Compromise on Murray

[The Guru]

People here really love to debate about Murray. Mostly talking about how awful and overrated he is but there's also some staunch defenders. One of the biggest debates surrounding the Muzzah is his status as an ATG. Is Murray an ATG? Well if you look at everything but slam wins he is, but if you look at slam wins he isn't. It reminds me of another very popular sports debate. Is Eli Manning a HOFer? He's kinda the opposite though. He doesn't have the stats but every other QB with two super bowls is an ATG so Eli must be a HOFer. Right? Well that debate rages on but there is one thing both sides (generally) agree on: The Eli Manning Line. The theory of the Manning line is that any QB better than Eli is a HOFer and any QB worse is not a HOFer. I think a similar compromise can be made regarding Murray. The Muzzah Line. Any player better than Murray is an ATG and any player worse is not. Can we agree on the Muzzah Line?

Discuss

P.S. Eli Manning ain't a HOFer sorry Giants fans.

 

[MeatTornado]

Even as a Giants fan, Eli ain't a Hall of Famer. But I'm a very small hall kind of guy. Probably in the 1% of Giants fans who thinks this way. And as someone who generally defends Andy and the whole Big 4 concept, I don't think he's an ATG either. But I think I agree with the Muzzah Line. The only problem is agreeing who is "better" than Andy. We've still got people trying to say Courier is better because of 4 slams.


And fwiw I don't agree with the Eli line. Philip Rivers is a "better" QB than Eli but he sure as hell doesn't belong in the Hall either. Same goes for Matt Ryan, Matt Stafford and any other Matt you can think of.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Would've just made it with one extra slam so yes for me. I'd accept 4-slamray as an ATG given his high non-slem achievements, but 3 is only half of 6, too big a gap.

 

[killerboss]

Shouldn't people be happy that another player managed to carve out his own legacy in the big 3 era? I mean look at the mugs today. Most of them can't even get close to winning a slam. Still letting the old, past their best big 3 members win everything.

 

[Federer and Del Potro]

Even as a Giants fan, Eli ain't a Hall of Famer. But I'm a very small hall kind of guy. Probably in the 1% of Giants fans who thinks this way. And as someone who generally defends Andy and the whole Big 4 concept, I don't think he's an ATG either. But I think I agree with the Muzzah Line. The only problem is agreeing who is "better" than Andy. We've still got people trying to say Courier is better because of 4 slams.


And fwiw I don't agree with the Eli line. Philip Rivers is a "better" QB than Eli but he sure as hell doesn't belong in the Hall either. Same goes for Matt Ryan, Matt Stafford and any other Matt you can think of.

 

[MeatTornado]

Dat's my cawterback

 

[The Guru]

Even as a Giants fan, Eli ain't a Hall of Famer. But I'm a very small hall kind of guy. Probably in the 1% of Giants fans who thinks this way. And as someone who generally defends Andy and the whole Big 4 concept, I don't think he's an ATG either. But I think I agree with the Muzzah Line. The only problem is agreeing who is "better" than Andy. We've still got people trying to say Courier is better because of 4 slams.


And fwiw I don't agree with the Eli line. Philip Rivers is a "better" QB than Eli but he sure as hell doesn't belong in the Hall either. Same goes for Matt Ryan, Matt Stafford and any other Matt you can think of.

I don't want to derail the thread but Matt Stafford are you out of your mind? That man is Kirk Cousins with a flashy arm. He stinks. He drove Megatron into an early retirement. I'm a Bears fan so I have some biases but Matt Stafford is garbage man. I think you can argue Matt Ryan because of role. You stick Eli in the NFC South, in that offensive scheme, in a dome, with Julio Jones I think he puts up much better numbers than he did as a Giant. Era also plays a role here as yards go way up in recent years. Matt Ryan is also not blowing a 28-3 lead from a solid Hall case. Agreed on Rivers but part of legacy is moments like the Helmet catch and what not give your candidacy a big boost.

 

[Federer and Del Potro]

Dat's my cawterback

I wish we had a Eli-Brady dynamic in tennis. Like Berdych winning 3 slams off of the Big 3 in huge finals or something.

Totally not biased here.

 

[Federer and Del Potro]

I don't want to derail the thread but Matt Stafford are you out of your mind? That man is Kirk Cousins with a flashy arm. He stinks. He drove Megatron into an early retirement. I'm a Bears fan so I have some biases but Matt Stafford is garbage man. I think you can argue Matt Ryan because of role. You stick Eli in the NFC South, in that offensive scheme, in a dome, with Julio Jones I think he puts up much better numbers than he did as a Giant. Era also plays a role here as yards go way up in recent years. Matt Ryan is also not blowing a 28-3 lead from a solid Hall case. Agreed on Rivers but part of legacy is moments like the Helmet catch and what not give your candidacy a big boost.

On the Murray front - Have always greatly respected him. We actually had a discussion about this in a group chat just yesterday. I think if you place Murray in 2020 onwards as a young guy where he will 'outlive' the Big 3, he probably mops up a ton of slams. Wimbledon especially. He would destroy the Next Gen. He doesn't get the respect he deserves on grass. Amazing grass player.

On the Stafford Front- As a lifelong Packers fan I agree. That may make me biased as well but nobody watches more Stafford than NFC North fans..so. Stafford is mostly a product of the flag football & cant fart on the QB without a flag & stat inflation era. He's good but not great. Playing on the Lions is such a low stakes gig, it's easy to put up garbage time stats when your team sucks every year. Never been too high on Stafford. Never been too low either. But the media inflates his worth IMO.

 

[DjokoGOAT]

4th best player of all time

 

[MeatTornado]

I wish we had a Eli-Brady dynamic in tennis. Like Berdych winning 3 slams off of the Big 3 in huge finals or something.

Totally not biased here.

Yeah, real shame we don't have someone like that in tennis who usually sprays errors but is suddenly unbeatable in the biggest games...

 

[Third Serve]

With another Slam I'd consider him an ATG. Technically, my cutoff is five Slams but since Murray has had such a great career I would allow it. 3 Slams just isn't enough, though.

 

[MeatTornado]

4th best player of all time

Eli? A bit high but I can get on board.

 

[MeatTornado]

With another Slam I'd consider him an ATG. Technically, my cutoff is five Slams but since Murray has had such a great career I would allow it. 3 Slams just isn't enough, though.

Just one of those 5 Australian Opens and I would probably look at him quite differently.

 

[metsman]

The very debate on Murray is the concept of better. Yes he has had a more accomplished career than many but does that give him a higher top level or make him a better player at their peaks?

 

[metsman]

I wish we had a Eli-Brady dynamic in tennis. Like Berdych winning 3 slams off of the Big 3 in huge finals or something.

Totally not biased here.

we do, Djoker-Stan.

Actually pretty similar parallels there.

 

[buscemi]

There's a pretty clear gap between Courier/Vilas/Ashe/Murray/Kuerten/Kodes/Wawrinka (4/4/3/3/3/3/3 Majors) and Becker/Edberg (6/6 Majors). The latter two are ATGs. The former six are not. If anyone in the former group has a case, it's Courier, with 4 Majors and 58 weeks at #1.

 

[bjsnider]

What exactly does a player need to do to be considered an ATG?

 

[mike danny]

What exactly does a player need to do to be considered an ATG?

For me it's 6 majors. That or 5 majors and a ton of other achievements in the other areas.

 

[buscemi]

What exactly does a player need to do to be considered an ATG?

Either 6+ or 5+ Majors gives us 12 ATGs who started their careers in the Open Era (from 1968-2020):

Federer​

Nadal​

Djokovic​

Sampras​

Borg​

Agassi​

Lendl​

Connors​

McEnroe​

Wilander​

Edberg​

Becker​

That seems reasonable to me.

 

[Midaso240]

Dude,Eli Manning is making the HOF 100%. Why? Because even if his stats aren't up to scratch,he's still a 2x Superbowl winner,2x Superbowl MVP. Eventually they're going to run out of people with better credentials to induct because NFL players only get one chance a year to win a big prize (compared with tennis' 4). And yes,Murray is an ATG. No doubt about it

 

[mike danny]

People here really love to debate about Murray. Mostly talking about how awful and overrated he is but there's also some staunch defenders. One of the biggest debates surrounding the Muzzah is his status as an ATG. Is Murray an ATG? Well if you look at everything but slam wins he is, but if you look at slam wins he isn't. It reminds me of another very popular sports debate. Is Eli Manning a HOFer? He's kinda the opposite though. He doesn't have the stats but every other QB with two super bowls is an ATG so Eli must be a HOFer. Right? Well that debate rages on but there is one thing both sides (generally) agree on: The Eli Manning Line. The theory of the Manning line is that any QB better than Eli is a HOFer and any QB worse is not a HOFer. I think a similar compromise can be made regarding Murray. The Muzzah Line. Any player better than Murray is an ATG and any player worse is not. Can we agree on the Muzzah Line?

Discuss

P.S. Eli Manning ain't a HOFer sorry Giants fans.

The way I see it, you can't just award Murray the ATG status just because of the toughness of the era and what he could have achieved. He should be judged based on what he actually achieved.

Yes, he has been given a tough deck of cards, but that's sports. You shouldn't make exceptions for some people just because they competed in a really strong era.

By that logic, Federer and Djokovic should be considered Borg level players on clay just because they competed with Nadal on the surface. That would be an insane thing to do. You can't just gift players slams like that.

 

[mike danny]

Dude,Eli Manning is making the HOF 100%. Why? Because even if his stats aren't up to scratch,he's still a 2x Superbowl winner,2x Superbowl MVP. Eventually they're going to run out of people with better credentials to induct because NFL players only get one chance a year to win a big prize (compared with tennis' 4). And yes,Murray is an ATG. No doubt about it

Actually, there is doubt since not everyone agrees with it. But there isn't any doubt with Edberg/Becker/Wilander since everyone agrees they are ATG.

 

[Steve0904]

Even as a Giants fan, Eli ain't a Hall of Famer. But I'm a very small hall kind of guy. Probably in the 1% of Giants fans who thinks this way. And as someone who generally defends Andy and the whole Big 4 concept, I don't think he's an ATG either. But I think I agree with the Muzzah Line. The only problem is agreeing who is "better" than Andy. We've still got people trying to say Courier is better because of 4 slams.


And fwiw I don't agree with the Eli line. Philip Rivers is a "better" QB than Eli but he sure as hell doesn't belong in the Hall either. Same goes for Matt Ryan, Matt Stafford and any other Matt you can think of.

Not even sure Philip Rivers is better than Eli, but I agree that both are too mediocre to warrant HOF status. Difference is, Eli will get in because of those 2 SBs when I really don't think he should. I think people hugely overrate the importance of winning even just one SB when considering someone's HOF status. I'm much bigger on individual stats tbh since great players can play on bad teams and never win one (ex: Dan Marino, who is in the HOF, but he was so good that nobody could ignore him so he's probably an outlier).

Re: Murray, he's not an ATG (but he is part of the Big 4). ATG open era status starts in Becker/Edberg territory IMO. 3 slams isn't ATG territory no matter what era he played in. Sorry if it sounds harsh, but that's my thought. So as far as "the line" goes, obviously I agree that any player worse isn't an ATG, but I think someone with 4 slams, 0 WTF, and 10 weeks at #1 could be seen as better than Murray by some people and still not be an ATG. Closest to that description is Courier I suppose, but my point is that that player could theoretically exist exactly as I described, and if the cutoff right now is a Becker/Edberg level player then I don't agree on where the line is.

And for the record, I'll still consider Murray > Wawrinka even if the latter wins one more slam and and the former doesn't. So that debate doesn't really interest me.

Also, great thread OP. Very thought provoking and original by Murray thread standards.

 

[The Guru]

On the Murray front - Have always greatly respected him. We actually had a discussion about this in a group chat just yesterday. I think if you place Murray in 2020 onwards as a young guy where he will 'outlive' the Big 3, he probably mops up a ton of slams. Wimbledon especially. He would destroy the Next Gen. He doesn't get the respect he deserves on grass. Amazing grass player.

On the Stafford Front- As a lifelong Packers fan I agree. That may make me biased as well but nobody watches more Stafford than NFC North fans..so. Stafford is mostly a product of the flag football & cant fart on the QB without a flag & stat inflation era. He's good but not great. Playing on the Lions is such a low stakes gig, it's easy to put up garbage time stats when your team sucks every year. Never been too high on Stafford. Never been too low either. But the media inflates his worth IMO.

On Murray - it's too early to say how he'd do in Next Gen but I'm guessing you're right and that he'd absolutely dominate grass. No one in Next Gen has the returning skills to be competitive on grass so far.

Perfect description of Stafford. It's why I like to have him in fantasy. He has 100 yards 1 TD 1 Pick down 27-7 going into the 4th where he throws for 200 yards and two TDs to lose 34-21 lol.

 

[The Guru]

The way I see it, you can't just award Murray the ATG status just because of the toughness of the era and what he could have achieved. He should be judged based on what he actually achieved.

Yes, he has been given a tough deck of cards, but that's sports. You shouldn't make exceptions for some people just because they competed in a really strong era.

By that logic, Federer and Djokovic should be considered Borg level players on clay just because they competed with Nadal on the surface. That would be an insane thing to do. You can't just gift players slams like that.

Hmm. I don't think I can agree with that. Would Kuerten be a lesser player if he was born the same year as Nadal and never got an RG? I think you should judge people for what they are not necessarily their results. Kuerten wouldn't be a worse player in that scenario he just would've been unlucky. We can debate whether Murray was unlucky or not but if he was that certainly elevates his status.

 

[BeatlesFan]

How many times is this topic beat to death here?

Is Jim Courier at ATG? He has one more slam than Murray and 23 career titles.

When has any ATG had 3 slams?

Ever?

Minimum for ATG status is 6 slams: Becker, Edberg...

And 90% of the people haven't one clue who John Newcombe is, but he won 7 slams (3 Wimbledon titles), and 68 career titles. He's a definite ATG. Murray is named as such because of presentism. Andy's a great player but nobody with 3 majors is an ATG. Kuerten and Stan aren't either (and yes, we know Andy has OGM, more titles... blah blah).

 

[DSH]

Murray is a top 15 tennis player in the Open Era.

 

[Ray Mercer]

People here really love to debate about Murray. Mostly talking about how awful and overrated he is but there's also some staunch defenders. One of the biggest debates surrounding the Muzzah is his status as an ATG. Is Murray an ATG? Well if you look at everything but slam wins he is, but if you look at slam wins he isn't. It reminds me of another very popular sports debate. Is Eli Manning a HOFer? He's kinda the opposite though. He doesn't have the stats but every other QB with two super bowls is an ATG so Eli must be a HOFer. Right? Well that debate rages on but there is one thing both sides (generally) agree on: The Eli Manning Line. The theory of the Manning line is that any QB better than Eli is a HOFer and any QB worse is not a HOFer. I think a similar compromise can be made regarding Murray. The Muzzah Line. Any player better than Murray is an ATG and any player worse is not. Can we agree on the Muzzah Line?

Discuss

P.S. Eli Manning ain't a HOFer sorry Giants fans.

Eli Manning is much more comparable to Stan. He was extremely inconsistent and doesn’t have the stats but in his Super Bowl wins he was absolutely clutch. He beat Brady twice and both Rodgers and a stacked 49ers team on the road which was ridiculous. Both of his Super Bowl runs were some of the best of all time. Wawrinka also was very inconsistent but his performances against Djokovic are legendary.

 

[RaulRamirez]

I wish we had a Eli-Brady dynamic in tennis. Like Berdych winning 3 slams off of the Big 3 in huge finals or something.

Totally not biased here.

Maybe, Stan is Eli - inconsistent in the "regular season", but with some huge championship wins over GOAT candidates!

 

[MeatTornado]

Not even sure Philip Rivers is better than Eli, but I agree that both are too mediocre to warrant HOF status. Difference is, Eli will get in because of those 2 SBs when I really don't think he should. I think people hugely overrate the importance of winning even just one SB when considering someone's HOF status. I'm much bigger on individual stats tbh since great players can play on bad teams and never win one (ex: Dan Marino, who is in the HOF, but he was so good that nobody could ignore him so he's probably an outlier).

Basically the debate boils down to why we put players in the hall of fame. Is it just the best statistical players of each era? Or is it the ones who left the greatest impact on the game?

Even though he was a average to above-average QB for most of his career, there's no getting around that everyone will remember Eli Manning as the MVP of what is probably the most important Super Bowl of the 21st century........and then he did it again. He threw 2 of the most iconic passes in SB history. He was also building a legendary starting streak before it was ripped away from him and turned into a national story where basically the entire league rallied around him. So do we keep out one of the most notable players of the era because outside those 2 runs he was mostly just average? I don't know.

I don't think Eli should be in. But I'd rather he get in than someone with better stats who always blew it in the biggest games.

 

[Steve0904]

Basically the debate boils down to why we put players in the hall of fame. Is it just the best statistical players of each era? Or is it the ones who left the greatest impact on the game?

Even though he was a average to above-average QB for most of his career, there's no getting around that everyone will remember Eli Manning as the MVP of what is probably the most important Super Bowl of the 21st century........and then he did it again. He threw 2 of the most iconic passes in SB history. He was also building a legendary starting streak before it was ripped away from him and turned into a national story where basically the entire league rallied around him. So do we keep out one of the most notable players of the era because outside those 2 runs he was mostly just average? I don't know.

I don't think Eli should be in. But I'd rather he get in than someone with better stats who always blew it in the biggest games.

Yeah, I think we mostly agree, but just as an example I'd say that if let's say Eli's brother Peyton had zero SB wins he still goes in the HOF because his stats are legendary (like Marino) and he really did carry an average Colts team (at least on defence) to the playoffs for a lot of years, whereas Eli was never that guy to consistently have great seasons. So maybe you have to be exceptional to get into the HOF with zero wins. Maybe that's the trick. Obviously I don't think Eli is exceptional in that sense.

And of course the reason I use Peyton is because he's known for blowing it in some big games, but I honestly think he would've deserved to get in even if he never won a SB. That's why I disagree with the importance of any SB wins, especially considering Peyton's last one came when his arm was shot and he was a shadow of himself in his prime/pre-injury. He did next to nothing and the defence won it for him. I'm absolutely sure he deserved to get in (and would've gotten in) no matter how many big games he blew or how many SBs he didn't win, just on stats, but I'm not sure Eli is a HOF'er even with 2 SB wins.

Clearly there are those that value the SB immensely and would call me crazy, but in my experience about 80 % of the people that say "SB's are eveything" are also blowhard Patriots fans so I don't listen to them too much.

 

[MeatTornado]

Yeah, I think we mostly agree, but just as an example I'd say that if let's say Eli's brother Peyton had zero SB wins he still goes in the HOF because his stats are legendary (like Marino) and he really did carry an average Colts team (at least on defence) to the playoffs for a lot of years, whereas Eli was never that guy to consistently have great seasons. So maybe you have to be exceptional to get into the HOF with zero wins. Maybe that's the trick. Obviously I don't think Eli is exceptional in that sense.

And of course the reason I use Peyton is because he's known for blowing it in some big games, but I honestly think he would've deserved to get in even if he never won a SB. That's why I disagree with the importance of any SB wins, especially considering Peyton's last one came when his arm was shot and he was a shadow of himself in his prime/pre-injury. He did next to nothing and the defence won it for him. I'm absolutely sure he deserved to get in (and would've gotten in) no matter how many big games he blew or how many SBs he didn't win, just on stats, but I'm not sure Eli is a HOF'er even with 2 SB wins.

Clearly there are those that value the SB immensely and would call me crazy, but in my experience about 80 % of the people that say "SB's are eveything" are also blowhard Patriots fans so I don't listen to them too much.

Everything we're saying is just further proof of why the selection committee exists. Each player needs to be evaluated individually. Overarching rules are dumb.

Stats need to be looked at based on the era they played in. Championships need to be weighed by the strength of the team around them. In the end it's all a very gut feeling. You tend to know one way or the other. As a small-hall kind of guy, if my initial reaction to someone is no, then it's a definite no. If you need to convince me why someone is a hall of famer, then they're probably not a hall of famer. And that's the approach I take with Eli. The very fact that a debate exists is evidence enough that he probably doesn't belong. I would try to keep the Halls as full of no-doubters as possible.

 

[vex]

I don't want to derail the thread but Matt Stafford are you out of your mind? That man is Kirk Cousins with a flashy arm. He stinks. He drove Megatron into an early retirement. I'm a Bears fan so I have some biases but Matt Stafford is garbage man. I think you can argue Matt Ryan because of role. You stick Eli in the NFC South, in that offensive scheme, in a dome, with Julio Jones I think he puts up much better numbers than he did as a Giant. Era also plays a role here as yards go way up in recent years. Matt Ryan is also not blowing a 28-3 lead from a solid Hall case. Agreed on Rivers but part of legacy is moments like the Helmet catch and what not give your candidacy a big boost.

Packers fan. Matt Stafford SHOULD be great... he’s got the stats, an immense arm, great athleticism... but for whatever reason I’ve literally never been like “oh **** we gotta play Matt Stafford next week”.... not even once.

 

[vex]

I like the Muzziah line. I still think he’s underrated. Multiple AOs denied by Djokovic. Probably 1 RG and a Wimby. Course the greats of other eras might have denied him as well. It’s hard to place him.

 

[Antonio Puente]

What exactly does a player need to do to be considered an ATG?

When the slam record was 14 the common number for ATG was 4. Now that Nadal and Fed have pushed it to 19 and 20, the current number seems to be 6, which makes sense. If players are sitting at 20 and beyond(if tennis ever returns), placing ATG status on someone at 4 seems a little generous.

 

[Nole_King]

On the Murray front - Have always greatly respected him. We actually had a discussion about this in a group chat just yesterday. I think if you place Murray in 2020 onwards as a young guy where he will 'outlive' the Big 3, he probably mops up a ton of slams. Wimbledon especially. He would destroy the Next Gen. He doesn't get the respect he deserves on grass. Amazing grass player.

He did get destroyed by Dimitrov while defending wimby in 2014 though ...

These are big IFs and BUTs about placing one player when their current competition is not there. It is akin to saying that in absence of the winner the runners up would have won.

 

[Nole_King]

There's a pretty clear gap between Courier/Vilas/Ashe/Murray/Kuerten/Kodes/Wawrinka (4/4/3/3/3/3/3 Majors) and Becker/Edberg (6/6 Majors). The latter two are ATGs. The former six are not. If anyone in the former group has a case, it's Courier, with 4 Majors and 58 weeks at #1.

Fully agree. How on earth can someone in his/her right mind place Murray alongside Becker/Edberg is beyond me.

 

[Nole_King]

I like the Muzziah line. I still think he’s underrated. Multiple AOs denied by Djokovic. Probably 1 RG and a Wimby. Course the greats of other eras might have denied him as well. It’s hard to place him.

Actually easy to place him. There are ATGs, then some daylight and then Murray et. al.

 

[Mainad]

The definition of who is an ATG is, of course, entirely subjective but I think we could do worse than adopt the Hall of Fame's definition for those players it grants automatic qualification for entry:

Automatic Inclusion

A Player Category candidate will bypass Enshrinee Nominating Committee review and shall be automatically included on the ballot in the candidate’s first year of eligibility if the candidate satisfies any of the following criteria:

Singles Players

• Won at least three major singles titles and was World Number 1 for at least 13 total weeks; or
• Won at least five major singles titles

Doubles Players

• Won at least 12 major doubles titles and was World Number 1 for at least 52 total weeks; or
• Won at least 15 major doubles titles

International Tennis Hall of Fame

 

[megamind]

The definition of who is an ATG is, of course, entirely subjective but I think we could do worse than adopt the Hall of Fame's definition for those players it grants automatic qualification for entry:

Automatic Inclusion

A Player Category candidate will bypass Enshrinee Nominating Committee review and shall be automatically included on the ballot in the candidate’s first year of eligibility if the candidate satisfies any of the following criteria:

Singles Players

• Won at least three major singles titles and was World Number 1 for at least 13 total weeks; or
• Won at least five major singles titles

Doubles Players

• Won at least 12 major doubles titles and was World Number 1 for at least 52 total weeks; or
• Won at least 15 major doubles titles

International Tennis Hall of Fame

I think it should be #1 for at least 52 weeks for singles as well

someone might not make the cut

 

[Mainad]

I think it should be #1 for at least 52 weeks for singles as well

someone might not make the cut

Raising the bar for any particular reason?

 

[megamind]

Raising the bar for any particular reason?

 

[Nole_King]

The definition of who is an ATG is, of course, entirely subjective but I think we could do worse than adopt the Hall of Fame's definition for those players it grants automatic qualification for entry:

Automatic Inclusion

A Player Category candidate will bypass Enshrinee Nominating Committee review and shall be automatically included on the ballot in the candidate’s first year of eligibility if the candidate satisfies any of the following criteria:

Singles Players

• Won at least three major singles titles and was World Number 1 for at least 13 total weeks; or
• Won at least five major singles titles

Doubles Players

• Won at least 12 major doubles titles and was World Number 1 for at least 52 total weeks; or
• Won at least 15 major doubles titles

International Tennis Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame .... LOL Something that has kafelnikov and Stich included. You are so desperate to call Murray an ATG that it has become laughable.

 

[beard]

I will say again. I consider Murray great, great player, even an ATG. We can't go only with pure number of slams, but we must reconsider how many times he lost in sf's and f's against goats, and can we blame him? Yes, he is 4th greatest player in his era, but other 3 are best ever. In every other era he would be pure ATG, easy...

To sublime...unfortunately, he won't be considered ATG by most, specially when more time passes, but those who watched him must appreciate him and his tennis more than just look at number 3.

Context is often asked here, and who's resume requires context more than Murray's?

 

[beard]

Hall of Fame .... LOL Something that has kafelnikov and Stich included. You are so desperate to call Murray an ATG that it has become laughable.

I really hate when Novak fan write something like this... It make me ashamed... You should have more respect toward Mainad, one of most decent posters here, and Murray too...

 

[alexio]

Would've just made it with one extra slam so yes for me. I'd accept 4-slamray as an ATG given his high non-slem achievements, but 3 is only half of 6, too big a gap.

опять эта тема, можно было б и записать этот виртуальный 4 шлем в его актив (100 процентов не сомневаюсь), если учесть не менее важный момент (большая разница в уровне соперников (условий) там и здесь - беккер/эдберг - маррей) чем просто недальновидно смотреть на количество шлемов

 

[FatHead250]

Murray is definitely an all time great. Only reason he didnt win 10+ slams is beacuse of djokovic and federer.

 

[Fedinkum]

Muzz is no where near all time great, unless you are from the UK crowd. He is just a brighter blip in the history of tennis greats.

Nice bloke though.

 

[RS]

People here really love to debate about Murray. Mostly talking about how awful and overrated he is but there's also some staunch defenders. One of the biggest debates surrounding the Muzzah is his status as an ATG. Is Murray an ATG? Well if you look at everything but slam wins he is, but if you look at slam wins he isn't. It reminds me of another very popular sports debate. Is Eli Manning a HOFer? He's kinda the opposite though. He doesn't have the stats but every other QB with two super bowls is an ATG so Eli must be a HOFer. Right? Well that debate rages on but there is one thing both sides (generally) agree on: The Eli Manning Line. The theory of the Manning line is that any QB better than Eli is a HOFer and any QB worse is not a HOFer. I think a similar compromise can be made regarding Murray. The Muzzah Line. Any player better than Murray is an ATG and any player worse is not. Can we agree on the Muzzah Line?

Discuss

P.S. Eli Manning ain't a HOFer sorry Giants fans.

2 slams away IMO. So not near but not super far. Great player and has brought good things to the sport.