Consistency is not enough to be an ATG

[NatF]

Of course you took that seriously. ROFLMAO.

I both simultaneously knew it was obvious that I was trolling/baiting and knew that certain posters would get their knickers in a twist.

No that was indeed a fact. You know why? Because you left a trail of butthurt posts that can prove it.

If anyone sounds butthurt in this thread it's you.

 

[NoleFam]

Of course you took that seriously. ROFLMAO.

Spoiler

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Spoiler

I know that's you, but what am I?

 

[Neptune]

Do some delusional Fed fans find solace in Fed trailing behind Rafa, yet still argue that Federer has a case for the GOAT?

 

[NoleFam]

I both simultaneously knew it was obvious that I was trolling/baiting and knew that certain posters would get their knickers in a twist.

If anyone sounds butthurt in this thread it's you.

You are indeed butthurt though. You spend a lot of your time crapping all over Djokovic's achievements. Hide behind "trolling/baiting" though.

 

[mike danny]

The moment @NatF started underlining certain words, I knew what was going on

 

[NatF]

You are indeed butthurt though. You spend a lot of your time crapping all over Djokovic's achievements. Hide behind "trolling/baiting" though.

Would say some of my time, not all of it. If you rise to the bait everytime, maybe you're a little butthurt too? Food for thought my guy.

 

[NatF]

The moment @NatF started underlining certain words, I knew what was going on

The first post was so obviously tongue in cheek as well lol.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Murray is really a strange case. Yes he is not even third best of his era. But his base numbers do hold up.

I am taking years with HLD + BRK % above 115 as legit slam contenders.

For all the ATGs and Murray , its like this.

Players	Years above 115	Highest
Sampras	2	117.3
Agassi	9	122.2
Courier	3	115.8
Federer	16	121.8
Nadal	18	125.6
Djokovic	17	125.2
Murray	5	118.6

From these numbers themselves its not clear that Murray is better or worse than Courier but we can see a HUGE difference.

Murray was playing vs 3 gods. They played at superb level that Murray barely ever got.

Murray was stopped by big players time and time again. Even if he beat 1 of the big 3 he was stopped by other. So let me check the count.
2008 USOpen - Beats Nadal - thrashed by Federer
2010 AO - Beats Nadal defending champ - thrashed by Federer
2013 AO - Beats Federer - beaten by Djokovic

Apart from these I don't see him beating someone earlier and then losing to some big name. So Murray's problem was he could not beat the big 3 and when he did early on, he could not beat 2 in a row. He is rightfully not an ATG but if there was only 1 ATG to beat, Murray possibly could have done so.

In contrast in 2015 Stan beat Federer and Djokovic in RG. Federer was playing very good and held huge edge over Wawrinka but Stan thrashed him. And then he also beat Djokovic.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

The first post was so obviously tongue in cheek as well lol.

Your thinking emoji was not enough. Next time, please consider adding /s, multiple winking smileys and a video confession.

 

[NatF]

Your thinking emoji was not enough. Next time, please consider adding /s, multiple winking smileys and a video confession.

I considered the wink but then the trolling would have been too obvious and it wouldn't have served as good bait.

 

[nolefam_2024]

As the OP stated, consistency is not enough.

Andy had mildly high peak. But there were at least 2 players ahead of him most of the times.

 

[NoleFam]

Would say some of my time, not all of it. If you rise to the bait everytime, maybe you're a little butthurt too? Food for thought my guy.

No it's a lot of your time. Accept it. You're butthurt. It's ok though; you're not alone. lol.

 

[NatF]

No it's a lot of your time. Accept it. You're butthurt. It's ok though; you're not alone. lol.

Is that a fact or opinion though? Hint this is actually a situation where maths and numbers would be an objective authority on the matter, unlike with sporting greatness just FYI.

 

[NoleFam]

Is that a fact or opinion though? Hint this is actually a situation where maths and numbers would be an objective authority on the matter, unlike with sporting greatness just FYI.

Lol. The 5555 reference is played out at this point. Count your posts on this matter and then answer that. Math and numbers in reference to greatness matter to sports champions but maybe not worshippers on the internet.

 

[NatF]

Lol. The 5555 reference is played out at this point. Count your posts on this matter and then answer that. Math and numbers in reference to greatness matter to sports champions but maybe not worshippers on the internet.

Sorry I have no time to count my posts, too busy crapping on Djokovic.

 

[NoleFam]

Sorry I have no time to count my posts, too busy crapping on Djokovic.

Or maybe because you don't like math...lol

 

[Razer]

On the court Djokovic is Greater than Federer.

Off the court Federer is greater.

As far as Murray goes, his peak level was below Safin, Del Potro, Soderling etc etc .... so his consistency (at being above average) is useless.

 

[NatF]

Or maybe because you don't like math...lol

I don't, you've got to the root of it now. My problem isn't Djokovic at all, I'm just bitter over failing maths at A level.

 

[NoleFam]

I don't, you've got to the root of it now. My problem isn't Djokovic at all, I'm just bitter over failing maths at A level.

Now we've gotten somewhere.

 

[GabeT]

if Murray was born 7-8 years later, it can be argued he may be a double digit major winner and Djokovic less than 15 majors.

If everybody better than me was injured I could be a Wimbledon champion

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

uhm, his forehand?

Ouch.

 

[Mainad]

@Mainad why?

Why what? He is as far as I'm concerned.

 

[GabeT]

This quickly turned into Djokovic vs Federer. Got to be a record for how quick.

Insecure Fed fans felt the need, yet again, to attack Novak in a completely unrelated thread. That’s like 90% of threads here lately

PTSD

 

[Poisoned Slice]

 

[Daniel Andrade]

He didn't peak in 2017-2024.

Nor 2003 to 2006

 

[Daniel Andrade]

You think 'is' and 'could be' are semantically equal here? The bottom line is, the notion that someone winning a greater numerical number of titles directly translates to them being a greater sporting entity unto themselves is not hard-defined. Literarily speaking, someone or something can be of greater significance, value, virtue, importance and all manner of nebulous, qualitative things; the word is not hardwired to only point to statistical matters that may abound. For me, if greatness really were just 'tally the ****ing numbers', then it's a pretty vapid exercise, and I'd then have to knob-arse around advocating for a different label altogether, like 'aggregate best' or ' most exceptional performer.'

You are always funny, but not in the way you think.

 

[NatF]

Nor 2003 to 2006

He probably goes slamless in that era competing with Fed but sure lol.

 

[Mainad]

Forget Djokovic and Federer. Let's discuss why Murray failed to become an ATG.

But did he?

The Slam count isn't everything IMO. Murray won titles all across the board (Slams, WTF, Olympics, Masters 1000, ATP500s, ATP250s) and was ranked world #1. He remains the only active player to accomplish all that. For me, whole career achievements are just as important in this type of consideration.

 

[Daniel Andrade]

He probably goes slamless in that era competing with Fed but sure lol.

I think he would've snatched one or two.

 

[NatF]

I think he would've snatched one or two.

I doubt it but even so that's less than what he actually won, doesn't that contradict your point a little?

 

[Daniel Andrade]

I doubt it but even so that's less than what he actually won, doesn't that contradict your point a little?

I simply disagree with your take. Murray was one of the only ones who beat Federer in 2006, the year Federer peaked when Murray was a young lad.
I meant he would have snatched one or two from Federer, not that that was going to be his total slam count.

 

[Razer]

I simply disagree with your take. Murray was one of the only ones who beat Federer in 2006, the year Federer peaked when Murray was a young lad.
I meant he would have snatched one or two from Federer, not that that was going to be his total slam count.

Ohh yeah, the loser who never beat Federer in slams except in that disasterous 2013 year was gonna snatch 1 or 2 from Federer ?

hahahaha .... man....what a bad take...

Guys like Murray are punching bags for Federer, he literally feasts on such borebots.... if Murray was born 6 years earlier then he would be flat out slamless and retire ...

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Novak Djokovic will be giving a speech on the opening night of Andy Murray's commune. I think this sort of thing really shows us where Andy stands in the game. ATG status achieved over a decade ago.

 

[dapchai]

Why what? He is as far as I'm concerned.

Why do people here not acknowledge his ATG status?

 

[Daniel Andrade]

Ohh yeah, the loser who never beat Federer in slams except in that disasterous 2013 year was gonna snatch 1 or 2 from Federer ?

hahahaha .... man....what a bad take...

Guys like Murray are punching bags for Federer, he literally feasts on such borebots.... if Murray was born 6 years earlier then he would be flat out slamless and retire ...

So if he peaks around that time, he isn't going to beat him? Never? Olympic games in Bo5 do not count? Come on, I maintain my take.

 

[StefanV]

24 Slams, 420+ weeks at #1 and 8 YE #1 >>> 20 Slams, 310 weeks at #1 and 5 YE #1

Those are the three most important metrics in tennis. Djokovic is ahead of Federer. It is what it is.

 

[RS]

Insecure Fed fans felt the need, yet again, to attack Novak in a completely unrelated thread. That’s like 90% of threads here lately

PTSD

Murray thrown under the bus.

 

[StefanV]

But did he?

The Slam count isn't everything IMO. Murray won titles all across the board (Slams, WTF, Olympics, Masters 1000, ATP500s, ATP250s) and was ranked world #1. He remains the only active player to accomplish all that. For me, whole career achievements are just as important in this type of consideration.

I don't want to be like that Nole Slam poster. That guy was annoying when it came to Murray, but 3 Slams just isn't enough. Especially when his rivals all ended up with 20+ Slams.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

So if he peaks around that time, he isn't going to beat him? Never? Olympic games in Bo5 do not count? Come on, I maintain my take.

Peak vs peak Murray will next to never beat Fed at a slam. Olympic Games Bo5 was not peak and not even prime Fed. Such bad performance would never happened to him in 2004-2009.

 

[NatF]

I simply disagree with your take. Murray was one of the only ones who beat Federer in 2006, the year Federer peaked when Murray was a young lad.
I meant he would have snatched one or two from Federer, not that that was going to be his total slam count.

I don't think a win over a tired Fed means too much when it took until 2013 and Federer was well into his 30's for Murray to eek out a slam win but fair enough.

 

[NoleFam]

If, if, if Murray won just 3 more matches in his career, he would be a bonfide ATG. Any 3 of the 11 he lost in Slam finals would do it. He has everything else.

 

[Daniel Andrade]

Peak vs peak Murray will next to never beat Fed at a slam. Olympic Games Bo5 was not peak and not even prime Fed. Such bad performance would never happened to him in 2004-2009.

Even though I agree. Fed peaked in 2006. He doesn't beat Fed in 2003 ? Nor 2004? I see it happening. Less than the opposite, but I do see it.

 

[Razer]

So if he peaks around that time, he isn't going to beat him? Never? Olympic games in Bo5 do not count? Come on, I maintain my take.

Yeh he will never beat him in Bo5 even once. It is a very bad take to think that Murray is capable of beating peak Federer when old Federer used to beat him in Slams every single time.

It also very naive and uninformed to even mention Murray beating Fed in 2006 when everyone knows Federer tanked cinci 06 match due to fatigue in back to back tournaments before it as he did not want to ruin his US Open.

Your opinion is 100% wrong, Murray doesn't stand a chance vs peak Federer. It is like Green Lantern vs Superman....if you are telling me that Green Lantern can beat Superman at his peak then you are being delusional.

 

[Mainad]

I don't want to be like that Nole Slam poster. That guy was annoying when it came to Murray, but 3 Slams just isn't enough. Especially when his rivals all ended up with 20+ Slams.

Come on, what player in history has ended up with 20+ Slams other than the Big 3? Acknowledged ATPs like Edberg and Becker only won roughly about a quarter of these totals and yet are considered ATGs like them. Murray's Slam count is far closer to their's than their's are even to Sampras!

 

[Mainad]

Why do people here not acknowledge his ATG status?

Some of us are wedded to the 6 Slams or you're out rule. They don't think out of the box enough IMO.

 

[jackson vile]

In your opinion.

You’re the one giving an opinion, while he’s stating factual data because 24>20

It’s simple math

 

[Daniel Andrade]

Yeh he will never beat him in Bo5 even once. It is a very bad take to think that Murray is capable of beating peak Federer when old Federer used to beat him in Slams every single time.

It also very naive and uninformed to even mention Murray beating Fed in 2006 when everyone knows Federer tanked cinci 06 match due to fatigue in back to back tournaments before it as he did not want to ruin his US Open.

Your opinion is 100% wrong, Murray doesn't stand a chance vs peak Federer. It is like Green Lantern vs Superman....if you are telling me that Green Lantern can beat Superman at his peak then you are being delusional.

nope.

 

[Daniel Andrade]

It also very naive and uninformed to even mention Murray beating Fed in 2006 when everyone knows Federer tanked cinci 06 match due to fatigue in back to back tournaments before it as he did not want to ruin his US Open.

Surely he called you himself to tell you.

 

[Razer]

Surely he called you himself to tell you.

People who watched Federer in 2003-09 know that, rest of them don't know.

Rest of them think that a useless weaponless ball basher like Murray can win vs peak Fed....lol...you must be one of those kids who have not watched tennis before 2010, because otherwise nobody ever would put their life in Murray's hands to win even once vs Peak Federer...it would be a fkin bloodbath....Federer would just bully him like he did to Hewitt...