Being an ATG was never about 6 slams, it was more than that, it's about the impact a person had on Tennis by revolutionizing it ...

Hitman said:
Yep. We know Courier was number one during the era which unquestionably had the deepest field in open era history. Hewitt, as good as he was, was the best in the world, after the party was over.
Click to expand...
Courier > Hewitt should not be questioned. 4 slams always over 2 tbh, in these regions, making up for a two slam deficit is next to impossible. In weeks at No.1 they are basically equal imho, 58 vs 80 is not big enough of a difference if we consider what you said, that Courier reached it in a very deep field while Hewitt in a transition era. Let's be honest here, if prime/peak Courier comes up in 2000-2002 he would easily accumulate the same number of weeks and likely would win more slams. 1991-93 Courier can win all three FOs (given that Guga is there, I would give him only two, 2002 he would win easily). 93 Courier wins 2002 Wimbledon, 92 Courier wins 2002 AO, 93 Courier would be a tough battle with Agassi, but given he owned Agassi he likely wins even that one. USO are blocked by Pete who is a nightmare for Courier, but even here he might sneak the one Hewitt one given how spent Pete was. All in all Courier wins at least four slams, maybe even more if we switch him with Hewitt. If we put Hewitt in Courier era, he does not win much there, definitely no Wimbledon.
 
junkieballer said:
So you consider Big3s the three best ever
Click to expand...
I said in these regions (i.e. single digit slams), also Hewitt played in the slams above all era. For Borg, Mac, etc. who played in a less slam-centric era, one has to provide context instead of simply looking at slam number. This being said however, yes, I do think the Big3 have a good case of being the three best ever. The difference to guys like Borg is however not 13, 11, or 9 slams.
 
Poisoned Slice said:
Rod Laver won the calendar slam twice.
Click to expand...
Laver won it once. The earlier one cannot be counted when the best players were banned from slams.
Laver himself said that he hugely struggled against Rosewall, Pancho and others when he initially graduated from amateur level to pro.
Nobody believes Laver was winning the 1962 CYGS if it were open to pro players.

If Gentle Readers wish to know the huge disparity between amateur level and pro level, one only needs to look at Martin Mulligan.
Mulligan was Laver's opponent in the 1962 Wimbledon Final.
Mulligan was consistently ranked in the Top 10 as an amateur between 1962-1967.
But the hapless Mulligan failed to ever reach the Top 10 once the Open Era began in 1968.
:(

Martin_Mulligan_1968.jpg
 
Last edited:
BorgTheGOAT said:
Murray is better than Bruguera and the likes but behind Courier, Vilas, Sinner group.
Click to expand...
The body of work of Murray is much greater than Sinner though. You can argue for Vilas as well, only 1 slam difference. Murray has the best 3 slam resume out of the 3 slam winners and better than some 4 time slam winners imo.
I have him right below courrier and in front of sinner,vilas and those guys.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
Courier > Hewitt should not be questioned. 4 slams always over 2 tbh, in these regions, making up for a two slam deficit is next to impossible. In weeks at No.1 they are basically equal imho, 58 vs 80 is not big enough of a difference if we consider what you said, that Courier reached it in a very deep field while Hewitt in a transition era. Let's be honest here, if prime/peak Courier comes up in 2000-2002 he would easily accumulate the same number of weeks and likely would win more slams. 1991-93 Courier can win all three FOs (given that Guga is there, I would give him only two, 2002 he would win easily). 93 Courier wins 2002 Wimbledon, 92 Courier wins 2002 AO, 93 Courier would be a tough battle with Agassi, but given he owned Agassi he likely wins even that one. USO are blocked by Pete who is a nightmare for Courier, but even here he might sneak the one Hewitt one given how spent Pete was. All in all Courier wins at least four slams, maybe even more if we switch him with Hewitt. If we put Hewitt in Courier era, he does not win much there, definitely no Wimbledon.
Click to expand...

Exactly, this shouldn't even be a debate IMO.

Courier has superior case for being an ATG than Hewitt.
 
Gastino said:
The body of work of Murray is much greater than Sinner though. You can argue for Vilas as well, only 1 slam difference. Murray has the best 3 slam resume out of the 3 slam winners and better than some 4 time slam winners imo.
I have him right below courrier and in front of sinner,vilas and those guys.
Click to expand...
I was actually to quick to write, yes you can argue with Vilas and actually I have Murray above given that Vilas has some questionable slams. Sinner is another topic, he has one more slam and one more YEC. It is moot anyways here since save for a miracle or career-ending injury, Sinner will anyways end up with the better career than Murray.
 
Gastino said:
The body of work of Murray is much greater than Sinner though. You can argue for Vilas as well, only 1 slam difference. Murray has the best 3 slam resume out of the 3 slam winners and better than some 4 time slam winners imo.
I have him right below courrier and in front of sinner,vilas and those guys.
Click to expand...
Murray is #7 in the ATP Era for weeks in top4, more than Becker, Agassi, Edberg, Borg, Vilas, Wilander.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
I was actually to quick to write, yes you can argue with Vilas and actually I have Murray above given that Vilas has some questionable slams. Sinner is another topic, he has one more slam and one more YEC. It is moot anyways here since save for a miracle or career-ending injury, Sinner will anyways end up with the better career than Murray.
Click to expand...

Vilas has 49 clay court titles and a huge volume of matches played and wins, even if most are on clay that still means he is a clay legend of his time. He played long matches with Borg and inspired generations after him. He is huge ....

Sir Andy has been known for putting the ball back in play endlessly, thats it, if we think of murray then thats what comes to the mind. He has not been as influential as Vilas.
 
Last edited:
junkieballer said:
Murray is #7 in the ATP Era for weeks in top4, more than Becker, Agassi, Edberg, Borg, Vilas, Wilander.
Click to expand...

This is not a thread to spam Murray's weeks at top 4 or his wins over people with 20+ slams etc, this is a thread asking what his influence is, this also explains influence of other ATGs.... So you must explain Murray's influence on tennis instead of spamming his stats as 4th behind big 3, such things don't make him an ATG.

ATGs are great players with certified influence on tennis, it is not a stats counting contest.
 
Razer said:
This is not a thread to spam Murray's weeks at top 4 or his wins over people with 20+ slams etc, this is a thread asking what his influence is, this also explains influence of other ATGs....
Click to expand...
he influenced me to spam weeks at top4.

the fact that we are here talking about Murray is also an influence.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
I was actually to quick to write, yes you can argue with Vilas and actually I have Murray above given that Vilas has some questionable slams. Sinner is another topic, he has one more slam and one more YEC. It is moot anyways here since save for a miracle or career-ending injury, Sinner will anyways end up with the better career than Murray.
Click to expand...
yeah sinner is a lock for top 10 imo and might well end up in the top 5-6...
 
junkieballer said:
he influenced me to spam weeks at top4.

the fact that we are here talking about Murray is also an influence.
Click to expand...
He influenced you by being Novak’s opponent whom you need to praise in order to argue that Novak had tough competition. No Novak no Murray. Had Murray been Fed’s opponent you would call him weak era mug.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
He influenced you by being Novak’s opponent whom you need to praise in order to argue that Novak had tough competition. No Novak no Murray. Had Murray been Fed’s opponent you would call him weak era mug.
Click to expand...
Being a rival to the GOAT is also an influence. Djokovic-Murray is a top10 rivalry in the Open Era.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
Then Stan also had an influence and so had Rafter. Can even make a case for Nalby.
Click to expand...
Djokovic-Murray is a bigger rivalry than that with Stan:

2-5 in Slam finals
0-2 in Slam semis
0-1 in Slam quarterfinals
1-0 in YEC final
1-0 in Olympics semifinal
5-5 in Masters finals
0-5 in Masters semifinals
1-1 in year end #1 vs #2
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
How does your edited post contradict what I said? Stan denied Novak more slams than Murray.
Click to expand...
Stan troubled Novak more than Murray, yes, but that's not the definition of rivalry. Rivalry is when two players faced each other in the biggest matches many times. Otherwise Fedal wouldn't have been called a great rivalry in 2004-2014, it was quite one sided.

If Djokovic-Murray was not a great rivalry 2004-14 Nadal-Federer was not a great rivalry either, it was even more one sided.

Djokovic-Murray 25-11 overall, 8-2 at Slams.
Nadal-Federer 23-10 overall, 9-2 at Slams.
 
junkieballer said:
@BorgTheGOAT
@Razer

See post above. Is being mentioned many times alongside the three greatest ever and being invited many times in ceremonies to stand alongside them influential?
Click to expand...

Murray is a hewitt tier punching bag of ATGs, nothing more. Glorifying that loser to be a great player actually speaks volumes about your desperation to pump up average players. You won't hear us calling Hewitt an ATG, then why is Murray called an ATG ? Being a beta punching bag is not an ATG trait, the ATGs are huge influencers of tennis in their eras, that is what the OP explains, every player including SInner has shaped/is shaping tennis as we speak.
 
Razer said:
Murray is a hewitt tier punching bag of ATGs, nothing more. Glorifying that loser to be a great player actually speaks volumes about your desperation to pump up average players. You won't hear us calling Hewitt an ATG, then why is Murray called an ATG ? Being a beta punching bag is not an ATG trait, the ATGs are huge influencers of tennis in their eras, that is what the OP explains, every player including SInner has shaped/is shaping tennis as we speak.
Click to expand...
You didn't answer
 
junkieballer said:
Stan troubled Novak more than Murray, yes, but that's not the definition of rivalry. Rivalry is when two players faced each other in the biggest matches many times. Otherwise Fedal wouldn't have been called a great rivalry in 2004-2014, it was quite one sided.

If Djokovic-Murray was not a great rivalry 2004-14 Nadal-Federer was not a great rivalry either, it was even more one sided.

Djokovic-Murray 25-11 overall, 8-2 at Slams.
Nadal-Federer 23-10 overall, 9-2 at Slams.
Click to expand...
If it doesn’t matter if lopsided then Fed and Roddick also have a rivalry. Faced each other in 4 slam finals.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
If it doesn’t matter if lopsided then Fed and Roddick also have a rivalry. Faced each other in 4 slam finals.
Click to expand...
Yes they do, but not one of the greatest rivalries. So you don't think Fedal was a great rivalry until 2017 (23-11 overall, 9-2 at Slams)?

By number of matches overall (37), in Slams (10), in big tournaments (34), or in finals (19), Djokovic-Murray is the 4th greatest rivalry in the Open Era.
 
junkieballer said:
Yes they do, but not one of the greatest rivalries. So you don't think Fedal was a great rivalry until 2017 (23-11 overall, 9-2 at Slams)?

By number of matches overall (37), in Slams (10), in big tournaments (34), or in finals (19), Djokovic-Murray is the 4th greatest rivalry in the Open Era.
Click to expand...

My friend Nachiket aka Lew III,

You should know that Nadal vs Federer will always be the greatest rivalry on earth and before that it was Borg Mcenroe, thats because of the younger guy trying to bring down the older guy, the contrasting styles, classic titans clashing against each other... all this is what made Fed vs Dal so special, also the fact that Nadal challenged Federer at a time when nobody was able to, not even your hero Nolan.

Do you understand this ???
 
Razer said:
My friend Nachiket aka Lew III,

You should know that Nadal vs Federer will always be the greatest rivalry on earth and before that it was Borg Mcenroe, thats because of the younger guy trying to bring down the older guy, the contrasting styles, classic titans clashing against each other... all this is what made Fed vs Dal so special, also the fact that Nadal challenged Federer at a time when nobody was able to, not even your hero Nolan.

Do you understand this ???
Click to expand...
But it was one sided. If Djokovic-Murray loses points because one sided, so does Nadal-Federer.
 
junkieballer said:
But it was one sided. If Djokovic-Murray loses points because one sided, so does Nadal-Federer.
Click to expand...
What you need to get through your seemingly impenetrable skull is that rivalries cannot be assessed by just bean counting.
Fed and Nadal were THE two big stars for years, completely dominating the tour and sharing the slams among each other. Each of them had there kingdoms, Nadal the FO and Federer Wimbledon which the other wanted to conquer. Nadal defended his kingdom better, therefore the rivalry looks lopsided, but in turn he was more vulnerable to lesser players so Fed could still grab many slams. They also had three epics at Wimbledon and Fed did very well here on top of still being indoors king which Nadal could never attack. Fedal, unlike Djoko-Murray or Djoko-Stan was not GOAT candidate against second tier mug but two GOAT candidates colliding. So lopsided or not, it had a completely different aura.

Murray on the other hand never ruled anything, he was never for an extended period the second best player. After Nadal's strong 2013, the one who should have rivaled peak Djokovic should have been Murray. Instead, in 2014 and 2015, old Fed was way more of a rival than him.

Of course you can now say that Stan was also not a GOAT tier player and also never had a kingdom. All true, but Stan did immense damage to Djoko. In Djoko's prime, over a period where Fed never again managed one single slam win against him and Nadal was also pretty much helpless outside clay, a second tier guy like Stan achieved seven (!!!) consecutive slam matches where he either beat (4 times) Djokovic or pushed him to five in all three losses. At Novak's home turf, the Australian Open, where he is the GOAT and only beaten by Nadal at the FO, Stan had three consecutive epics over five sets, winning one and pushing Novak to the absolute brink in another (it could very well have gone 2-1 for Stan, and remember those are Djoko's peak years). For a player of Stan's calibre this is actually absolutely ridiculous. Many players have troubled GOAT candidates here and there, Krajicek with Sampras, Soderling with Nadal, but nobody ever managed something similar over seven consecutive matches. What has Murray here to offer, he is 0-6 against Djoko at the AO.
junkieballer said:
Yes they do, but not one of the greatest rivalries. So you don't think Fedal was a great rivalry until 2017 (23-11 overall, 9-2 at Slams)?

By number of matches overall (37), in Slams (10), in big tournaments (34), or in finals (19), Djokovic-Murray is the 4th greatest rivalry in the Open Era.
Click to expand...
My dear Lew III. As mentioned above, rivalries are not bean counting of matches. Murray lost most of those matches so how exactly is that a flex to play so often and lose? Imagine Roddick would be 3-33 instead of 3-21 against Fed, with some more losses coming at slams? Would you take this as a positive for Roddick and say whoaa what a great rivalry they had? I have the gut feeling you would label Roddick an absolute mug since he has such a disastrous H2H.
 
Razer said:
Often we see people say that Murray is an ATG, we won 3 slams in the era of Big 3, so he must be great and does not need 6 slams to be called an ATG ? ...

but then we are looking at this all wrong, it was never about 6 slams, it was more than 6 slams.... it was about impact of a player to society and tennis. It is about how that player took tennis a bit forward and stood out in his era as a special player.

Lets look at each player who is known as an ATG and see how they added something to tennis/stood out, then lets ask ourselves what Murray has done.


Player number 1 - Federer - Champion strokemaker like never seen before, the man who raised the level of Tennis in the 2000s and popularized it again after the slight snoozefest of the snv era of the 1990s had lost a lot of fans....

Player number 2 - Djokovic - Great flexibility, stamina like never seen before and also known for his mental toughness against hostile crowds. Rally Tolerance also like never seen before or since.... clear attributes that Djokovic added to tennis, no matter how much we bash him, these are true too.

Player number 3 - Nadal - Scintillating athleticism, changed the way topspin affected tennis, rendered 1 handed backhand useless. Fighting spirit like never seen before by playing every point like it is his last. His record of 14 French Opens is probably the only true exceptional record that we have seen in our lifetimes, everything else we saw was not that special.

Player number 4 - Sampras - The King of Swing, he was the undisputed king of the big serve and volleying in the 1990s. He was an upgrade to everyone before him and was the reason why they had to slow down courts. He was the ultimate Alpha of his era.

Player number 5 -. Lendl - First ATG to make fitness really important in tennis and emphasising on professional preparation. People Like Mcenroe and Borg used to party all night but Lendl used to lead a disciplined life always.

Player number 6 - Connors - 1st ATG of the open era, tenacious aggressive baseline game, in a serve and volleying era he played from the back of the baseline. Ability to get the crowd involved behind him, versatile across various surfaces.

Player number 7 - Borg - Popularized Tennis, introduced heavy topspin on his forehand and backhand, paving the way for future greats like Nadal to learn his way. It is rumoured that Uncle Toni read Borg's book and got ideas on weaponizing the top spin forehand for his nephew.

Player number 8 - John Mcenroe - Incredible hand eye co-ordination, formed the popular rivalry with Bjorn Borg which popularized Tennis more and gave it more coverage worldwide. His bad boy image along with Connors brought an attitude era to Tennis similar to the late 1990s in WWF/WWE like Austin and Shawn Michaels.

Player number 9 - Agassi - The first modern baseliner

Player number 10 - Becker - Weaponized Serve and introduced athletic power tennis as a teenager, forever a legend. Even in continents like Asia with less influence for Tennis Boris Becker was a popular name. We've also seen how he improved Djokovic's game as a coach ... the ultimate alpha coach I would say.

Player number 11 - Edberg - Best volleyer ever, enough said

Player number 12 - Alcaraz - Modern era protoype of an athlete to include qualities of all of the Big 3 has in his way weaponized the drop shot with his game, breathe of fresh air after 90s gen stink for so long

Player number 13 - Wilander - master grinder, strategist, best practitioner of high percentage tennis ever until the modern baseline era began.

Player number 14 - Sinner - The new Robot built on Djokovic's game, he is a Djokovic 2.0 according to many, a relentless machine from the baseline. I would not say this is a clear upgrade to anything but surely he is also a product of the change we witnessed in tennis from Federer to Djokovic.



Now ask yourself ---->>>> Does Sir Andy Murray merit a mention as an ATG ? If yes then you need to tell what has he added to Tennis and how did he stand out in his era. This was never about a 6 slams cut off, it was beyond that.


I created this thread because every now and then we find Sir Murray mentioned as an ATG, but the real question is have we understood what the term " All Time Great " in tennis really means ????
Click to expand...
Sounds like Nadal is the undisputed #1 on your list.
 
Razer said:
My friend Nachiket aka Lew III,

You should know that Nadal vs Federer will always be the greatest rivalry on earth and before that it was Borg Mcenroe, thats because of the younger guy trying to bring down the older guy, the contrasting styles, classic titans clashing against each other... all this is what made Fed vs Dal so special, also the fact that Nadal challenged Federer at a time when nobody was able to, not even your hero Nolan.

Do you understand this ???
Click to expand...
Well said. But in order to grasp this Lew must have watched tennis during Fedal’s time and not only copy pasting stats from tennis abstract.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
Well said. But in order to grasp this Lew must have watched tennis during Fedal’s time and not only copy pasting stats from tennis abstract.
Click to expand...
Saying that Djokovic-Murray was not a great rivalry because it was one sided and then saying that 2005-14 Fedal, which was even more one sided, was the greatest rivalry is inconsistent, it's double standard.
 
The Guru said:
If the best volley in history qualifies you then the best first serve return and lob in history qualifies you. Also, according to this logic if an exact clone of Federer came on the scene today he would not be an ATG.
Click to expand...
Because he couldn't raise the level of tennis again or because you don't think he has a GOAT level shot/attribute?
 
clayqueen said:
Sounds like Nadal is the undisputed #1 on your list.
Click to expand...

Nadal has had great influence on modern day tennis, he could be ranked as high as 2 well. But is he above Federer? I don't think so. Federer's influence is second to none. You might say that it because Fed came first and hence could create hype but do you think Nadal could have created that if he had come first in the early 00s ? Nobody, not even Nadal could have dominated 03-09 like Fed to create that hype, in 6 years he tore Pete's records by raising the level of tennis. Nadal himself was influential after that in killing the 1 hand backhand and making the whole tour adjust to his heavy strokes and lefty game ...but he cannot be greater than Federer.
 
Last edited:
NatF said:
Because he couldn't raise the level of tennis again or because you don't think he has a GOAT level shot/attribute?
Click to expand...
I mean I obviously think he would be an ATG I'm just saying this post is saying it's about bringing something new and unique and exceptional. So if Federer 2 won 20 slams in the exact same way he wouldn't be an ATG.
 
Razer said:
Nadal has had great influence on modern day tennis, he could be ranked as high as 2 well. But is he above Federer? I don't think so. Federer's influence is second to none. You might say that it because Fed came first and hence could create hype but do you think Nadal could have created that if he had come first in the early 00s ? Nobody, not even Nadal could have dominated 03-09 like Fed to create that hype, in 6 years he tore Pete's records by raising the level of tennis. Nadal himself was influential after that in killing the 1 hand backhand and making the whole tour adjust to his heavy strokes and lefty game ...but he cannot be greater than Federer.
Click to expand...
Show me Fed's domination after 2007, when Nadal came on the scene and beat him regularly. Rafa was World #1 in 2008, just in case you missed it.

Federer slam stats
 
clayqueen said:
Show me Fed's domination after 2007, when Nadal came on the scene and beat him regularly. Rafa was World #1 in 2008, just in case you missed it.
Click to expand...

Has it ever occurred to you Nadal could have lost his edge over Federer 10 years earlier than 2017 if they were of the same age?

Fed turned 27 in 2008, Rafael turned 27 in 2013, is it rocket science that their best years were behind them at that age?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ForehandCross
Djokovic is the only ATG that did not have a upcoming younger ATG being born for next 15-16 years
2 3
Replies
116
Views
3K
GoatNo1
GoatNo1
B
Andy Murray is an ATG in the parallel universe?
Replies
29
Views
1K
Jonas78
J
Razer
Marat Safin is probably the only Non ATG who has beaten ATGs at all 4 Slams, has anyone else done it ???
2 3
Replies
122
Views
1K
FlyingSaucer
FlyingSaucer
J
Will we enter the "Non ATG era"?
Replies
39
Views
2K
nolefam_2024
N
W
Kyrgios still the only young gun that may turn into an ATG
Replies
35
Views
2K
Steve0904
Steve0904
Back
Top