Desmond Kane "Andy Murray is among the five greatest tennis players of all time"

  • Thread starter Thread starter JRAJ1988
  • Start date Start date
What a ridiculous argument he puts forth. Dismisses the old game because it's not the same as the new game so concludes that the old player can be dismissed as well.

"...Ivan Lendl look like they are playing a different sport decades ago. Because they are." And? Lendl may have been playing a different game but it was the top of the game.

He's arguing the history of sports can be dismissed because they're not today's sports. He would have us believe that because the athletes of old were smaller and slower we can now elevate today's athletes above them because they didn't play today's game. Laver, Lendl, Agassi, Emerson, Borg, Connors... none played today's game so they can be removed from discussion. If Murray gets to no. 1 then the greatest list must be reevaluated.

Odd that he allows Sampras a place in his 5 greatest. That kind of defeats his entire argument.
 
giphy.gif
 
Arguing against what this author is saying, is basically nullifying any talk of a GOAT. Just letting some fanboys know this.

In plain English, there is no GOAT. There are great players from each eras.
 
NatF said:
In absolute terms a guy like Goffin would destroy Borg? But is Goffin greater? Nope.
Click to expand...

That is true. That is also the reason why someone who has to play against many Goffins to get his titles deserve a lot of respect. How difficult is to win a tournament today. Players from 30 years ago are like amateurs when compared to modern players.
 
So much idiocy. Nadal is Top 5, though some could debate it, as you have Federer, Laver, Borg, Gonzalez, Sampras. Djokovic is not even there. But Murray is?

LMFAO
 
Tennis_Hands said:
I keep asking that about Nadal, but no sufficient answer so far.

:cool:
Click to expand...
Nadal was the man who literally changed the game, imho. People had to change in order to beat him. Federer especially, even though who wasn't successful at it. Djokovic and Murray followed a couple of years later. But make no mistake, Djokovic had to figure out Nadal, in order to be number one.
 
joekapa said:
Nadal was the man who literally changed the game, imho. People had to change in order to beat him. Federer especially, even though who wasn't successful at it. Djokovic and Murray followed a couple of years later. But make no mistake, Djokovic had to figure out Nadal, in order to be number one.
Click to expand...

That is not the asnwer to the question I asked.

:cool:
 
A slam win is a slam win no matter how you look at it. Yes some are more impressive than others, but you can't say that Wawrinka has like 5 slams and Murray 1 or 2 because of the competition and level they showed within those runs. 3=3 and Murray is better in every other department.
 
Mainad said:
Actually, he has been top 5 for most of the last 15 years. Poor trolling attempt this time.
Click to expand...

Federer
Nadal
Djokovic
Agassi
Safin
Wawrinka




All have more impressive slam wins than Murray. All play tennis at a higher level than Murray. All are more entertaining to watch than Murray. Faced tougher opposition than Murray.
 
****igrade said:
Federer
Nadal
Djokovic
Agassi
Safin
Wawrinka




All have more impressive slam wins than Murray. All play tennis at a higher level than Murray. All are more entertaining to watch than Murray. Faced tougher opposition than Murray.
Click to expand...

What? No Delpo? ;) But it's just your subjective opinion mate. Murray has won many more titles, including big ones, than either Safin or Wawrinka ever did or ever will. No objective poster could ever exclude him in favour of those 2. You need to rein in your scorn for players you don't happen to like because it affects your judgement and just makes you look silly. But I'm sure that, deep down, you actually understand this.
 
Mainad said:
What? No Delpo? ;) But it's just your subjective opinion mate. Murray has won many more titles, including big ones, than either Safin or Wawrinka ever did or ever will. No objective poster could ever exclude him in favour of those 2. You need to rein in your scorn for players you don't happen to like because it affects your judgement and just makes you look silly. But I'm sure that, deep down, you actually understand this.
Click to expand...

The only really big tournament Murray has that Safin doesn't have is Wimbledon.



Safin was simply a better player than Murray.
 
Mainad said:
Lol....ONLY??? :D




Whether or not you think he was, he still didn't achieve half as much.
Click to expand...

2 Davis cups
2 slams
#1 ranking at twenty years
Wins over Sampras, Agassi, Kuerten, Djokovic and Federer in slams (+ others)





yeah cuz Murray has done 2x what Safin did.
 
Nonstandard definition of greatness, but I guess if the question is 'would Murray beat great player x' then I could see him as a top 5 guy.
 
JRAJ1988 said:
https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/es...mong-five-greatest-tennis-183506268--ten.html
From nearly man to the man, Andy Murray is close to scaling the summit of his sport, an achievement as special as becoming the first British man to win Wimbledon since 1936, writes Desmond Kane. Why do people who make out they're "educated" in the realms of sports make the most ignorant statements? Murray isn't even in the top ten of "all time", just nonsense. If Federer, Sampras and Nadal where sitting on thrones Murray would be the one who serves them drinks.



Andy Murray is on the verge of being Britain's first world number one.

Winning does not naturally breed popularity.

Yet sport's greatest winners have never been overly fascinated by public opinion. Not when universal approval comes from within.

It would hardly be fraternising with hyperbole to suggest Andy Murray is not the most popular tennis player in Paris this week.

That much was true during his run to the French Open final in June. That much is true during his return to the French capital for this week’s Paris Masters.

Perhaps as great if not greater than becoming the first British man since Fred Perry in 1936 to win Wimbledon three years ago. Unlike carting off a Grand Slam, attaining the world number spot rewards a consistency of performance over an extended period of time rather than just a fortnight.

No longer could the critics hit you with the line: “How can Britain’s greatest sportsman never have been number one in his sport?”

Murray has won seven titles this year, including a second Wimbledon, played in the Davis Cup semi-finals and won 53 out of his past 57 matches. It is astonishing return from the nearly man, who is about to become the man.

.
1946435-40924194-640-360.jpg



Murray’s three Grand Slams between 2013-2016 are worth more than many men who carried off several more Grand Slams decades ago.

Due to sports science and the progression of athleticism in sport, it is no longer merely acceptable to be good at tennis. These days you must discover a fitness level greater than Iron Man tri-athletes taking on Kailua-Kona in Hawaii, and a mental staying power worthy of Garry Kasparov.

Replays of Rod Laver, Ken Roswall or even Murray's coach Ivan Lendl look like they are playing a different sport decades ago. Because they are.

When you analyse where you would place Murray in the list of the sport’s all-time greats, it is difficult to escape from the conclusion that he is already inside the top five of all time.

Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal, Pete Sampras and Murray would be a top five that would prompt debate, but an entirely reasonable proposition.

It is a belief that would only be strengthened if Murray uproots 12-time Grand Slam winner Djokvoic, who many already view as the greatest, at the summit of tennis.

Murray might never win a popularity contest. There is no trophy for that. Neither is there a trophy for becoming his game's number one.

Yet for Murray the significance of such a moment should not be undersold.

Desmond Kane
Click to expand...
I'm flummoxed.... I had to check the date.... Nope, not April the First....
 
Federer
Djokovic
Nadal
Agassi
Sampras
Lendl
Becker
Edberg
Borg
Connors
McEnroe
Laver

And that's just the open era lol.













Murray
 
Top 5, maybe not, but the article does have a point. It was a different game back then. Laver could not compete with today's players, too small and weak. And who knows what Murray is capable of still. It he ends up with 10 slams (big IF of course), he could very well be top 5.
 
metsman said:
lol no...tons of players have been better than 2013 Wimbledon final Djokovic.
Click to expand...

from 2001 onwards :

goran - yes
rafter - yes

hewitt - yes
nalby - no

federer - yes
scud - yes

federer - yes
roddick - yes

federer - yes
roddick - similar level

federer - yes
nadal - yes

federer - yes
nadal - yes

federer - yes
nadal - yes

federer - yes
roddick - yes

nadal - yes
berdych - similar level

djokovic - yes
nadal - yes

federer - yes
murray - yes

federer - yes
djokovic - yes

federer - yes
djokovic - yes

murray - yes
raonic - similar level

that's about 26/30 finalists better (excl 2013 wimby finalists ) than djokovic of wim 2013 final ... 3 more are on similar level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dapchai
Yet another reason why Andy Murray is the Greatest of All Time
Replies
15
Views
1K
dapchai
dapchai
Better_Call_Raul
Sir Andy Murray. The Undisputed Greatest Tennis Olympian.
Replies
6
Views
471
GloW
GloW
H
Andy Murray
Replies
46
Views
3K
tennis_pro
tennis_pro
OTMPut
Andy Murray is considering John McEnroe as his next coach
Replies
6
Views
932
adil1972
A
T
Leon Smith: Murray is the greatest grass court player in the world
Replies
47
Views
4K
D.Nalby12
D
Back
Top