Djokovic won by far the most finals over ATGs in the Open Era

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
Double digit finals won against ATGs (10+ Slam finalists) in the Open Era

1) Djokovic 40 (16 vs Nadal, 13 vs Federer, 11 vs Murray)
2) Lendl 29 (8 vs McEnroe, 6 vs Becker, 6 vs Wilander, 4 vs Edberg, 2 vs Connors, 2 vs Borg, 1 vs Sampras)
3) Becker 27 (14 vs Edberg, 7 vs Lendl, 3 vs Wilander, 1 vs Sampras, 1 vs Connors, 1 vs McEnroe)
/ McEnroe 27 (11 vs Lendl, 7 vs Connors, 5 vs Borg, 2 vs Wilander, 2 vs Edberg)
/ Nadal 26 (14 vs Federer, 11 vs Djokovic, 1 vs Murray, 1 vs Agassi)
6) Federer 23 (10 vs Nadal, 6 vs Djokovic, 5 vs Murray, 2 vs Agassi)
7) Connors 21 (7 vs McEnroe, 5 vs Borg, 5 vs Rosewall, 4 vs Lendl)
8) Laver 17 (10 vs Rosewall, 6 vs Newcombe, 1 vs Borg)
/ Sampras 17 (9 vs Agassi, 6 vs Becker, 2 vs Lendl)
10) Borg 16 (8 vs Connors, 4 vs McEnroe, 4 vs Lendl)
11) Edberg 15 (5 vs Becker, 3 vs Lendl, 3 vs Wilander, 1 vs Agassi, 1 vs McEnroe, 1 vs Connors, 1 vs Sampras)
12) Murray 14 (8 vs Djokovic, 3 vs Federer, 3 vs Nadal)
13) Agassi 13 (7 vs Sampras, 3 vs Edberg, 1 vs Federer, 1 vs Lendl, 1 vs Becker)
14) Nastase 10 (6 vs Connors, 3 vs Borg, 1 vs Laver)
/ Wilander 10 (3 vs Lendl, 3 vs Connors, 2 vs Edberg, 2 vs McEnroe)
 
Last edited:

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
Double digit finals won against ATGs (10+ Slam finalists) in the Open Era

1) Djokovic 40 (16 vs Nadal, 13 vs Federer, 11 vs Murray)
2) Lendl 29 (8 vs McEnroe, 6 vs Becker, 6 vs Wilander, 4 vs Edberg, 2 vs Connors, 2 vs Borg, 1 vs Sampras)
3) Becker 27 (14 vs Edberg, 7 vs Lendl, 3 vs Wilander, 1 vs Sampras, 1 vs Connors, 1 vs McEnroe)
/ McEnroe 27 (11 vs Lendl, 7 vs Connors, 5 vs Borg, 2 vs Wilander, 2 vs Edberg)
5) Nadal 26 (14 vs Federer, 11 vs Djokovic, 1 vs Murray)
6) Federer 23 (10 vs Nadal, 6 vs Djokovic, 5 vs Murray, 2 vs Agassi)
7) Connors 21 (7 vs McEnroe, 5 vs Borg, 5 vs Rosewall, 4 vs Lendl)
8) Laver 17 (10 vs Rosewall, 6 vs Newcombe, 1 vs Borg)
/ Sampras 17 (9 vs Agassi, 6 vs Becker, 2 vs Lendl)
10) Borg 16 (8 vs Connors, 4 vs McEnroe, 4 vs Lendl)
11) Edberg 15 (5 vs Becker, 3 vs Lendl, 3 vs Wilander, 1 vs Agassi, 1 vs McEnroe, 1 vs Connors, 1 vs Sampras)
12) Murray 14 (8 vs Djokovic, 3 vs Federer, 3 vs Nadal)
13) Nastase 10 (6 vs Connors, 3 vs Borg, 1 vs Laver)
/ Wilander 10 (3 vs Lendl, 3 vs Connors, 2 vs Edberg, 2 vs McEnroe)
so_good.png
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
Murray is a great player, not an All-Time Great.

3 slams isn't enough, even with his other stats. Jim Courier is a great player with FOUR slams, and I'd hesitate to call him an "all time great". I wouldn't call Courier an all-time great. He's a great player. So why does Murray get to leapfrog Courier? Because he played at the same time as Rafa, Roger and Novak? That's not enough. He needed more slams.

Till this weird recent advocacy to class a three time slam champion in Murray as an ATG, it was generally accepted that we started getting into ATG territory with 6 time slam champions like Edberg and Becker.
 

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
Murray is a great player, not an All-Time Great.

3 slams isn't enough, even with his other stats. Jim Courier is a great player with FOUR slams, and I'd hesitate to call him an "all time great". I wouldn't call Courier an all-time great. He's a great player. So why does Murray get to leapfrog Courier? Because he played at the same time as Rafa, Roger and Novak?

Till this weird recent advocacy to class a three time slam champion in Murray as an ATG, it was generally accepted that we started getting into ATG territory with 6 time slam champions like Edberg and Becker.
Murray is top10 ever in many stats. He's an ATG for me.
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
Murray is top10 ever in many stats. He's an ATG for me.

Slams is the main currency of All-Time Greats.

His stats aren't good enough there. He's a great player, but classing him as an ATG to make Djokovic's wins look more impressive is kind of embarrassing.

If I'm not going to call a 4 time slam champ like Courier an ATG, then I won't do it for Murray. There needs to be a standard, and being a 6 time slam champ like Edberg or Becker seems to be a pretty good agreed one.

Also notice you didn't use any of Sampras wins over Courier.
 

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
Slams is the main currency of All-Time Greats.

His stats aren't good enough there. He's a great player, but classing him as an ATG to make Djokovic's wins look more impressive is kind of embarrassing.

If I'm not going to call a 4 time slam champ like Courier an ATG, then I won't do it for Murray. There needs to be a standard, and being a 6 time slam champ like Edberg or Becker seems to be a pretty good agreed one.

Also notice you didn't use any of Sampras wins over Courier.
I have my own standards. Murray is better than Courier in every stat except Slam titles.
 
D

Deleted member 769694

Guest
Djokovic and Karlovic never played in a final though mate.

Cant win the final if you dont win your 2nd round. I find it odd all the players with a winning record like Ivo never get to play him. Always short baseliners like at 2019 wimbledumb

I think when querry took him out at wimbledon, they started building his "legacy"
 

Start da Game

Hall of Fame
nastasie in the list is surprising......

op, all these records won’t mean much if he doesn’t reach 20 slams.......final slam count will decide the best of the era.......
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
I have my own standards. Murray is better than Courier in every stat except Slam titles. He is an ATG for me, Courier is not.

Again, this is why *some* people just see you as a Djokovic stanning spammer. Your "standards" always conviently fall into what makes Novak look the best.

Downgrading a 4 time slam champion to make a 3 time slam champion seem in a completely different league is pretty special, even by your usual standards.
 

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
Again, this is why *some* people just see you as a Djokovic stanning spammer. Your "standards" always conviently fall into what makes Novak look the best.

Downgrading a 4 time slam champion to make a 3 time champion seem in a completely different league is pretty special, even by your usual standards.
So if Big3 dropped one slam each to Murray they would have automatically faced 3 ATGs in their career instead of 2? LOL

Being ATG is more than Slam titles. I'm not more biased than those who say Murray is not an ATG
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
So if Big3 dropped one more slam each to Murray they would have automatically faced 3 ATGs in their career instead of 2? LOL

Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda. If my Aunt had balls, she'd been my Uncle.

If Murray bagged three extra slams from the Big 3, of course he'd be an ATG, and yes, they'd have faced 3 instead of 2. But this alternate universe never happened. Silly question.

Murray is not a moral ATG for not winning 3 extra imaginary slams.

Again, before Murray, no one ever talked about someone being an ATG with less than 6 slams. That was the standard. Slam count matters.
 

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda. If my Aunt had balls, she'd been my Uncle.

If Murray bagged three extra slams from the Big 3, of course he'd be an ATG, and yes, they'd have faced 3 instead of 2. But this alternate universe never happened. Silly question.

Murray is not a moral ATG for not winning 3 extra imaginary slams.
Well Big3 owned Murray too much then.

They'd be much greater at 19/18/16 but having dealt with 1 more ATG. ;) :-D
 
Last edited:

beard

Legend
The fact that Federer has Agassi on his list and that Djokovic never even PLAYED Agassi tells you all that you need to know. If this needs explaining, seek help.
I think you need one... :-D
Why so angry?

On topic... Even without Murray, Novak is we'll known leader in playing thought competition...
 

RaulRamirez

Legend
"ATG" is an arbitrary designation. I would put Murray's career over Courier's, but let's say that neither make the cut, and we go with Edberg, Becker and Wilander on up. Using Lew's numbers: Djokovic 29, Nadal 25, Fed 18.
Big 3 finals only: D-29, N-25, Fed 16.

Cue the usual replies in support or opposition.
 

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
Score in finals against other Big4:

Djokovic 40-25 (61.5%)
Nadal 26-29 (47.3%)
Murray 14-17 (45.2%)
Federer 21-30 (41.2%)
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
Double digit finals won against ATGs (10+ Slam finalists) in the Open Era

1) Djokovic 40 (16 vs Nadal, 13 vs Federer, 11 vs Murray)
2) Lendl 29 (8 vs McEnroe, 6 vs Becker, 6 vs Wilander, 4 vs Edberg, 2 vs Connors, 2 vs Borg, 1 vs Sampras)
3) Becker 27 (14 vs Edberg, 7 vs Lendl, 3 vs Wilander, 1 vs Sampras, 1 vs Connors, 1 vs McEnroe)
/ McEnroe 27 (11 vs Lendl, 7 vs Connors, 5 vs Borg, 2 vs Wilander, 2 vs Edberg)
5) Nadal 26 (14 vs Federer, 11 vs Djokovic, 1 vs Murray)
6) Federer 23 (10 vs Nadal, 6 vs Djokovic, 5 vs Murray, 2 vs Agassi)
7) Connors 21 (7 vs McEnroe, 5 vs Borg, 5 vs Rosewall, 4 vs Lendl)
8) Laver 17 (10 vs Rosewall, 6 vs Newcombe, 1 vs Borg)
/ Sampras 17 (9 vs Agassi, 6 vs Becker, 2 vs Lendl)
10) Borg 16 (8 vs Connors, 4 vs McEnroe, 4 vs Lendl)
11) Edberg 15 (5 vs Becker, 3 vs Lendl, 3 vs Wilander, 1 vs Agassi, 1 vs McEnroe, 1 vs Connors, 1 vs Sampras)
12) Murray 14 (8 vs Djokovic, 3 vs Federer, 3 vs Nadal)
13) Nastase 10 (6 vs Connors, 3 vs Borg, 1 vs Laver)
/ Wilander 10 (3 vs Lendl, 3 vs Connors, 2 vs Edberg, 2 vs McEnroe)

Novak did win titles against very tough competition, no doubt about it.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
"ATG" is an arbitrary designation. I would put Murray's career over Courier's, but let's say that neither make the cut, and we go with Edberg, Becker and Wilander on up. Using Lew's numbers: Djokovic 29, Nadal 25, Fed 18.
Big 3 finals only: D-29, N-25, Fed 16.

Cue the usual replies in support or opposition.

This is fair really. I think those who really oppose in here don't realize the order stays the same. Lol.
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
"ATG" is an arbitrary designation. I would put Murray's career over Courier's, but let's say that neither make the cut, and we go with Edberg, Becker and Wilander on up. Using Lew's numbers: Djokovic 29, Nadal 25, Fed 18.
Big 3 finals only: D-29, N-25, Fed 16.

Cue the usual replies in support or opposition.

This is pretty much what I would use in this scenario also.
 

ND-13

Legend
Murray’s slam wins are just over a pre 2014 Djokovic and Raonic

It is really hurtful to dismiss a legend like Courier in favor of Murray.

Murray is a great player , if we are including him
We have to include Hewitt , Wawrinka , Roddick , Safin and Delpo
 

ND-13

Legend
BTW,Djokovic results are great in every aspect. I don’t believe anyone can make a sound argument against that . We don’t need to twist results to make him any better.
 

Fridge

Professional
even if we take out the Muzza Novak would be tied for first and ahead of Nadal. Fed OTOH drops quite a bit. Novak and Nadal >>> Fed is what this shows
 

buscemi

Hall of Fame
Looks like Lendl is the solid winner here once you add the 4 Major winners -- Courier and Vilas -- and subtract Murray.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
Double digit finals won against ATGs (10+ Slam finalists) in the Open Era

1) Djokovic 40 (16 vs Nadal, 13 vs Federer, 11 vs Murray)
2) Lendl 29 (8 vs McEnroe, 6 vs Becker, 6 vs Wilander, 4 vs Edberg, 2 vs Connors, 2 vs Borg, 1 vs Sampras)
3) Becker 27 (14 vs Edberg, 7 vs Lendl, 3 vs Wilander, 1 vs Sampras, 1 vs Connors, 1 vs McEnroe)
/ McEnroe 27 (11 vs Lendl, 7 vs Connors, 5 vs Borg, 2 vs Wilander, 2 vs Edberg)
/ Nadal 26 (14 vs Federer, 11 vs Djokovic, 1 vs Murray, 1 vs Agassi)
6) Federer 23 (10 vs Nadal, 6 vs Djokovic, 5 vs Murray, 2 vs Agassi)
7) Connors 21 (7 vs McEnroe, 5 vs Borg, 5 vs Rosewall, 4 vs Lendl)
8) Laver 17 (10 vs Rosewall, 6 vs Newcombe, 1 vs Borg)
/ Sampras 17 (9 vs Agassi, 6 vs Becker, 2 vs Lendl)
10) Borg 16 (8 vs Connors, 4 vs McEnroe, 4 vs Lendl)
11) Edberg 15 (5 vs Becker, 3 vs Lendl, 3 vs Wilander, 1 vs Agassi, 1 vs McEnroe, 1 vs Connors, 1 vs Sampras)
12) Murray 14 (8 vs Djokovic, 3 vs Federer, 3 vs Nadal)
13) Nastase 10 (6 vs Connors, 3 vs Borg, 1 vs Laver)
/ Wilander 10 (3 vs Lendl, 3 vs Connors, 2 vs Edberg, 2 vs McEnroe)

Remove Murray, as you should, and Novak Djokovic/Lendl are tied at the top.
 

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
Weeks at No 1?
Murray has more Slam finals, more Slam semis, more big titles, more titles, higher win percentage... And not by a slim margin.

Sure if you have 3 opponents who do all these things better than you it's hard to win slams and be #1.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
I don't have data now but Murray has more Slam finals, more Slam semis, more big titles, more titles, higher win percentage...

Sure if you have 3 opponents who do all these things better than you it's hard to win slams and be #1.

You claim to be a master of stats, yet fail to remember that Courier surpasses Murray in weeks at No 1, which is generally agreed to be the 2nd most important stat in the game after slam victories.

So Courier > Murray in the two most important stats of the game.

I don't even dislike Murray, but am just pointing out that you should be including both players, or neither, when you talk about ATGs.
 

daggerman

Hall of Fame
Putting Courier in the same tier as Murray is absurd. Courier had a very good 6-year run on tour (1991-1996), but even that run falls short of Murray's best 6-year run (2011-2016).

Courier (1991-96)
Slam Appearances: 23
Quarters or better: 15
Semis or better: 11
Finals or better: 7
Wins: 4
Overall match record: 95 - 19 (83.3%)

Murray (2011-16)

Slam Appearances: 23
Quarters or better: 22
Semis or better: 16
Finals or better: 9
Wins: 3
Overall match record: 119 - 20 (85.6%)

If that wasn't enough, Courier never so much as reached a slam quarterfinal outside of that 6-year window, while Murray had a number of successful seasons outside of 2011-2016:

Courier (all other years)
Slam Appearances: 19
Quarters or better: 0
Semis or better: 0
Finals or better: 0
Wins: 0
Overall match record: 23 - 19 (54.7%)

Murray (all other years)

Slam Appearances: 25
Quarters or better: 8
Semis or better: 5
Finals or better: 2
Wins: 0
Overall match record: 70 - 25 (73.6%)

And this is just a comparison of performance at slams. Bring Olympics, Masters 1000s, and ATP Finals into the picture and the gap between the two widens. If you want to argue Murray isn't an all-time great, go ahead, but arguing that Courier is ahead of him or on the same level as him is a nonstarter.

Edit: Note that Murray's best 6-year stretch is from 2011-2016. Which other player's best 6-year stretch is from 2011-2016? Do you think that made things like accumulating Weeks at #1 a little difficult for Murray?
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
And this is just a comparison of performance at slams. Bring Olympics, Masters 1000s, and ATP Finals into the picture and the gap between the two widens. If you want to argue Murray isn't an all-time great, go ahead, but arguing that Courier is ahead of him or on the same level as him is a nonstarter.

Er, Courier has one more slam and 17 more weeks at No 1 - and had reached the final of all four slams before his 23rd birthday. Damn right I can argue that he's on the same level as Murray.
 

buscemi

Hall of Fame
Putting Courier in the same tier as Murray is absurd. Courier had a very good 6-year run on tour (1991-1996), but even that run falls short of Murray's best 6-year run (2011-2016).

Courier leads Murray in the 2 most important stats: Majors (4 vs. 3) and weeks at #1 (58 vs. 41). That's a huge gap for Murray to try to overcome w/his secondary accomplishments. If you're being generous, he might equal Courier.
 

daggerman

Hall of Fame
Er, Courier has one more slam and 17 more weeks at No 1 - and had reached the final of all four slams before his 23rd birthday. Damn right I can argue that he's on the same level as Murray.

Of course you can make that argument; it's just not a convincing one. The data shows Murray was the consistently better performer over a longer period of time. He just tended to face better opponents in the latter stages of slams. That doesn't mean Courier had it easy; it means Murray had it harder than him. If Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer were only as good as Pete, Andre, and [???], Murray would've dwarfed Courier's slam totals.
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
Courier leads Murray in the 2 most important stats: Majors (4 vs. 3) and weeks at #1 (58 vs. 41). That's a huge gap for Murray to try to overcome w/his secondary accomplishments. If you're being generous, he might equal Courier.

It is not about numbers. It is about competition. Murray achieved what he had achieved in, by far, most difficult era. Being 1 week No 1 in the presence of Djokovic, Nadal and Federer is more than 50 weeks in another era.
 

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
You claim to be a master of stats, yet fail to remember that Courier surpasses Murray in weeks at No 1, which is generally agreed to be the 2nd most important stat in the game after slam victories.

So Courier > Murray in the two most important stats of the game.

I don't even dislike Murray, but am just pointing out that you should be including both players, or neither, when you talk about ATGs.
Murray is better than Courier in every stat he was not stopped by three GOATs.
 
Top