 5 6
Replies
251
Views
14K
-snake-
-snake-
Entername
  • Poll Poll
Is Carlos a top 5 teenage player of all time?
2
Replies
74
Views
5K
Blahovic
B
J
Andy Murray is not an "all time great"
2 3
Replies
139
Views
9K
BGod
BGod
Back
Top