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

[Deanjam]

Yes, I have. If only we'd imported him instead of Alex Bogdanovic!

To be fair, Alex does hold a Wimbledon record.

Losing in the first round eight years in a row. (All wild cards)

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Any top 10 player today, would be at least top 3 in another era. Man, even Federer's prime years (the game played back then), is nothing compared to the game being played today. Look at Fed matches in 2004-2007 and the difference is evident. Post 2010 it has been a different game. Even Federer admitted this in an interview, where he said how surprised he was that younger players (referring to Nadal, Djoko, Murray etc) had trainers, dieticians, psychologists etc, and how much the game had evolved, since his prime years.

Murray's place in the history of the game is cemented in my opinion. He is the greatest number 2 ever. If the Murray we see today had been around in the 80's, even 90's, he would have 10 G.S to his name EASILY.

We can play the game the other way around. If Rosewall was born in 1981 and had learned to play like Federer and under the same conditions as Federer, he'd have 17 Slams easily. If we give current players the special power of going back in time and beating other players with their technology, we should also give players of the past the special power to go forward in time and beat the current players by training as much as they do, eating as healthy as they do, and using the same technology they use. Otherwise we're assuming current players' favouritism as an a priori.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Nonsense.

Mury GOAT.

 

[timnz]

"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."

This line alone will probably end Desmond Kane's career haha

The tone of the article suggests that Murray is a 13-time Slam winner!

(And this thread is just asking to be punished by the Murray haters)

You wonder if the author ever heard of Lendl, Borg, Agassi, Becker, Edberg, McEnroe etc

 

[TheMusicLover]

You wonder if the author ever heard of Lendl, Borg, Agassi, Becker, Edberg, McEnroe etc

That fellow started watching tennis in 2007, I fear.

 

[timnz]

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.

David ferrer has been in the top 5 a fair bit and he is about the same size as laver - and laver had a truck load more skill than him. No, the thing that might thwart laver in this era is how slow the courts have gotten.

 

[vanioMan]

Sysyphus approves this statement.

 

[the green god]

Clickbait. Move along, nothing to see here.

 

[Sysyphus]

LMFAO, look at all the wool pants defenders! Henry VIII goat, amirite? No, it's merely a different sport, no longer a garden party pastime where you take a nip of Pimm's on changeovers while playing 16-man-draw tournaments filled with your inbred cousins, neighbors and local drunkards. Just like the fastest olympic sprinters of today are already done with their victory interview in the same amount of time their prehistoric colleagues would use to finish a 100m.

mury goat, thenk u

 

[heninfan99]

 

[joekapa]

We can play the game the other way around. If Rosewall was born in 1981 and had learned to play like Federer and under the same conditions as Federer, he'd have 17 Slams easily. If we give current players the special power of going back in time and beating other players with their technology, we should also give players of the past the special power to go forward in time and beat the current players by training as much as they do, eating as healthy as they do, and using the same technology they use. Otherwise we're assuming current players' favouritism as an a priori.

This is true. That is why this argument is futile. This is why the GOAT debate is futile. Different eras different conditions, different nature of the beast.

People talk about Laver's CYGS, but forget to mention that the AO meant almost NOTHING to most pros back then and hardly any players actually made a trip down under to play it. It only really became a proper slam once the new stadium was built.

There is no GOAT. There are greats of their gen, but no real GOAT.

 

[TheMaestro1990]

You wonder if the author ever heard of Lendl, Borg, Agassi, Becker, Edberg, McEnroe etc

Probably he hasn't. He's on the same mental level as nadalfan2013.

 

[toby55555]

Greatest British player in the Open era, maybe top 20 world.

 

[FutureIsNow]

It's uk.sports.yahoo and written by a British journalist. You're acting like this is the first article with extreme media bias we've seen, especially from the notoriously deluded British press?

 

[FutureIsNow]

Andy is a highly functioning mediocre talent, if that makes sense.

Pretty much the opposite of a Kyrgios or Wawrinka.

And nowhere near the league's of prime Rafa,Fed,Djok,Samp,McE,Borg etc, accounting for differences in era + racket tech + nutrition. Plus all those guys have an excitement factor and Andy just makes you want to tkae a nap.

 

[The Green Mile]

This is what happens when a player is close or becomes #1 in the world. The hype is real. It's an extremely biased view anyway.

 

[Tennisanity]

David ferrer has been in the top 5 a fair bit and he is about the same size as laver - and laver had a truck load more skill than him. No, the thing that might thwart laver in this era is how slow the courts have gotten.

Yeah I agree, I think Laver would be the David Ferrer of today. That truckload of skills would be useless against the speed of the game today.

 

[mightyrick]

That sports writer must be going for purely clickbait. I cannot believe he is being remotely genuine.

No mention of Laver?

Given the number of matches that Laver played and the number and type of tournaments he won, one could argue that Rod Laver's 1969 season BY ITSELF is better than Andy Murray's entire career-to-date.

 

[JRAJ1988]

Even Murray would laugh at this article hence why I posted it....the fact many members of this site could write better articles says something.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

The injury excuse.

I never saw that coming.

Yeah, whereas you have the age excuse, the matchup excuse, and the twins excuse. Well done.

 

[Limpinhitter]

The game has evolved. Any of the above players would struggle against Murray today. Have you ever watched a tennis match pre 2000 ?

What an ironic question. I ask the same question (to myself), about those who don't appreciate how great the greats of the past were.

 

[TheFifthSet]

We can play the game the other way around. If Rosewall was born in 1981 and had learned to play like Federer and under the same conditions as Federer, he'd have 17 Slams easily. If we give current players the special power of going back in time and beating other players with their technology, we should also give players of the past the special power to go forward in time and beat the current players by training as much as they do, eating as healthy as they do, and using the same technology they use. Otherwise we're assuming current players' favouritism as an a priori.

Boomskies. Great post.

 

[BGod]

Career-wise, probably Top 20.

Talent-wise? Not even Top 50.

 

[nowhereman]

Desmond Kane must be a TTW poster. He could be lurking on this very thread right now!

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Not that it matters, but Desmond Kane is an anagram for naked demons.

 

[Incognito]

Imagine Djokovic being British...

I did! Ewwwwww

 

[Incognito]

Djokovic basically didn't even play the W13 final.

Did djokovic have sore throat?

5 sets played on grass vs Murray. Number of sets won by djokovic? 0

 

[Mainad]

Career-wise, probably Top 20.

Talent-wise? Not even Top 50.

Yeah, because it's so easy to succeed in tennis without having any talent, isn't it???

Mother of all face-palms!!!

 

[Tardigrade]

Did djokovic have sore throat?

5 sets played on grass vs Murray. Number of sets won by djokovic? 0

Murray's strongest surface is grass. Djokovic's weakest surface is grass.

 

[MLRoy]

"Desmond Kane" is either Judy, Kim or Andy Murray's pseudonym. Hey, if they don't write it, who will?

 

[hobl4]

Guys you don't understand. Modern media is all about the clicks. The more controversial a piece like this is the more traffic the site gets. It's simple really. I remember that one article from the end of last year that claimed Djokovic was already the greatest of all time lol. I wouldn't be surprised if it was written by the same guy as this article.

 

[MatsPhilander]

The guy is a great player & is incredibly unlucky to have come up against 3 of the best ever in semis & finals for all of his career. But 3 slams makes him a top 5 of all-time? Fact is that the last couple of years both Fed & Nadal have been shadows of what they were but he has been unable to capitalise, if he was a top 5 of all-time he would have found ways not to lose so many finals & semis to Joker, or at least run him closer in them.

 

[Tardigrade]

Thoroughly enjoyable to watch. Truly the most entertaining player to watch. Unreal.

 

[SpinToWin]

LOL no. Seriously no.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Yeah, whereas you have the age excuse, the matchup excuse, and the twins excuse. Well done.

You mean the age excuse that the ************* uses all the time to prove why Nadal was never good enough to reach or beat Federer in his peak inthe Majors on HC or grass?

As for the other two, I can't understand why are they called excuses, but I can understand why the ************* cannot use them as such for Nadal.

 

[Rafa the King]

Stay in school kids. Or you'll end up saying stupid **** like this.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

You mean the age excuse that the ************* uses all the time to prove why Nadal was never good enough to reach or beat Federer in his peak inthe Majors on HC or grass?

As for the other two, I can't understand why are they called excuses, but I can understand why the ************* cannot use them as such for Nadal.

Yes, if somebody beats you up constantly you can claim "matchup" and it's not an excuse. It's an explanation.

As for your former claim, it is wrong. Nadal beat prime Federer in Wimbledon 2008, and at the AO in 2009. He was also very close to beating absolute peak Fed in Wimbledon in 2007.

The opposite isn't true (Fed being even remotely close to beating peak Nadal in RG).

I'm sorry if I disturbed your pleasant inhabiting of your alternate reality with a nice dose of truth. Please carry on.

 

[xFedal]

Career-wise, probably Top 20.

Talent-wise? Not even Top 50.

You seen Murrays Return stats they are off the charts... Blowing everyone away... His return is on Nole 2011 level @Gary Duane @Meles

 

[Meles]

You seen Murrays Return stats they are off the charts... Blowing everyone away... His return is on Nole 2011 level @Gary Duane @Meles

If you add it up for the year so far Murray is within 0.5% for the Djokovic 2011 year. If you take Djokovic 2011 through the US Open only, then Murray is not in that league (better career return numbers for Murray and he handles servebots much better with their monster serves.)

 

[Meles]

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.

Putting Wawrinka over Murray is just insane. Wawrinka is a top ten player who basically owns the world number one the last three years. He's just got a nice matchup working to his advantage in some of these tournaments plus he's very strong in best of five.

Murray is about to go on a little slam run of Imazing grace if Djokovic doesn't wake up quickly. He's got a ways to got to catch Agassi, but I'd say he'll be a near favorite for the first three slams next year. I don't think Imazing Nole will be able to stop him and Wawrinka certainly won't.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Yes, if somebody beats you up constantly you can claim "matchup" and it's not an excuse. It's an explanation.

If you know your tennis you know when a match-up is presented.

Since you don't I can forgive you that it is a non-explanation for you.

As for your former claim, it is wrong. Nadal beat prime Federer in Wimbledon 2008, and at the AO in 2009. He was also very close to beating absolute peak Fed in Wimbledon in 2007.

Ah I see that you saw what I did there, that is why you never used "peak" when describing Nadal's wins over Federer there.

And "almost" doesn't count as he also "almost" beat him in Miami in the final, just like Federer "almost" beat him in Rome.

The opposite isn't true (Fed being even remotely close to beating peak Nadal in RG).

See the above comment about Rome.

I'm sorry if I disturbed your pleasant inhabiting of your alternate reality with a nice dose of truth. Please carry on.

I think that you need a reality check , if you think that you are giving new information here.

Please, carry on.

 

[I Am Finnish]

Putting Wawrinka over Murray is just insane. Wawrinka is a top ten player who basically owns the world number one the last three years. He's just got a nice matchup working to his advantage in some of these tournaments plus he's very strong in best of five.

Murray is about to go on a little slam run of Imazing grace if Djokovic doesn't wake up quickly. He's got a ways to got to catch Agassi, but I'd say he'll be a near favorite for the first three slams next year. I don't think Imazing Nole will be able to stop him and Wawrinka certainly won't.

I wanna see your list?

 

[joekapa]

That sports writer must be going for purely clickbait. I cannot believe he is being remotely genuine.

No mention of Laver?

Given the number of matches that Laver played and the number and type of tournaments he won, one could argue that Rod Laver's 1969 season BY ITSELF is better than Andy Murray's entire career-to-date.

Bulldust. No matter how I love Laver. Nobody should include the Australian Open in the slam tally count, prior to 1985. It was literally a non event.

 

[mightyrick]

Bulldust. No matter how I love Laver. Nobody should include the Australian Open in the slam tally count, prior to 1985. It was literally a non event.

Oh really? So the fact that Laver beat Emerson, Stolle, Roche, and Gimeno... all of who won slams outside of the Australian Open... shouldn't matter? Yeah, right. Ok.

It never ceases to amaze me how little people on this forum actually understand about tennis. If it isn't in a tweet or doesn't sniff the jocks of the Big-4, it never existed.

 

[joekapa]

Oh really? So the fact that Laver beat Emerson, Stolle, Roche, and Gimeno... all of who won slams outside of the Australian Open... shouldn't matter? Yeah, right. Ok.

It never ceases to amaze me how little people on this forum actually understand about tennis. If it isn't in a tweet or doesn't sniff the jocks of the Big-4, it never existed.

I am not JUST talking about Laver here. The AO was a non event until the mid 80's. It only really started to gain steam during the 90's. It wasn't even mentioned in the same sentence as the other slams. In today's terms it would be a 500 event at most.

We have discussed this countless of times.

That's not to say that it's not a proper slam today. It is. Probably the best slam to watch out of all four. Great court, crowd and facilities.

 

[Zardoz7/12]

Seeing as all of a sudden is fashionable to resurrect old posts, look at this one from 2016, when Murray got to number 1, everyone thought the world was his oyster then 2017 and hip issues came.

What the big 3 achieved in the last 20 years is even more impressive if you factor in injuries, age, miles on the clock and how consistent they've been.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Anything Andy Murray is suffixed with "in Britain."

 

[Fabresque]

The fact that Murray hadn’t even reached number one at that point and we had to hear ridiculous **** like this.

 

[Tennfan123]

‘but big 3’ will not age well.