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

[TheFifthSet]

For me, Murray is certainly among top 5-10 players ever. Watch Murray2016 and watch, as an example, Laver1969. After that, ask yourself "if these 2 gays play against each other who would win"?

A 2016 TheFifthSet knows more about the universe than a 17th Century Isaac Newton, which clearly makes him the superior intellect.

 

[LETitBE]

Muzzard's rise is happening POST bio passport!

 

[ABCD]

A 2016 TheFifthSet knows more about the universe than a 17th Century Isaac Newton, which clearly makes him the superior intellect.

No, it just indicates that "theFifthSet" knows physics better than Newton (assuming that "theFifthSet" is a physicist). I am not saying that Murray is superior athlete/intellect to Laver; he just plays tennis better.

 

[TheFifthSet]

No, it just indicates that "theFifthSet" knows physics better than Newton (assuming that "theFifthSet" is a physicist). I am not saying that Murray is superior athlete/intellect to Laver; he just plays tennis better.

One needn't be a physicist in 2016 to know more about physics than a 17th century Newton. Especially since, as singularly brilliant as he was, many of his theories were categorically debunked in the subsequent centuries (which you would expect). Nonetheless he was one of histories greatest thinkers.

Anyways. I think the point was lost on ya.

 

[ABCD]

One needn't be a physicist in 2016 to know more about physics than a 17th century Newton.

You do need to be a physicist, as he knew quite a lot. However, an average Professor of Physics at the University knows quite more than Newton knew. Such person would be a better physicist than Newton. However, Newton would be historically more significant. I can say "Newton is the most significant physicist ever", but I can't say "Newton is the best physicist ever".

 

[metsman]

You do need to be a physicist, as he knew quite a lot. However, an average Professor of Physics at the University knows quite more than Newton knew. Such person would be a better physicist than Newton. However, Newton would be historically more significant. I can say "Newton is the most significant physicist ever", but I can't say "Newton is the best physicist ever".

Absolutes don't matter when comparing across eras. Don't even bring it up. Relative accomplishment and playing level does. Are you ever going to get this or continually spew bs?

 

[metsman]

One needn't be a physicist in 2016 to know more about physics than a 17th century Newton. Especially since, as singularly brilliant as he was, many of his theories were categorically debunked in the subsequent centuries (which you would expect). Nonetheless he was one of histories greatest thinkers.

Anyways. I think the point was lost on ya.

he still laid the groundwork for much of the mechanics we use today

 

[PeterHo]

Pretty sure he will end up top 15 all time, but if he stops right then its debatable.

 

[TheFifthSet]

he still laid the groundwork for much of the mechanics we use today

Precisely my point

 

[ABCD]

Absolutes don't matter when comparing across eras. Don't even bring it up. Relative accomplishment and playing level does. Are you ever going to get this or continually spew bs?

I believe that absolutes matter as well as relative accomplishments. Note that I was never disrespectful to call your opinion bs. I have no idea why you seem so upset?

 

[metsman]

I believe that absolutes matter as well as relative accomplishments. Note that I was never disrespectful to call your opinion bs. I have no idea why you seem so upset?

No, you're just trying to be a smartass and get people mad by saying crap like Berdych is a better tennis player than Borg. We all know that Berdych playing with today's equipment would beat Borg playing with a Donnay but it is utterly irrelevant and does not in any way shape or form mean that Berdych is a better tennis player than Borg because Borg would trash Berdych if both used wood or graphite. All it means it that the game has developed.

 

[ABCD]

We all know that Berdych playing with today's equipment would beat Borg playing with a Donnay but it is utterly irrelevant and does not in any way shape or form mean that Berdych is a better tennis player than Borg because Borg would trash Berdych if both used wood or graphite. All it means it that the game has developed.

Are you claiming that if both players use equipment of their choice, Borg would win?

 

[NatF]

Are you claiming that if both players use equipment of their choice, Borg would win?

No, he's claiming that if they both used the same equipment Borg would trash Berdych.

 

[metsman]

No, he's claiming that if they both used the same equipment Borg would trash Berdych.

forget it, he's a troll who isn't very good at it. Ignore list it is

 

[ABCD]

No, he's claiming that if they both used the same equipment Borg would trash Berdych.

Once, I read a blog discussing who would win between Serena and Djokovic. It was concluded that Serena would be a slight favourite. A comparison between Borg and Berdych is something along those lines. Anyone who claims that it would be even competitive has no sense of tennis reality.

 

[NatF]

Once, I read a blog discussing who would win between Serena and Djokovic. It was concluded that Serena would be a slight favourite. A comparison between Borg and Berdych is something along those lines. Anyone who claims that it would be even competitive has no sense of tennis reality.

I saw that article. It was absolute bollocks. This isn't the same thing though.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Once, I read a blog discussing who would win between Serena and Djokovic. It was concluded that Serena would be a slight favourite. A comparison between Borg and Berdych is something along those lines. Anyone who claims that it would be even competitive has no sense of tennis reality.

It's stupid to believe technology has improved as vastly as you make it out to have the past 10 years also.

 

[Mainad]

Most folks in this thread, like me, genuinely do not agree with the premise of the thread yet also acknowledge Murrays place in the upper hierarchy of tennis greats.

Is it so objectionable to disagree (even strongly) about Murray being a top 15 player? Per accomplishments, he isn't even close to it.

No objections at all to reasoned and unbiased criticism and I am usually able to distinguish that from the hate-filled trollery. I agree with you that he is not yet top 15 but, in the Open Era at least, he is definitely top 20. If we are including the amateur era as well then he is way further down, round about top 40 IMO.

 

[Mainad]

Well I like Mainad, but he would help his cause if he were a tad more realistic about Murray's standing, in both the present game and historically.

He has a point about Murray getting the short end of the stick regularly here, but he also tends to mistake measured criticism for hating at times, from what I've seen.

See my reply to your earlier post.

 

[skynyrd1611]

Except that Kafelnikov and Rios each did have a one minute stint (a few weeks actually) at #1.

Not being number one simply means he has never been better than Federer, Nadal and Djokovic at the same time. That doesn't means he is not as good others who slipped into the number 1 position in a different era. Heck, Becker's stint at number 1 was extremely short given his accomplishments, but that doesn't mean he wasn't an all time great and doesn't mean he was a lesser player than others who were number 1 for longer.

There's never one stat that can realistically be used to state who is best. Whilst grand slams (now) and number 1's are the main criteria, year end championships, Olympics, total masters titles, total single titles, number of finals, consistency at the top all show how good a player is. I don't think Murray's top 15 of all time, but certainly a very strong case for top 15 (almost definitely 20) in the open era when you take everything on board. He also has an opportunity over the next 18 months/2years to ensure so.

 

[TheFifthSet]

No objections at all to reasoned and unbiased criticism and I am usually able to distinguish that from the hate-filled trollery. I agree with you that he is not yet top 15 but, in the Open Era at least, he is definitely top 20. If we are including the amateur era as well then he is way further down, round about top 40 IMO.

Very reasonable post.

 

[timnz]

I don't think you can do that type of analysis here. For instance, in your calculation, Philippoussis's two Major finals garner him 2,400 points vs. 2,000 for del Potro, who won the U.S. Open.

Similarly, your calculation gives Rios 5,000 points for his five Masters Series shields, which makes those five shields better than the two Majors won by players like Rafter, Wawrinka, and Kafelnikov (4,800 points).

It seems much simpler to say that the three key criteria should be (1) performance at Majors; (2) weeks/years at #1; and (3) performance at WTF. If Player 1 has more Majors than player 2, they win under criterion #1. If they have the same number of Majors, we look to other finals, semifinals and quarterfinals. If Player 1 has more weeks/years at #1, they win under criterion #2. If Player 1 has better results at WTF, they win under criterion #3.

If one player in better under all three criteria, they're the better player. If there's no clear winner under these 3 criteria, we can look at other factors.

Please refer to what I wrote in my post:
"Now before someone says - 2 masters 1000's equivalent to a slam!! No way! Keep in mind that unless you believe that tennis is only 8 weeks a year then other events have some value. And as such some multiple of a masters 1000 will be worth more than a slam. The question is what multiple? To avoid subjective arguments I have just provided the ATP weightings (I don't personally agree with them - but they are what they are)"

Getting to slam finals are achievements not failures. Hence why leave them out? You do, then is being a slam runner-up the same as losing in the first round?

Having said that - time at number 1 is an important criteria - I agree with you on that.

 

[buscemi]

Please refer to what I wrote in my post:
"Now before someone says - 2 masters 1000's equivalent to a slam!! No way! Keep in mind that unless you believe that tennis is only 8 weeks a year then other events have some value. And as such some multiple of a masters 1000 will be worth more than a slam. The question is what multiple? To avoid subjective arguments I have just provided the ATP weightings (I don't personally agree with them - but they are what they are)"

Getting to slam finals are achievements not failures. Hence why leave them out? You do, then is being a slam runner-up the same as losing in the first round?

Having said that - time at number 1 is an important criteria - I agree with you on that.

Gotcha. Personally, I think that things like Major finals and semifinals and Masters Series titles and finals are tiebreakers if two players are relatively even on the more important criteria. For instance, if Murray wins another Major and makes a WTF final, his secondary credentials would likely put him above Courier. But currently, Courier leads 4 Majors to 3, 2 WTF finals to 0, or 58 weeks/1 year at #1 vs. 0/0. As a result, Murray isn't close enough Courier on the more important criteria for his secondary credentials to take him over the top. But that could all change very quickly.

 

[Paul Harman]

Murray is the greatest ever because of arbitrary rules I just made up.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

You do need to be a physicist, as he knew quite a lot. However, an average Professor of Physics at the University knows quite more than Newton knew. Such person would be a better physicist than Newton. However, Newton would be historically more significant. I can say "Newton is the most significant physicist ever", but I can't say "Newton is the best physicist ever".

Federer is both the most significant and the best tenniscist ever.

 

[ABCD]

Federer is both the most significant and the best tenniscist ever.

I disagree.

1) In my lifetime, the most significant player would be Borg as he changed the way how game is played. He introduced spin and baseline tennis as we know today. Laver played as everybody else, just was much better. Borg played like he come from the future.

2) I consider Djokovic to be the best player ever.

3) I would classify Federer as the most successful player ever.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

I disagree.

1) In my lifetime, the most significant player would be Borg as he changed the way how game is played. He introduced spin and baseline tennis as we know today. Laver played as everybody else, just was much better. Borg played like he come from the future.

Federer brought the game into the modern era though. It transitioned to baseline tennis under his watch. But I agree he has competition for this title, including Borg.

2) I consider Djokovic to be the best player ever.

Agree to disagree.

3) I would classify Federer as the most successful player ever.

For sure.