Compromise on Murray

[Crazy Finn]

Lol...how many recent great players have been 'adored'? Guys like Connors, McEnroe, Nastase and Lendl would smile at the very notion.

It's funny how some of those guys are liked a lot more after retirement than they were while they were playing. McEnroe is more liked now and as a commentator than he was as a player. Connors was a brat for most of his playing career, but is thought of favorably now, mostly thanks to his US Open run in 91 and nostalgia. Even now, you see Lendl in coaching - being grumpy, probably - and it's sort of charming because he's the same.

Murray was a great player but is never adored because of his whiny personality, weak forehand and passive playing style. You’re never going to be loved playing conservative tennis.

I kind of like Murray with his hangdog presence, woe is me, limping and gimping around the court like a sad puppy - yet still making great plays. It's more endearing than anything Novak does, for me.

 

[Fridge]

14 Masters titles (more than most on the list), 41 weeks at #1 (more than some on the list), Y/E #1 (unachieved by some on the list), 46 titles overall (more than some on the list). Maybe you haven't been looking very hard?

I said exceptional. Maybe you aren't listening properly. having 12 Rgs is exceptional, holding all 4 slams at once is exceptional, having the most weeks at number one is exceptional, having 3 channel slams is excecptional, winning wimbledon 7/8 years is exceptional. Nothing that murray has done stands head and shoulders above the rest other than the 2 golds. I'm not arguing his abilities, im just saying the list should be reserved for those that have done something special.

 

[Mainad]

I said exceptional. Maybe you aren't listening properly. having 12 Rgs is exceptional, holding all 4 slams at once is exceptional, having the most weeks at number one is exceptional, having 3 channel slams is excecptional, winning wimbledon 7/8 years is exceptional. Nothing that murray has done stands head and shoulders above the rest other than the 2 golds. I'm not arguing his abilities, im just saying the list should be reserved for those that have done something special.

Well, aren't the 2 OSGs you keep referring to as "other than" something special?

 

[Fridge]

Well, aren't the 2 OSGs you keep referring to as "other than" something special?

Olympics are important to players. its huge for them, perhaps more than any other tournament. But... it shouldn't be placed that high on achievements as it only happens every four years. Sick one year? injured 4 years later? Congrats, 3 weeks of bad luck and all of a sudden your next olympics are after your prime/peak. Sorry it just can't be used to justify his place on the ATG list.

 

[Crazy Finn]

Olympics are important to players. its huge for them, perhaps more than any other tournament. But... it shouldn't be placed that high on achievements as it only happens every four years. Sick one year? injured 4 years later? Congrats, 3 weeks of bad luck and all of a sudden your next olympics are after your prime/peak. Sorry it just can't be used to justify his place on the ATG list.

I agree. I'm sure they are special to those who get them, and an achievement, but I don't think they can be used like other tournaments compared due to their infrequency. The 4 slams are held every year (mostly). There are a variety of Masters tournaments, the locations and times vary over the course of a long career. There have been 5 Olympics during Federer's pro career. There have been 85 Grand Slams.

I've looked through a few of these Olympic Tournaments. The level of competition varies rather greatly. The best players that Murray faced on his 2016 run were Steve Johnson, Nishikori, and Del Potro. 2012 was better, having to play Djokovic and Federer. But, it's so variable each time. It's not a slam, don't try to make it one.

You are cherry picking things things in order to justify your own viewpoint on Murray, since you're obviously a fan of his. I like him too, nothing wrong with that. But since his slam total doesn't rate him as high on the list as you think he should be, you're trying to find other ways to elevate him.

 

[Nole_King]

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...

Dude ..respect comes automatically through how one behaves. This poster has one single agenda (as if he is part of British press) to inflate a good player like Murray to an ATG. He has to understand the more he stretches a string in one direction the harder the reaction is. You may find his posts great but someone who goes about saying that Murray didn't win against Federer after 2013 due to back surgery is a ****ty poster.

Regarding Murray, sorry but I cannot respect him when he is not even respectful towards his box when he starts losing. Add to that constant whining and holding of leg/thighs etc. when outplayed his disrespectful towards the opponent.

 

[Nole_King]

Welp that’s your opinion

Ofcourse, I am not supposed to voice your opinion here. And going by the posts in this thread there are many more that share my opinion.

 

[Nole_King]

Lol...how many recent great players have been 'adored'? Guys like Connors, McEnroe, Nastase and Lendl would smile at the very notion.

OTOH these guys had achievements being liked wont have mattered. With Murray's achievements that pale in comparison to the players you mentioned he at least needed to be adored.

 

[Mainad]

Olympics are important to players. its huge for them, perhaps more than any other tournament. But... it shouldn't be placed that high on achievements as it only happens every four years. Sick one year? injured 4 years later? Congrats, 3 weeks of bad luck and all of a sudden your next olympics are after your prime/peak. Sorry it just can't be used to justify his place on the ATG list.

But looked at another way, to win a tournament that only occurs once every 4 years and to do it twice is very special indeed precisely because of its rarity.

 

[Nole_King]

14 Masters titles (more than most on the list), 41 weeks at #1 (more than some on the list), Y/E #1 (unachieved by some on the list), 46 titles overall (more than some on the list). Maybe you haven't been looking very hard?

YE#1 vultured with no Fedal and a lacklusture Novak. 41 weeks maintained because #2 went off the radar and Fedal coming back after 6 months layoff. Tell me honestly if Murray could anyway hold light to Fedal in those 41 weeks that he was #1? He won ZERO being #1.

 

[Nole_King]

I said exceptional. Maybe you aren't listening properly. having 12 Rgs is exceptional, holding all 4 slams at once is exceptional, having the most weeks at number one is exceptional, having 3 channel slams is excecptional, winning wimbledon 7/8 years is exceptional. Nothing that murray has done stands head and shoulders above the rest other than the 2 golds. I'm not arguing his abilities, im just saying the list should be reserved for those that have done something special.

Dont bang your head mate. This guy is not going to pay attention to something that hurts his agenda

 

[Mainad]

You are cherry picking things things in order to justify your own viewpoint on Murray, since you're obviously a fan of his. I like him too, nothing wrong with that. But since his slam total doesn't rate him as high on the list as you think he should be, you're trying to find other ways to elevate him.

But if its all about the Slams as you and others keep arguing then what value on the other aspects of the tour (without which the Slams could not survive)? Plus, if his Slam count is considered too low because it's only half of what Edberg and Becker achieved how do we square putting those 2 in the same category as Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Sampras when they all won more than twice as many as they did and, in some case, 3 times as many?

 

[Breakpointerer]

how do we square putting those 2 in the same category as Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Sampras when they all won more than twice as many as they did and, in some case, 3 times as many?

Well that can be explained by there being different tiers of ATGs- Becker and Edberg would be lower tier ATGs while the Big 3 are obviously in the topmost tier.

 

[Wurm]

I've looked through a few of these Olympic Tournaments. The level of competition varies rather greatly. The best players that Murray faced on his 2016 run were Steve Johnson, Nishikori, and Del Potro. 2012 was better, having to play Djokovic and Federer. But, it's so variable each time. It's not a slam, don't try to make it one.

But Rafa and Novak played in 2016 they just got knocked out by del-Potro, who you seem to have hand waved away as an also-ran rather than someone we might be having this exact same thread for if you swapped his injury problems with Murray's.

Which does bring up another point, there's sometimes a suggestion that del-Potro without the wrist injuries would only have negatively impacted Murray's career when the 2016 Olympics is a great example that it's more likely he would've brought a bit more chaos to the end stages of events that sometimes would've favoured Murray.

 

[TMF]

Olympics are important to players. its huge for them, perhaps more than any other tournament. But... it shouldn't be placed that high on achievements as it only happens every four years. Sick one year? injured 4 years later? Congrats, 3 weeks of bad luck and all of a sudden your next olympics are after your prime/peak. Sorry it just can't be used to justify his place on the ATG list.

But looked at another way, to win a tournament that only occurs once every 4 years and to do it twice is very special indeed precisely because of its rarity.

There's no ranking points in Olympic tennis event. Only the 4 slams and all the ATP tournaments are central part in evaluating the player's placement in ATG.

If it's really important to a player's legacy, then Sampras wouldn't have skipped it in 1996/2000 and opt to play small tournaments between the states.

 

[Mainad]

There's no ranking points in Olympic tennis event. Only the 4 slams and all the ATP tournaments are central part in evaluating the player's placement in ATG.

If it's really important to a player's legacy, then Sampras wouldn't have skipped it in 1996/2000 and opt to play small tournaments between the states.

Lol...Sampras is the only player regularly trotted out to 'prove' the unimportance of Olympic tennis (Agassi who won it rarely gets mentioned) but Pete later admitted he regretted not playing it.

 

[Zardoz7/12]

Murray is in the same group with Kuerten in my opinion. 3 slams, multiple masters titles, time spent at number 1, hip injuries.

I don't know why any talk about Murray is some hard subject between people who like him and those who don't like him, look at his statistics through his career, he was a top player but he was behind 3 all time greats.

 

[DSH]

is there another case of a player going 3-8 in GS finals and making it in? Other than winning 2 gold medals I don't see anything that he has done exceptionally well.

Not entirely, but Tony Roche had a career record of 753-297 (71.7%), won 46 titles, his highest ranking was No. 2, he reached the semifinals of the 4 Majors, and was a 6-time finalist. but he only won 1 GS tournament (1966 French Open).

 

[TMF]

Lol...Sampras is the only player regularly trotted out to 'prove' the unimportance of Olympic tennis (Agassi who won it rarely gets mentioned) but Pete later admitted he regretted not playing it.

Lol....and Sampras chose to skip it again in 2000. Funny thing is his excuse not to play because Sidney is too far, but doesn't have a problem traveling to Melbourne every year to play the AO. The truth is he doesn't want to playing in the Olympics, simple as that.

Hingis, Sampras, Mary Pierce and Nathalie Tauziat are all in the top 10 were missing in 2000 Olympics. Even McEnroe declined to coach for the US men team. Other top players like Cedric Pioline of France and Mariano Puerta of Argentina were also absent.

Tennis isn't that important in the Olympics.

 

[buscemi]

But if its all about the Slams as you and others keep arguing then what value on the other aspects of the tour (without which the Slams could not survive)? Plus, if his Slam count is considered too low because it's only half of what Edberg and Becker achieved how do we square putting those 2 in the same category as Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Sampras when they all won more than twice as many as they did and, in some case, 3 times as many?

I think many people agree with this general sentiment: A player with one fewer Major can be considered better than/equal to a player with one more Major if (s)he is solidly better than the other player in other aspects of the tour. A player with two fewer Majors can be considered better than/equal to a player with two more Majors if (s)he is significantly better than the other player in other aspects of the tour. But a three Major gap is just too much to overcome.

Moreover, I think many people believe that there are there are tiers of ATGs, with Edberg and Becker being in the lowest tier. And that makes sense to me because they each have six Majors, with no other players who started in the Open Era having five Majors and only two players -- Courier and Vilas -- having four Majors. And really, that can be reduced to one player -- Courier -- because Vilas's two Australian Opens were not legit Majors. So, other than Courier, it's pretty much a 3 Major gap between Edberg/Becker and the rest of the next-of-the-best group.

 

[Mainad]

Lol....and Sampras chose to skip it again in 2000. Funny thing is his excuse not to play because Sidney is too far, but doesn't have a problem traveling to Melbourne every year to play the AO. The truth is he doesn't want to playing in the Olympics, simple as that.

It was his loss.

Hingis, Sampras, Mary Pierce and Nathalie Tauziat are all in the top 10 were missing in 2000 Olympics. Even McEnroe declined to coach for the US men team. Other top players like Cedric Pioline of France and Mariano Puerta of Argentina were also absent.

Mecir, Agassi, Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Haas, Federer, Nadal, Gonzalez, Djokovic, Blake, Murray, Del Potro, Nishikori, Graf, Sabatini, Capriati, Davenport, Sanchez Vicario, Novotna, Fernandez, the Williams Sisters, Henin, Dementieva, Seles, Mauresmo, Myskina, Sharapova, Azarenka, Kirilenko, Kerber, Kvitova, Keys amongst others all took part and far outnumber that small list of absentees you trotted out.

Tennis isn't that important in the Olympics.

The Olympics comprise many sports but, for most tennis players, winning an Olympic medal is a very big thing indeed (as the list of players I mentioned indicates).

 

[TMF]

It was his loss.

Whatever you say doesn't mean a darn thing. You don't speak for Pete. If it was a loss, he would have never skipped so many years to play in the Olympics. Same goes with so many high ranked players don't give a crap about the Olympics.

Mecir, Agassi, Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Haas, Federer, Nadal, Gonzalez, Djokovic, Blake, Murray, Del Potro, Nishikori, Graf, Sabatini, Capriati, Davenport, Sanchez Vicario, Novotna, Fernandez, the Williams Sisters, Henin, Dementieva, Seles, Mauresmo, Myskina, Sharapova, Azarenka, Kirilenko, Kerber, Kvitova, Keys amongst others all took part and far outnumber that small list of absentees you trotted out.

LOL... you listed the players from the 80s all the way up to the present time, while I only listed the players in 2000. Sneaky move.
I can do the same but there's no point since there's evidence that many top tier players have skipped the Olympics since the 80s.

The Olympics comprise many sports but, for most tennis players, winning an Olympic medal is a very big thing indeed (as the list of players I mentioned indicates).

No it's not unless if the sport is Track&Field or swimming(I believe @Chadwix has explained it to you in another thread).
Do you honestly think an Olympic Gold medalist Nadal, Federer and Murray are in the same class as Bolt or Phelp's Olympic Gold medalist? No way.

Tennis is at the lower end of the spectrum.

 

[Mainad]

Whatever you say doesn't mean a darn thing. You don't speak for Pete. If it was a loss, he would have never skipped so many years to play in the Olympics. Same goes with so many high ranked players don't give a crap about the Olympics.

As I have just pointed out many many more players gave a crap about the Olympics than those who didn't.

LOL... you listed the players from the 80s all the way up to the present time, while I only listed the players in 2000. Sneaky move.
I can do the same but there's no point since there's evidence that many top tier players have skipped the Olympics since the 80s.

And I have just shown you contra evidence that many more top tier players took part. Sorry you don't like it, but there it is.

No it's not unless if the sport is Track&Field or swimming(I believe @Chadwix has explained it to you in another thread).
Do you honestly think an Olympic Gold medalist Nadal, Federer and Murray are in the same class as Bolt or Phelp's Olympic Gold medalist? No way.

Tennis is at the lower end of the spectrum.

Why is winning a gold medal in one Olympic sport inferior to winning one in another? Answer: it isn't of course (only in your fantasy world).

As for Phelps and Bolt they are, of course, greater Olympians than Nadal and Murray simply because they won so many more gold medals, that's all. Federer isn't even in the conversation of course because his was only a double.

 

[TMF]

As I have just pointed out many many more players gave a crap about the Olympics than those who didn't.

Missing so many top tier players is a testament of tennis isn't that big of a game in the Olympics unless if it's track&field, swimming, gymnastics.....
Who cares if Laver, Borg or Sampras have done absolutely zilch in the Olympics. It has no effect in their legacy and their placement in ATG. And I'm speaking as a Federer(2 medals in the Olympics) fan here.

And I have just shown you contra evidence that many more top tier players took part. Sorry you don't like it, but there it is.

Read above.

Why is winning a gold medal in one Olympic sport inferior to winning one in another? Answer: it isn't of course (only in your fantasy world).

As for Phelps and Bolt they are, of course, greater Olympians than Nadal and Murray simply because they won so many more gold medals, that's all. Federer isn't even in the conversation of course because his was only a double.

I understand you feel this way because you're a Murray fan. Tennis is insignificant to other sports in the Olympics. There's no way you can convince the world that tennis is in the same level of important/value as track&field, swimming, gymnastics.....

It's not about Bolt/Phelps won more GM than Murray. In one-to-one comparison, Bolt(or Phelps) 1 gold medal is worth WAY more than one of Murray 1 GM.

Correct. Federer is behind Murray in the Olympics because he has 2 golds while Federer has 1 gold and 1 silver. At least you got this right.

 

[Red Rick]

Olympic Gold isn't exactly static in it's status. It's become quite big the last few cycles. And I'd wager with absolute layman they recognize the name better than 3 of the 4 Slams.

 

[Gazelle]

Olympic Gold isn't exactly static in it's status. It's become quite big the last few cycles. And I'd wager with absolute layman they recognize the name better than 3 of the 4 Slams.

Tennis is not a sport for the absolute layman. Nor should we let the absolute layman decide what is important in tennis.

 

[Mainad]

Missing so many top tier players is a testament of tennis isn't that big of a game in the Olympics unless if it's track&field, swimming, gymnastics.....
Who cares if Laver, Borg or Sampras have done absolutely zilch in the Olympics. It has no effect in their legacy and their placement in ATG. And I'm speaking as a Federer(2 medals in the Olympics) fan here.

That fact that so many more top players have played and even won it simply negates your point of view completely.

I understand you feel this way because you're a Murray fan. Tennis is insignificant to other sports in the Olympics. There's no way you can convince the world that tennis is in the same level of important/value as track&field, swimming, gymnastics....

I can see that attempting to dismiss the value of Olympic tennis is extremely important to you and that it upsets you that many more people think otherwise. This is probably because you are a Federer fan and less objective fans like yourself find it hard to ascribe worth to something their favourite player has not won and is unlikely ever to do so. Al the same it is an unrealistic viewpoint and an unworthy one for a true tennis fan. True tennis fans appreciate what other players have achieved and do not indulge in hurt feelings because their own has not done so by attempting to shift the blame onto the event itself. That is simply and squarely emotionally immature.

It's not about Bolt/Phelps won more GM than Murray. In one-to-one comparison, Bolt(or Phelps) 1 gold medal is worth WAY more than one of Murray 1 GM.

This is way your hypocrisy and double standards become so laughably apparent. On the one hand you keep insisting that Federer's doubles gold is fully the equal of Nadal's or Murray's singles gold because, in Olympics, all medals are equal. Then on the other hand you try to say that a single gold medal from Phelps or Bolt is worth way more then the gold medals won by tennis players. So what happened to all gold medals are equal all of a sudden? Either they are or they aren't and you can't keep trying to have your cake and eat it just to uphold the value of Federer's gold while laughably trying to dismiss the value of Nadal's or Murray's by trying to use silly arguments that Phelps or Bolt have to be better just because they haven't won their's in tennis.

Correct. Federer is behind Murray in the Olympics because he has 2 golds while Federer has 1 gold and 1 silver. At least you got this right.

Okay, so long as you admit that a tennis gold is fully the equal of any other kind of Olympic gold.

 

[Rebel-I.N.S]

But that's the usual reductionist case of cherry picking the only two things about Courier's career that can support the case.

Courier has 23 career titles to Murray's 46.
Courier has 5 Masters titles to Murray's 14.
Courier made 8 slam finals to Murray's 11.
Courier made a further 3 slam semi-finals to Murray's 10.
Courier has 0 WTF titles (2 finals though) to Murray's 1.
Courier has 0 Olympic golds to Murray's 2.
Courier won 5 titles in his most successful season. Murray won 6 in '09 and 9 in '16.
Courier's longest winning streak, in 1992, was 25 matches. Murray did 29 at the end of '16 going into '17.

And let's not forget Murray spent more weeks at #1 than Wilander and Becker.

All of Courier's notable achievements came in a three year period 91-93 when the only ATG around consistently somewhere close to their prime over that time was Edberg (Becker's 92/93 were clouded by his personal life, Agassi and Sampras weren't entirely there yet, Lendl's career was on the downturn due to his back, Connors and McEnroe were still around but largely also rans and Wilander had lost interest). Edberg was hardly a dominant player - never had a two slam season... only actually ever made two slam finals in a single season - and Courier was better than him on slow courts anyway.

The reality is that the players who're not the outstanding talent of their generation are not entirely in control of their achievements - as Federer's achievements at the FO amply demonstrate.

Courier is exactly the kind of player who proves the point about Murray (chief among others) being unfortunate to be competing with the three GOATs as Courier had a three season window of opportunity and he took it. Once that window closed he basically had a Ferrer-like career. Wawrinka's three slam titles provides the obvious counter argument but that's a different discussion.

Ultimately it's only on forums like this where people get into the "is he an ATG" debate and with 3 slam titles from 11 finals he's never going to satisfy some people. Whatever.

Good post, never looked at it this way.

 

[Red Rick]

Anybody that thinks Murray wins a load of slams in any other era (never mind 12) is just either dismissing his first 2 slam finals until Wimbledon 2012 or didn't see them. It was so clear that he had bad stage fright until he played well in a loss at Wimbledon 2012. Not only that, he would never win double digits in any other era because his second serve and FH were average at best. His FH (and mental) improvement under Lendl is the main reason Murray has the slams he does, and I'm very happy for him. I've always liked to see him succeed, but he was never winning double digit slams no matter when he played. That was obvious from the start to anyone who paid attention. He might've had a Becker/Edberg slam total, and that's being nice IMO.

Impossible to compare across eras, first of all, but there were many good/great players in the 80's-90's to stop Murray from winning slams. Starting with Sampras and prime Agassi in the 90's for two, lol. Also, no surface homogenization So I'll focus on 04-07.

Roddick beat him at Wimbledon in 2009 when he wasn't even in his prime, really. He just had one last great tournament and that was it. Not even mentioning guys like Hewitt, Ancic, Scud, Grosjean, Johansson and his compatriot Henman. So even without Fed (and also Nadal to be nice), it's far from a guarantee that Murray wins Wimbledon in his early years. He probably has to take a loss or two in a final to Hewitt and/or Roddick before he actually wins Wimbledon so it's not that much different from his true career trajectory.

His USO performances are up and down to say the least. He won in 2012 sure, but he has a lot of early losses for a player of his caliber as well. And even without Federer and Nadal he has to beat a very good, if old, Agassi, Hewitt (a former champion), Nalbandian, Davydenko, Roddick again, James Blake, who beat Nadal in 05. Even Ferrer who beat Nadal in 2007 was never an easy out for Murray. Remember, Murray has losses to Cilic, Wawrinka (in 2010 and 2013 so pre Stanimal, especially 2010) Anderson, and Nishikori on his record at the USO. Pretty good players sure, but not at all noticeably better than the aforementioned group, worse tbh.

He might win an AO, maybe 2 considering he was really good there, but even there he'd have to beat the same guys mentioned above that he would probably struggle with at the USO, and that too on Rebound Ace, not plexi. On plexi he'd probably beat those guys, but on Rebound Ace it's far from a guarantee. And I shouldn't forget Safin who was awesome at the AO, and guys like Baghdatis, Gonzalez and Tsonga who had the tournaments of their lives there. Lots of depth of competition in 04-07, just not top heavy like it's been post that time.

And re Murray and RG: Not even worth discussing.

Yeah there were 3 way better clay players in Murray's era.

Oh wait those 3 guys.

In my opinion it's way too easy to dismiss how a player mentally develops differently in a different era. You base it almost entirely on his first 2 Slam finals.

Meanwhile Safin is goat cause why again? Cause Federer tried to tweener on MP?

 

[Steve0904]

Yeah there were 3 way better clay players in Murray's era.

Oh wait those 3 guys.

In my opinion it's way too easy to dismiss how a player mentally develops differently in a different era. You base it almost entirely on his first 2 Slam finals.

Meanwhile Safin is goat cause why again? Cause Federer tried to tweener on MP?

So how many slams does Murray win in another era? Surely not 12. I hope we're not going that far. Murray's second serve and FH were too weak relative to many other greats anyway. You do realize it takes an exceptional player (without those 2 glaring weaknesses) to win double digits in slams right? Murray's a good/great player, but he was never exceptional.

Don't just give me a bunch of sarcastic one liners. Tell me why you disagree.

 

[Red Rick]

So how many slams does Murray win in another era? Surely not 12. I hope we're not going that far. Murray's second serve and FH were too weak relative to many other greats anyway. You do realize it takes an exceptional player (without those 2 glaring weaknesses) to win double digits in slams right? Murray's a good/great player, but he was never exceptional.

Don't just give me a bunch of sarcastic one liners. Tell me why you disagree.

I never said 12. But I will say Murray's stats are exceptional apart from the Slam count. There's a very big gap between 'He can't beat Safin' and 'He'll win 12 Slams'. Murray fits somewhere in there.

 

[Steve0904]

I never said 12. But I will say Murray's stats are exceptional apart from the Slam count. There's a very big gap between 'He can't beat Safin' and 'He'll win 12 Slams'. Murray fits somewhere in there.

Don't believe I said he "couldn't beat Safin". If you notice, I even said he'd "probably beat those guys" on plexi. I will say I'm not a fan of handing out slams like candy to players who didn't win them though. I can agree Murray may win 4 or even 5 slams in some other eras, but I don't like stretching it too far. Maybe my post tone sounds harsh on Murray, but it is my honest opinion.

And honestly, I've never been happier for a player that wasn't Federer that day that Murray won Wimbledon in 2013. That's the whole truth. But I still don't think he's some exceptional world beater in another era because the Big 3 exist in this one. There have been too many exceptional players, or players at a similar skill level to Murray in other eras (that are too often disrespected here tbh) for me to believe Murray wins that much more in another era.

 

[Steve0904]

And regarding Murray's chances on clay in another era, maybe he does win a RG (no more than one for the purposes of the argument), I don't know. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't just gift wrap him the trophy if he came up against JCF, or Moya, or Costa, or Coria, or Nalbandian etc.... There are lots of players more than capable of beating Murray on a good day at RG. I give Murray credit for sort out figuring out clay in his late 20's but all the same his first really good run there was 2015 when he was 28 and he played pretty good on it until his hip gave out, but he wasn't truly a contender for long enough for me to be comfortable just giving him a RG because Djokovic is tough competition.

FWIW I'm sure some of the players I listed could beat Djokovic on a good day at RG too. Many of them are around the same skill level as Thiem for instance.

 

[TMF]

That fact that so many more top players have played and even won it simply negates your point of view completely.

The fact that so many top players don't give a damn about tennis in the Olympics proof that it isn't that big.
If a sport event that's considered great significance in value, there shouldn't be so many top players decided to ditched it, simple as that.

I can see that attempting to dismiss the value of Olympic tennis is extremely important to you and that it upsets you that many more people think otherwise. This is probably because you are a Federer fan and less objective fans like yourself find it hard to ascribe worth to something their favourite player has not won and is unlikely ever to do so. Al the same it is an unrealistic viewpoint and an unworthy one for a true tennis fan. True tennis fans appreciate what other players have achieved and do not indulge in hurt feelings because their own has not done so by attempting to shift the blame onto the event itself. That is simply and squarely emotionally immature.

No I'm not. It's you who's been grossly exaggerating the value of the Olympics tennis simply because you're a Murray fan thus working hard to promote him worthy of being part of All-Time-Great club. I believe tennis in the Olympics has value, but unlike you, I don't hold this as the highest echelon in tennis in which one must win or else it's the biggest hole in his/her resume. LOL...you are not objective, otherwise you wouldn't undermine Federer for his Gold in the Olympics. You want me to appreciate Murray(which I do), but I want you to appreciate Federer too. Capiche ?

This is way your hypocrisy and double standards become so laughably apparent. On the one hand you keep insisting that Federer's doubles gold is fully the equal of Nadal's or Murray's singles gold because, in Olympics, all medals are equal. Then on the other hand you try to say that a single gold medal from Phelps or Bolt is worth way more then the gold medals won by tennis players. So what happened to all gold medals are equal all of a sudden? Either they are or they aren't and you can't keep trying to have your cake and eat it just to uphold the value of Federer's gold while laughably trying to dismiss the value of Nadal's or Murray's by trying to use silly arguments that Phelps or Bolt have to be better just because they haven't won their's in tennis.

Again, you either completely missed the point. Not sure if you're just trolling.

Federer/Nadal/Murray play the same sport, no? All tennis player's achievements are equally value in the Olympics. Yes, equally valued within the SAME sport!

Bolt and Phelps are from another sport, but track&field and swimming are much, much bigger than tennis in the Olympics. I can't believe you insist that tennis gold medal is their equal. You don't believe, then I dare you to create a thread and add a poll to it.

I'll say it again, Bolt(or Phelps) gold medal is more highly value than any gold medal in tennis.

Okay, so long as you admit that a tennis gold is fully the equal of any other kind of Olympic gold.

Read above.

 

[mike danny]

And regarding Murray's chances on clay in another era, maybe he does win a RG (no more than one for the purposes of the argument), I don't know. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't just gift wrap him the trophy if he came up against JCF, or Moya, or Costa, or Coria, or Nalbandian etc.... There are lots of players more than capable of beating Murray on a good day at RG. I give Murray credit for sort out figuring out clay in his late 20's but all the same his first really good run there was 2015 when he was 28 and he played pretty good on it until his hip gave out, but he wasn't truly a contender for long enough for me to be comfortable just giving him a RG because Djokovic is tough competition.

FWIW I'm sure some of the players I listed could beat Djokovic on a good day at RG too. Many of them are around the same skill level as Thiem for instance.

Murray's first good run at RG and on clay in general was in 2011.

That SF with Djokovic in Rome was one for the ages.

 

[Red Rick]

vs Costa or Gaudio honestly I blindly hand Clayray the trophy.

 

[Steve0904]

Murray's first good run at RG and on clay in general was in 2011.

That SF with Djokovic in Rome was one for the ages.

Well sure it was 2011, but I think my point stands. It wasn't until the 2015-2017 years that he had some consistency. Honestly, I just looked at his clay results again and I'm willing to extend that back to 2014 since he lost in the SFs at RG to Nadal and again at Rome. But I stand by my opinion. His clay results are pretty spotty in general (for a Big 4 player at least) to be handing out a hypothetical RG title in another era.

 

[Cashman]

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

To be fair they are pretty dumb criteria, given they include Kuerten, Becker and Wilander, but exclude Hewitt who spent more time at #1 than all three put together.

Given that they were implemented in 2018 it definitely feels like the definition was back-engineered to include Murray but exclude Wawrinka.

 

[Wurm]

Since I'm in WFH existential torpor and I have the internet I'm going to expand on this thought:

FWIW I think Murray "should" be on about 6 or 7 slams. I very much put him alongside Edberg and Becker when it comes to overall "greatness" since outside of slam final results his career matches up pretty closely to theirs and I don't see Becker winning Wimbledon in 93-2000 with Sampras around, for example, unless he was the eventual benefactor of the 96 QF surprise.

Direct comparisons over eras are never entirely accurate - the Masters now don't map exactly to the Grand Prix Super Series stuff of the late 70s-late 80s - and Becker and Edberg skipped a load of them (mostly on clay, mind), but here goes anyway:

Overall titles:
Becker 49 (lost 28 finals)
Murray 46 (lost 22 finals)
Edberg 41 (lost 36 finals)

Slams:
Edberg 6
Becker 6
Murray 3

Year end championships:
Becker 4
Edberg 1
Murray 1

Masters titles:
Murray 14
Becker 13
Edberg 8

Davis Cups:
Becker 2
Murray 1 (basically the Murray family, 1)
Edberg 0

Olympic Gold medals (singles):
Murray 2
Edberg 1 (unofficial in 1984)
Becker 0 (only played it once)

Weeks at world #1:
Edberg 72
Murray 41
Becker 12

Year end #1:
Edberg 2
Murray 1
Becker 0

Slam finals contested:
Edberg 11
Murray 11
Becker 10

Total slam semi-finals reached:
Murray 21
Edberg 19
Becker 18

Most titles in a single season:
Murray 9
Edberg 7
Becker 7

Most slams won in a single season:
Edberg 2
Becker 2
Murray 1

Most slam finals in a single season:
Murray 3
Edberg 2
Becker 2

Total number of slam titles won by players they lost slam finals to (career end/current):
Murray 37 (Fed/Djokovic)
Becker 21 (Edberg/Stich/Sampras).
Edberg 19 (Chang/Becker/Lendl/Courier)

Total number of slam titles won by players they beat in slam finals (career end/current):
Edberg 32 (Wilander/Cash/Becker/Courier/Sampras... caught Sampras just before he became the dominant player)
Murray 17 (Djokovic)
Becker 15 (Lendl/Edberg/Chang)

Longest winning streaks:
Murray 29 (28 if you don't count the Raonic W/O)
Becker 21 (I believe... bit of an eyebleed looking at tennisabstract to work this one out)
Edberg 21

Women knocked up in cupboards:
Becker 1
Murray 0
Edberg 0

Linesmen killed:
Edberg 1
Murray 0
Becker 0

Becker and Edberg both once faced a GOAT tier player, Sampras, in a slam final - towards the end of their careers - whereas Murray faced two of them 10 times, 7 times at slams where his opponent is/was at some point the record holder for titles won.

Although Edberg won the AO twice it was on grass both times during a time when it was the runt of the GS litter. Becker's best result at the FO was the SF (x3). Edberg made the FO final once, losing to Chang, but never otherwise made the SF. Both Edberg and Becker surrendered a slam title to a player who would never win another.

With Edberg and Becker their slam wins largely came in the pocket of time where there was only each other, Lendl and Wilander of the great players making slam finals - Wilander was essentially done after his epic 1988 and whilst the second half of Lendl's career was better when it came to slam finals (in part because the quality of opposition was worse) he would continue to be a mixed bag in those matches. Neither Lendl nor Wilander's best surface was grass and grass was Becker and Edberg's best surface. Wilander did have his 3 slam 1988 but between 1985 and his retirement in 1996 he won one other slam.

McEnroe was still around being a challenge but 1985 wasn't a great year for him relative to what had come before and that year's USO was the last slam final he'd ever contest (in singles). Having kids and taking 6 months out didn't help him but there was always a sense that as a new generation came through already adjusted to the new racquets he was left a little bit behind. Connors was past it. Borg was long since retired.

In individual sports, particularly an individual sport where match-ups are so critical, if a player isn't so great that their achievements are entirely under their own control (at least on a given surface) then what they do achieve is partly down to the good fortune of avoiding the players who are that great - even a player as exceptional as Federer was on clay has only one RG title, which he was lucky to sneak in, because he had to face Rafa there 5 times during Fed's peak clay phase (and once well after) and lost every time.

Murray matched up badly with Novak on slow surfaces, badly with Federer on quick surfaces, badly with Rafa most of the time (though there's that weird quirk that in finals Murray's 3-1 against Rafa, with two final set bagels!?)

Probably the best way to look at Murray's slam finals with a bit of sympathy is to compare him to Lendl - after 7 finals Lendl had one title and Murray had two.

Lendl lost to Borg, Connors (x2), Wilander (x2) and McEnroe. Murray lost to Federer (x3) and Djokovic (x2). Lendl was 25 year's old, Murray was 26 year's old.

After that Murray their slam careers start to diverge... Lendl's level of opposition drops off and he remains largely healthy until his back takes out his career in his early 30s. Murray has to have mid-career back surgery and by the time he's over that and back to being a threat at slams Novak's back to dominant form and up a notch from 2011 anyway, whilst Federer's reconfigured his game into something closer to Murray's worst match-up style (all court players mess with him the most). After Murray finally notches up a 3rd slam it's not long before his career suffers through health issues in 2017 before the hip entirely gives up.

I'm happy to agree to disagree with people who simply feel that with all other things being equal 6 vs 3 is just too big a gap as long as they acknowledge it's not a trivial call to make. That said, I'm not sure I think Becker/Edberg belong in the ATG category anyway. Not anymore. Fedalovic have taken the goalposts and not only moved them but added a padlocked door to them.

What I have little-to-no time for is the obvious "don't know **** about Murray's overall career and don't care to either", the trolls, and those with blatant anti-Murray bias.

 

[Red Rick]

Women knocked up in cupboards:
Becker 1
Murray 0
Edberg 0

Linesmen killed:
Edberg 1
Murray 0
Becker 0

Great, great post. This part got to me.

 

[buscemi]

Since I'm in WFH existential torpor and I have the internet I'm going to expand on this thought:

It's just really tough for me to see Murray winning 6-7 Majors if, say, his career timeline was the same as Edberg. In other words, Murray was in contention for Majors from 2008-2016, so let's say instead that he was in contention for Majors from 1985-1993 like Edberg:

Australian Open: Champions during this period: Edberg/not held/Edberg/Wilander/Lendl/Lendl/Becker/Courier/Courier​

French Open: Champions during this period: Wilander/Lendl/Lendl/Wilander/Chang/Gomez/Courier/Courier/Bruguera​

Wimbledon: Champions during this period: Becker/Becker/Cash/Edberg/Becker/Edberg/Stich/Agassi/Sampras​

U.S. Open: Champions during this period: Lendl/Lendl/Lendl/Wilander/Becker/Sampras/Edberg/Edberg/Sampras​

It's tough to see Murray being a favorite for (m)any of these Majors, and let's line up the Majors he won with his new timeline to get an indication of what he would have faced:

2012 U.S. Open/1989 U.S. Open: Murray probably has to beat Agassi, Lendl, and Becker.​

2013 Wimbledon/1990 Wimbledon: Murray probably has to beat Becker, Edberg, and Ivanišević or Lendl​

2016 Wimbledon/1993 Wimbledon: Murray probably has to beat Sampras, Courier, and Edberg or Stich AND Becker​

That's brutal. If Murray is in the Edberg timeline, I see him winning between 2-4 Majors, which would be a real achievement, but there's just no real argument he's in the Edberg/Becker tier.

 

[Wurm]

The entire basis of my argument is that outside of a poor slam conversion rate Murray's career stacks up well against Becker/Edberg's and that I reckon if Becker/Edberg had had to deal with the GOAT of their best surface/slam they might've ended their career with about half the slams they did.

How do Becker/Edberg do in the 10 slam finals Murray played against Federer/Djokovic? I don't see how they win more than the 2 slams Murray picked up.

QED.

 

[buscemi]

Your initial comment which you were expanding upon was: "FWIW I think Murray 'should' be on about 6 or 7 slams." That's what I was addressing with my hypothetical.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

Davis Cups:
Becker 2
Murray 1 (basically the Murray family, 1)
Edberg 0

not that stefan needs any davis cup to be way above the muzzette... but he still won it 4 times

 

[Lew II]

Win percentage against players ranked lower than them:

Murray 84.84
Wilander 81.83
Becker 80.87
Sampras 80.80
Edberg 79.87
Agassi 79.73

 

[Mainad]

To be fair they are pretty dumb criteria, given they include Kuerten, Becker and Wilander, but exclude Hewitt who spent more time at #1 than all three put together.

Given that they were implemented in 2018 it definitely feels like the definition was back-engineered to include Murray but exclude Wawrinka.

Well, if you think that the IHOF members are busy sitting around all day thinking of ways to amend their entry requirements so they can fit Murray in and exclude Wawrinka go ahead, be my guest, but I'm afraid that just says a lot more more about you and your odd hang ups about Murray than it does about the IHOF's entry policy.

Incidentally they quote 13 weeks at #1 as the minimum so how would that be tailored to fit Murray in when he already has 41?

 

[mike danny]

The entire basis of my argument is that outside of a poor slam conversion rate Murray's career stacks up well against Becker/Edberg's and that I reckon if Becker/Edberg had had to deal with the GOAT of their best surface/slam they might've ended their career with about half the slams they did.

How do Becker/Edberg do in the 10 slam finals Murray played against Federer/Djokovic? I don't see how they win more than the 2 slams Murray picked up.

QED.

Can you guarantee that Murray beats the ATG those guys did?

QED.

 

[Mainad]

Can you guarantee that Murray beats the ATG those guys did?

QED.

Given that Murray has proved he can beat ATGs can you guarantee that he wouldn't?

 

[The Guru]

To be fair they are pretty dumb criteria, given they include Kuerten, Becker and Wilander, but exclude Hewitt who spent more time at #1 than all three put together.

Given that they were implemented in 2018 it definitely feels like the definition was back-engineered to include Murray but exclude Wawrinka.

Wawrinka will make the hall and Hewitt will too. I'd be surprised if both aren't first ballet too. They're easily better than Goran and Kafelnikov (the last two inductees)

 

[Red Rick]

It's just really tough for me to see Murray winning 6-7 Majors if, say, his career timeline was the same as Edberg. In other words, Murray was in contention for Majors from 2008-2016, so let's say instead that he was in contention for Majors from 1985-1993 like Edberg:

Australian Open: Champions during this period: Edberg/not held/Edberg/Wilander/Lendl/Lendl/Becker/Courier/Courier​

French Open: Champions during this period: Wilander/Lendl/Lendl/Wilander/Chang/Gomez/Courier/Courier/Bruguera​

Wimbledon: Champions during this period: Becker/Becker/Cash/Edberg/Becker/Edberg/Stich/Agassi/Sampras​

U.S. Open: Champions during this period: Lendl/Lendl/Lendl/Wilander/Becker/Sampras/Edberg/Edberg/Sampras​

It's tough to see Murray being a favorite for (m)any of these Majors, and let's line up the Majors he won with his new timeline to get an indication of what he would have faced:

2012 U.S. Open/1989 U.S. Open: Murray probably has to beat Agassi, Lendl, and Becker.​

2013 Wimbledon/1990 Wimbledon: Murray probably has to beat Becker, Edberg, and Ivanišević or Lendl​

2016 Wimbledon/1993 Wimbledon: Murray probably has to beat Sampras, Courier, and Edberg or Stich AND Becker​

That's brutal. If Murray is in the Edberg timeline, I see him winning between 2-4 Majors, which would be a real achievement, but there's just no real argument he's in the Edberg/Becker tier.

Becker, Edberg, Ivanisevic and Lendl aren't better grass players than Murray lmao.

Sampras was, but Sampras was the best servebot in a time servebotting exclusively won Wimbly.