Curious case of Andy Murray

[Meles]

I don't think there is any way to construct a metric that "levels the playing field" or avoids the problem of different standards. The different eras are in a strong sense incommensurate.

True that Murray had to compete with Djokovic, but note that he has only beaten him in one of his four titles so far this year and Djokovic was exhausted in that one. At Wimbledon and the Olympics, Murray benefitted from someone else doing his dirty work. There's also a problem of comparability in considering the field: apart from the one other great player, I think the field was clearly stronger in 1994 than in 2016, but there's no doubt that, until the last few months of the year when Agassi went on a tear, there was no body around to provide such a challenge to Sampras as Djokovic does to Murray. As for Borg in 1979: McEnroe was only 20 but was not far from his best, while Connors was decent if not on particularly good form (he played much better in 1974, 1976-8, and 1982-3), and the overall field was pretty strong.

I think the Metric is count up the wins from May onwards and throw out Murray's Olympics if you want to bias it a bit against Murray. Olympics should be equivalent of Masters 1000 win. In TTW power play league its worth 1000 points and the equivalent in prediction league.

If we look @Djokovic2011 's metric of best season from May onwards, 1994 Sampras is probably already in Murray's rear view mirror. Murray would have to win US Open to have a shot of topping Borg in the same period in 2009. Might as well say that McEnroe 1984 is another great end of season; Murray has to win out probably to pass McEnroe's May to end of 1984.

 

[Mainad]

https://twitter.com/Neil_Harman57/status/767734917618888704
Neil Harman‏@Neil_Harman57
Hearing there may be a fascinating pre-tournament twist in the story of the men's singles at this year's US Open. I'm saying no more.

Typical of Harman to throw out this little tidbit and then refuse to elaborate. Getting a strong whiff of mierda de Toro!

 

[helterskelter]

I'd agree on the field strength you indicate except for US Open. Based on 1994 Quarterfinalists, US Open was weak. If Delpo makes QF or better at US Open I suspect 2016 US Open will rate a strong field. My rumor mill is flying for late entry for Federer on the basis of no facts except veteran journalist has said to expect unexpected twist for US Open singles:
https://twitter.com/Neil_Harman57/status/767734917618888704
Neil Harman‏@Neil_Harman57
Hearing there may be a fascinating pre-tournament twist in the story of the men's singles at this year's US Open. I'm saying no more.

Yeah, I saw that. As a Brit, I've known of Harman for a while. He's generally a decent journalist, but like most I think he can be a bit too keen on the shock factor.

The 1994 US Open field wouldn't affect Sampras, though, because he lost in round 4 against Jaime Yzaga, which is one reason why the quarter-final lineup was weak. Agassi played very well at the US Open 1994, even though he wasn't seeded.

(Incidentally, Sampras also lost his first US Open match against Yzaga in the first round in 1988. On that occasion, he was two sets up but faded. He had only just turned 17 a couple of weeks before. He did beat Yzaga in the third round in 1989 and in the second round in 1995, though).

 

[helterskelter]

I think the Metric is count up the wins from May onwards and throw out Murray's Olympics if you want to bias it a bit against Murray. Olympics should be equivalent of Masters 1000 win. In TTW power play league its worth 1000 points and the equivalent in prediction league.

If we look @Djokovic2011 's metric of best season from May onwards, 1994 Sampras is probably already in Murray's rear view mirror. Murray would have to win US Open to have a shot of topping Borg in the same period in 2009. Might as well say that McEnroe 1984 is another great end of season; Murray has to win out probably to pass McEnroe's May to end of 1984.

I'm not saying that you can't construct a metric. I'm saying that any metric will reflect particular perspectives and not be a universal metric. It will tell us as much about the person constructing it as about the players. The different eras valued different events. We can't simply make such different valuations comparable on a value-free metric.

Also, in this case, 1994 was by no means the best year Sampras had if we count only from May onwards. One reason it was such a good year for him is that he started it so well, winning Sydney, the Australian Open, Indian Wells, Miami, Osaka, and Tokyo before the end of April! He then won Rome in early May, too. After Wimbledon, he only won two further titles. Sampras's second-best year overall, in my view, was 1997, but his best year from the start of May onwards was probably 1993. In 1997, from the start of May on, he won Wimbledon, Cincinnati, the Grand Slam Cup, Paris Bercy, and the World Championships. In 1993, from the start of May on, he won Wimbledon, the US Open, Lyon, and Antwerp.

 

[macattack]

Kyrgios(future n1 and Wimb champion)

HAHAHAHA. Not with his attitude. Talent is there, but if he doesn't stop blaming other people and pissing and moaning all over the court I don't see him doing much other than flaming out. I do hope he proves me wrong and turns his head around. His talent is undeniable.

I find your comment biased.

What's the problem with this? We're expressing opinions on an internet message board. Of course we're biased. That's the nature of an opinion. You're talking about something from a point of view. If it were unbiased we'd just be stating statistics with little to no context.