Bodo's criteria for an ATG (for those interested in shafting Murray)

bjsnider

Hall of Fame
From Courts of Babylon, in the Lendl chapter:

"Ultimately, Lendl would win eight Grand Slam titles, one more than his lifelong tormentor, John McEnroe, and the same number as his other major rival, Jimmy Connors. He would contest nineteen Grand Slam finals, appearing in the championship match in at least one of the Big Four tournaments for a solid decade beginning in 1981. Lendl led Czechoslovakia to a Davis Cup victory in 1980, but the lack of a supporting cast and his expatriation to the United States in 1984 prevented him from becoming a great performer in that competition.

Lendl was ranked in the top ten for 13 consecutive years, a streak surpassed only by Connors (16 successive years). He won 94 sanctioned titles in his career, 17 more than McEnroe but 15 fewer than Connors. Between 1985 and 1988, Lendl held the world’s number one ranking for 157 consecutive weeks, second only to Connors’s 160-week run. But Lendl has spent the most total weeks in the number one position (270 weeks—2 weeks longer than Connors). Thus, he has a legitimate claim to being the top player of the Open era."


In sum, this is the criteria Bodo uses to judge Lendl and the other players in the Open Era:
Total GS titles
Total GS finals
Davis Cup wins
Time spent ranked in the top 10
Total number of titles won
Time spent as the world number one
Consecutive time spent as the world number one

He missed a couple of things that I think should be added to the criteria, in retrospect:
Total number of years finishing as the year-end world number one
Success in the Olympics

Try evaluating Murray on this basis, because it looks to me like he's one of the dozen or so greatest players of the Open Era.
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
AO wasn't near a top four tournament at the start of the 80s decade (before 1983) and wasn't a clear #4 until its move to HC/128-player draw in 1988 to be honest, a fair history book cannot omit this.

Quality / competitiveness of big wins-losses is a significant factor, analysts shy away from that level of detail because it's a hassle to bother with I'm sure. Where Murray loses big is his utter pwnage at the hands of Fedalovic in slams outside of Peak 2012-13 Lendlray period, not once was he close to winning.
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
From Courts of Babylon, in the Lendl chapter:

"Ultimately, Lendl would win eight Grand Slam titles, one more than his lifelong tormentor, John McEnroe, and the same number as his other major rival, Jimmy Connors. He would contest nineteen Grand Slam finals, appearing in the championship match in at least one of the Big Four tournaments for a solid decade beginning in 1981. Lendl led Czechoslovakia to a Davis Cup victory in 1980, but the lack of a supporting cast and his expatriation to the United States in 1984 prevented him from becoming a great performer in that competition.

Lendl was ranked in the top ten for 13 consecutive years, a streak surpassed only by Connors (16 successive years). He won 94 sanctioned titles in his career, 17 more than McEnroe but 15 fewer than Connors. Between 1985 and 1988, Lendl held the world’s number one ranking for 157 consecutive weeks, second only to Connors’s 160-week run. But Lendl has spent the most total weeks in the number one position (270 weeks—2 weeks longer than Connors). Thus, he has a legitimate claim to being the top player of the Open era."


In sum, this is the criteria Bodo uses to judge Lendl and the other players in the Open Era:
Total GS titles
Total GS finals
Davis Cup wins
Time spent ranked in the top 10
Total number of titles won
Time spent as the world number one
Consecutive time spent as the world number one

He missed a couple of things that I think should be added to the criteria, in retrospect:
Total number of years finishing as the year-end world number one
Success in the Olympics

Try evaluating Murray on this basis, because it looks to me like he's one of the dozen or so greatest players of the Open Era.
So you quote Peter Bodo extensively and then add what you consider important ("success at the Olympics"). Never mind Bodo's inclusion of "slam finals" is insane, otherwise Lendl vaults over most players because he made 19 slam finals, but only won 8 of them. Total number of slams, weeks at #1 and total tournaments are the near-universal way of judging greatness in a tennis player, this is indisputable. You claim Andy is one of top 12 greatest players in the Open era, which is also easily dismantled. On what planet is Murray equal to any of these guys in greatness? Please explain.

Federer
Nadal
Djokovic
Sampras
Laver
Borg
Lendl
Connors
Rosewall
Agassi
McEnroe
Wilander
Newcombe
Edberg
Becker
Courier
---------------

That's 16 guys right there, all of whom have 4+ major titles. As a reference point, both Boris and Stefan have twice as many slams as Murray and a vastly higher slam winning percentage rate. Murray is 3-6 in slam finals, but he's in the discussion as one of the top 12 players of the Open era? Do tell.
 

bjsnider

Hall of Fame
So you quote Peter Bodo extensively and then add what you consider important ("success at the Olympics"). Never mind Bodo's inclusion of "slam finals" is insane, otherwise Lendl vaults over most players because he made 19 slam finals, but only won 8 of them. Total number of slams, weeks at #1 and total tournaments are the near-universal way of judging greatness in a tennis player, this is indisputable. You claim Andy is one of top 12 greatest players in the Open era, which is also easily dismantled. On what planet is Murray equal to any of these guys in greatness? Please explain.

Federer
Nadal
Djokovic
Sampras
Laver
Borg
Lendl
Connors
Rosewall
Agassi
McEnroe
Wilander
Newcombe
Edberg
Becker
Courier
---------------

That's 16 guys right there, all of whom have 4+ major titles. As a reference point, both Boris and Stefan have twice as many slams as Murray and a vastly higher slam winning percentage rate. Murray is 3-6 in slam finals, but he's in the discussion as one of the top 12 players of the Open era? Do tell.
I already answered in the first post, as did Bodo, but in your eagerness to trash Murray's reputation, you missed it.
 

buscemi

Hall of Fame
So, let's compare Murray to Edberg, who many consider the basement for ATG:

Total GS titles: Edberg: 6; Murray: 3​
Total GS finals: Edberg: 11 Murray 11​
Davis Cup wins: Edberg: 4; Murray 1​
Time spent ranked in the top 10: Edberg: 10 years in the top 10 (1985-1994); Murray: 9 (2008-2016)​
Total number of titles won: Murray: 46; Edberg: 41​
Time spent as the world number one: Edberg: 72 weeks; Murray: 41 weeks​
Consecutive time spent as the world number one: Murray: 41 consecutive weeks; Edberg: 24 consecutive weeks​

Edberg leads in 4 categories, Murray leads in 2 categories, and they're tied in 1 category. I think Edberg's +31 weeks at #1 trumps Murray's +17 consecutive weeks at #1. That leaves Edberg doubling up Murray in Majors, quadrupling Murray in Davis Cup titles, and with an extra year in the top 10 vs. Murray being +5 in overall titles.

For me, this cements that Murray is clearly a rung below the ATGs.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
So you quote Peter Bodo extensively and then add what you consider important ("success at the Olympics"). Never mind Bodo's inclusion of "slam finals" is insane, otherwise Lendl vaults over most players because he made 19 slam finals, but only won 8 of them. Total number of slams, weeks at #1 and total tournaments are the near-universal way of judging greatness in a tennis player, this is indisputable. You claim Andy is one of top 12 greatest players in the Open era, which is also easily dismantled. On what planet is Murray equal to any of these guys in greatness? Please explain.

Federer
Nadal
Djokovic
Sampras
Laver
Borg
Lendl
Connors
Rosewall
Agassi
McEnroe
Wilander
Newcombe
Edberg
Becker
Courier
---------------

That's 16 guys right there, all of whom have 4+ major titles. As a reference point, both Boris and Stefan have twice as many slams as Murray and a vastly higher slam winning percentage rate. Murray is 3-6 in slam finals, but he's in the discussion as one of the top 12 players of the Open era? Do tell.

Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Sampras all have more than twice as many Slams as Edberg and Becker (more than 3 times in the case of Fed and Rafa) yet you're quite happy to group them all together as ATGs. Do tell.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
So, let's compare Murray to Edberg, who many consider the basement for ATG:

Total GS titles: Edberg: 6; Murray: 3​
Total GS finals: Edberg: 11 Murray 11​
Davis Cup wins: Edberg: 4; Murray 1
Time spent ranked in the top 10: Edberg: 10 years in the top 10 (1985-1994); Murray: 9 (2008-2016)​
Total number of titles won: Murray: 46; Edberg: 41​
Time spent as the world number one: Edberg: 72 weeks; Murray: 41 weeks​
Consecutive time spent as the world number one: Murray: 41 consecutive weeks; Edberg: 24 consecutive weeks​

Edberg leads in 4 categories, Murray leads in 2 categories, and they're tied in 1 category. I think Edberg's +31 weeks at #1 trumps Murray's +17 consecutive weeks at #1. That leaves Edberg doubling up Murray in Majors, quadrupling Murray in Davis Cup titles, and with an extra year in the top 10 vs. Murray being +5 in overall titles.

For me, this cements that Murray is clearly a rung below the ATGs.

Given that Murray virtually won DC for Team GB all by himself (was undefeated in all his rubbers) it's probably not very fair to hold that particular comparison against him. Whom did Edberg have to help him win all his DCs?
 

FedeRadi

Rookie
So, let's compare Murray to Edberg, who many consider the basement for ATG:

Total GS titles: Edberg: 6; Murray: 3​
Total GS finals: Edberg: 11 Murray 11​
Davis Cup wins: Edberg: 4; Murray 1​
Time spent ranked in the top 10: Edberg: 10 years in the top 10 (1985-1994); Murray: 9 (2008-2016)​
Total number of titles won: Murray: 46; Edberg: 41​
Time spent as the world number one: Edberg: 72 weeks; Murray: 41 weeks​
Consecutive time spent as the world number one: Murray: 41 consecutive weeks; Edberg: 24 consecutive weeks​

Edberg leads in 4 categories, Murray leads in 2 categories, and they're tied in 1 category. I think Edberg's +31 weeks at #1 trumps Murray's +17 consecutive weeks at #1. That leaves Edberg doubling up Murray in Majors, quadrupling Murray in Davis Cup titles, and with an extra year in the top 10 vs. Murray being +5 in overall titles.

For me, this cements that Murray is clearly a rung below the ATGs.

I can agree if you have your ATG line at Edberg level. But most of the people has Wilander as ATG, because of his 7 slams.
Doing the same with him.

Total GS titles: Wilander: 7; Murray: 3
Total GS finals: Wilander: 11 Murray 11
Davis Cup wins: Wilander: 3; Murray 1
Time spent ranked in the top 10: Murray 9: 9 years in the top 10 (2008-16); Wilander: 7 (1982-1988)
Total number of titles won: Murray: 46; Wilander: 33
Time spent as the world number one: Murray: 41 weeks; Wilander: 20 weeks
Consecutive time spent as the world number one: Murray: 41 consecutive weeks; Edberg: 20 consecutive weeks

Murray leads in 4 categories, Wilander leads in 2 categories, and they're tied in 1 category.
This without considering:
14-8 in Masters.
2-0 in Olympic gold medals.
1-0 in World Tour Finals.
5% better win rate.
Over 1% better win rate in slam.
105 more wins.
45 more GS wins.
39 more top-10 wins.
More time spent in top 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 50, 100.
7 more slam SF, 10 more slam QF.
7 more Master 1000 F, 6 more Master 1000 SF.

Basically, every stat aside slam titles and davis cup(which I don't value too much), say Murray was better than Wilander.
If you are a "slam title is everything" guy, I'm ok with it. But if slam titles gap can be upsetted, and I think they can(No way IMO Wilander > Edberg or Becker, Kodes > Nastase, Kriek > Roddick and Edmondson or Gaudio > Rios), you have to admit that Murray is arguably at least in the same tier of Wilander. So arguably an ATG.
 

ibbi

G.O.A.T.
Total GS titles - I don't know about all time, but there's 17 guys ahead of him and 4 he's tied with just in the Open era

Total GS finals - At least 12 guys ahead of him, and 3 he's tied with.

Davis Cup wins - This is impossible to compare considering how much guys used to play Davis Cup compared to now, and which guys used to play Davis Cup. Nobody in the 21st century really deserves much of a sniff at being compared to the guys from the 20th century, especially not in this past decade.

Time spent ranked in the top 10 - I believe Sir Andy sits at a pretty number 11 in the Open era, ahead of Bjorn Borg, don't you know? As if hanging around the top 10 is any kind of metric to all time greatness. Top 5, maybe, even that is a stretch.

Total number of titles won - He's 14th. That again is just an Open era list, nothing to do with the all time conversation being had here.

Time spent as the world number one - 14th again.

Consecutive time spent as the world number one - 20th!

He isn't in the top 10 by any of these metrics, and most of them are just counting Open era.
 

clout

Hall of Fame
Here are my tier of players in OE

GOAT Tier: Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic (no explanation needed)

Borderline/Former GOAT Tier: Borg and Sampras (used to be top GOAT contenders until big 3 emerged)

Mid-ATG Tier: Lendl, McEnroe, Agassi, and Connors (indisputable ATGs who are a bit below the tier above)

First-level ATG Tier: Edberg, Becker, and Wilander (first group of ATGs who are sizably ahead of the multi-slam champs, but slightly behind the group above)

ATGs from pre-OE Tier: Laver, Rosewall, and Newcombe (ATGs who's prime began in pre-OE, but were multi-slam winners in the early days of OE as well)

Borderline ATG Tier: Murray and Courier (as close to being an ATG without being one)

Multi-slam champs Tier: Vilas, Kuetern, Nastase, Smith, Kodes, Wawrinka, Ashe, Hewitt, Safin, Bruguera, Rafter, and Kafelnikov (2-4x slam champs who are a tier below the Murray/Courier duo)

Very good one-timers Tier: Del Potro, Roddick, Goran, Moya, Stitch, Cilic, Chang, and Ferrero (very good players who were "only" held to 1 slam)

One-slam wonders Tier: Costa, Gaudio, Johansson, Gomez, Tanner, Teacher, and Edmondson (players who made the most of their limited opportunities to snag a slam)

Best to never win a slam Tier: Berdych, Tsonga, Ferrer, Soderling, Davydenko, Nalbandian, Corretija, Mercir, and Rios (pretty self-explanatory, I left all the current U-30 players off this list as they still have time on their side)
 
Last edited:

buscemi

Hall of Fame
I can agree if you have your ATG line at Edberg level. But most of the people has Wilander as ATG, because of his 7 slams.
Doing the same with him.

Total GS titles: Wilander: 7; Murray: 3
Total GS finals: Wilander: 11 Murray 11
Davis Cup wins: Wilander: 3; Murray 1
Time spent ranked in the top 10: Murray 9: 9 years in the top 10 (2008-16); Wilander: 7 (1982-1988)
Total number of titles won: Murray: 46; Wilander: 33
Time spent as the world number one: Murray: 41 weeks; Wilander: 20 weeks
Consecutive time spent as the world number one: Murray: 41 consecutive weeks; Edberg: 20 consecutive weeks

Murray leads in 4 categories, Wilander leads in 2 categories, and they're tied in 1 category.
This without considering:
14-8 in Masters.
2-0 in Olympic gold medals.
1-0 in World Tour Finals.
5% better win rate.
Over 1% better win rate in slam.
105 more wins.
45 more GS wins.
39 more top-10 wins.
More time spent in top 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 50, 100.
7 more slam SF, 10 more slam QF.
7 more Master 1000 F, 6 more Master 1000 SF.

Basically, every stat aside slam titles and davis cup(which I don't value too much), say Murray was better than Wilander.
If you are a "slam title is everything" guy, I'm ok with it. But if slam titles gap can be upsetted, and I think they can(No way IMO Wilander > Edberg or Becker, Kodes > Nastase, Kriek > Roddick and Edmondson or Gaudio > Rios), you have to admit that Murray is arguably at least in the same tier of Wilander. So arguably an ATG.

Yeah, but Wilander leads Murray by four Majors. That's a huge gap to overcome. And let's look at Courier vs. Murray:

Total GS titles: Courier: 4 7; Murray: 3​
Total GS finals: Murray 11; Courier: 7​
Davis Cup wins: Courier: 2; Murray 1​
Time spent ranked in the top 10: Murray: 9 years in the top 10 (2008-16); Courier: 4 (1991-1993; 1995)​
Total number of titles won: Murray: 46; Courier: 23​
Time spent as the world number one: Courier: 58 weeks Murray: 41 weeks​
Consecutive time spent as the world number one: Murray: 41 consecutive weeks; Courier: 27 consecutive weeks​

So, it's 4-3 Murray, with Courier leading in the most important stat -- Majors -- and likely the second most important stat: weeks at #1. As I've said before, they're basically equal. And I just don't see Courier (and therefore Murray) as an ATG.
 
Last edited:

Crazy Finn

Hall of Fame
Here are my tier of players in OE

GOAT Tier: Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic (no explanation needed)

Borderline/Former GOAT Tier: Borg and Sampras (used to be top GOAT contenders until big 3 emerged)

Mid-ATG Tier: Lendl, McEnroe, Agassi, and Connors (indisputable ATGs who are a bit below the tier above)

First-level ATG Tier: Edberg, Becker, and Wilander (first group of ATGs who are sizably ahead of the multi-slam champs, but slightly behind the group above)
Agree! (with entire list - shortened quote only for space)
 

FedeRadi

Rookie
Yeah, but Wilander leads Murray by four Majors. That's a huge gap to overcome. And let's look at Courier vs. Murray:

Total GS titles: Courier: 7; Murray: 3​
Total GS finals: Murray 11; Courier: 7​
Davis Cup wins: Courier: 2; Murray 1​
Time spent ranked in the top 10: Murray: 9 years in the top 10 (2008-16); Courier: 4 (1991-1993; 1995)​
Total number of titles won: Murray: 46; Courier: 23​
Time spent as the world number one: Courier: 58 weeks Murray: 41 weeks​
Consecutive time spent as the world number one: Murray: 41 consecutive weeks; Courier: 27 consecutive weeks​

So, it's 4-3 Murray, with Courier leading in the most important stat -- Majors -- and likely the second most important stat: weeks at #1. As I've said before, they're basically equal. And I just don't see Courier (and therefore Murray) as an ATG.

I think it's a typo but Courier won 4 majors, not 7.
By the way, there are other metrics, IMO way more important than Davis Cup wins.
Olympics Gold Medals: 2-0 Murray.
Masters: 14-5 Murray.
WTF: 1-0 Murray.
Win Rate: 77%-68% Murray.
GS Win Rate: 81%-76% Murray. (I think these two are way underrated in order to evaluate a player)
Wins: 673-506 Murray.
GS Wins: 189-118 Murray.
GS SF: 21-10 Murray.
GS QF: 30-15 Murray.
Masters Finals: 21-5 Murray.
Time in top 2/3/5/10/20/50/100: Murray(Unsure about two, but they are close on that)
YE#1: 1-1.
Top 10 Wins: 101-43 Murray.

Only 7 Masters are enough to compensate a slam title and a bunch of weeks #1.
Other stats elevate Andy at a much higher level than Courier, in Wilander Tier IMO.
Not talking about competition level in 90s was way lower than in late 00s and early 10s.
Then, everyone has his metrics to judge.
I only argue that it's not unreasoneable to have Andy as an ATG.
 

buscemi

Hall of Fame
Then, everyone has his metrics to judge.
I only argue that it's not unreasoneable to have Andy as an ATG.

Sure, everyone has his or her own metrics. For instance, many would say that Courier's top line advantage over Murray -- 4 vs. 3 Majors and 58 vs. 41 weeks at #1 -- are too much for Murray to overcome. But it's just really tough to argue that Murray belongs in the same conversation with players who have 3/4 more Majors than him.
 

DjokoGOAT

Semi-Pro
Murray in most era’s would be a Borg level player with 10-12 slams. Wilander in big2+Federer era would be a David ferrer.
 
Top