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

[junior74]

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.

Being no 1 in their absence can't possibly be the same!

Murray year end #1 2016

Nadal #9
Federer #16

They didn't even play!

 

[Lew II]

Double digit finals won over GOAT contenders:

Djokovic 29 (16 vs Nadal, 13 vs Federer)
Nadal 25 (14 vs Federer, 11 vs Djokovic)
Federer 16 (10 vs Nadal, 6 vs Djokovic)
Murray 14 (8 vs Djokovic, 3 vs Federer, 3 vs Nadal)
Laver 11 (10 vs Rosewall, 1 vs Borg)
Connors 10 (5 vs Borg, 5 vs Rosewall)

 

[daggerman]

Double digit finals won over GOAT contenders:

Djokovic 29 (16 vs Nadal, 13 vs Federer)
Nadal 25 (14 vs Federer, 11 vs Djokovic)
Federer 16 (10 vs Nadal, 6 vs Djokovic)
Murray 14 (8 vs Djokovic, 3 vs Federer, 3 vs Nadal)
Laver 11 (10 vs Rosewall, 1 vs Borg)
Connors 10 (5 vs Borg, 5 vs Rosewall)

Courier: 0

 

[Phoenix1983]

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.

OK - please tell me, if Murray had been the same age as Courier, which slams he would have won.

 

[daggerman]

OK - please tell me, if Murray had been the same age as Courier, which slams he would have won.

I mean, if I list out more than 3 or 4 slams, you'll just say "no he wouldn't", so why go through this exercise? You already don't think Murray is as good as I think he is, so clearly our answers to your question will be different.

 

[Phoenix1983]

I mean, if I list out more than 3 or 4 slams, you'll just say "no he wouldn't", so why go through this exercise? You already don't think Murray is as good as I think he is, so clearly our answers to your question will be different.

It's not really about Murray actually. I don't want to give the impression that I don't rate him - actually as a fellow Brit, I'm very proud of his achievements.

It's not even really about Courier - although I do believe he is disrespected by comments like yours, which say he can't be in the same league as Murray, when he has won more slams and spent more weeks at No 1, and not in a weak era either (early 1990s).

It's more about the fact that certain posters have to claim that all those who competed in the big 3 era must necessarily be far greater than their raw achievements, simply because they competed in that era. Hence apparently Murray is an ATG and far greater than Courier, Ferrer would have won multiple slams in other eras and is the best non-slam winner ever, and so on. Much of this is driven by a pro-Novak Djokovic agenda, which must have his competition as the greatest in history.

I hope my position is clear now, even if you disagree.

 

[buscemi]

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.

As I'm sure you know, the year Murray finished #1, Federer was out injured after Wimbledon and Nadal had to retire w/injury at the French Open and missed Wimbledon. Conversely, the top 10 in 1992, when Courier became #1, was: Courier, Edberg, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Becker, Chang, Korda, Lendl, Agassi, and Krajicek. That's one of the best top 10s of all time.

 

[Third Serve]

As I'm sure you know, the year Murray finished #1, Federer was out injured after Wimbledon and Nadal had to retire w/injury at the French Open and missed Wimbledon. Conversely, the top 10 in 1992, when Courier became #1, was: Courier, Edberg, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Becker, Chang, Korda, Lendl, Agassi, and Krajicek. That's one of the best top 10s of all time.

Not to mention, Djokovic went AWOL after the French Open.

 

[DjokoGOAT]

If you swap courier and Murray, Murray would be a 10-12 winner in early 90s while courier would win 0 slams in big 3 era.

 

[Phoenix1983]

If you swap courier and Murray, Murray would be a 10-12 winner in early 90s while courier would win 0 slams in big 3 era.

Which slams would Murray have won in the early 90s?

 

[DjokoGOAT]

Which slams would Murray have won in the early 90s?

AO 91, 92, 93, 95, 96
RG 91/92, 96
Wimbledon 90, 91, 92, 96
USO 91, 93, 94

I would have him favourite for these.

 

[Phoenix1983]

AO 91, 92, 93, 95, 96
RG 91/92, 96
Wimbledon 90, 91, 92, 96
USO 91, 93, 94

I would have him favourite for these.

Actual winners were:

AO: Becker, Courier, Courier, Agassi, Becker
RG: Courier, Courier, Kafelnikov
W: Edberg, Stich, Agassi, Krajicek
US: Edberg, Sampras, Agassi

At the very most he gets something like 2 AO, 1 RG, 1 W. Most of those guys are greater than him and you know it.

 

[buscemi]

AO 91, 92, 93, 95, 96
RG 91/92, 96
Wimbledon 90, 91, 92, 96
USO 91, 93, 94

I would have him favourite for these.

In your hypo, Murray is born on August 17, 1970 (Courier's birthdate). So, let's map those tournaments w/ Murray's results in his original timeline:

AO 91 (2007: 4th round loss), 92 (2008: 1st round loss), 93 (2009: 4th round loss), 95 (2011: finals loss), 96 (2012: finals loss)​

RG 91/92 (2007: DNP/2008: 3rd round loss), 96 (2012: 4th round loss)​

Wimbledon: 90 (2006: 1st round loss), 91 (2007: DNP), 92 (2008: QF loss), 96 (2012: finals loss)​

USO: 91 (2006: 4th round loss), 93 (2008: finals loss), 94 (2009: 4th round loss)​

I see 4 shots at a Major under this timeline (bolded). At the 1993 U.S. Open, he has to beat peak Sampras. At the 1995 Australian Open, he has to beat Agassi and Sampras. At the 1996 Australian Open, he has to beat Becker, Chang, and maybe Agassi. At Wimbledon 1996, he has to beat redlining Krajicek. So, basically, he has a good shot at the two 1996 Majors, a longer shot at the 1993 U.S. Open, and a much longer shot at the 1995 Australian Open. So, he probably ends w/1-4 Majors, pretty similar to his actual haul.

 

[Phoenix1983]

In your hypo, Murray is born on August 17, 1970 (Courier's birthdate). So, let's map those tournaments w/ Murray's results in his original timeline:

AO 91 (2007: 4th round loss), 92 (2008: 1st round loss), 93 (2009: 4th round loss), 95 (2011: finals loss), 96 (2012: finals loss)​

RG 91/92 (2007: DNP/2008: 3rd round loss), 96 (2012: 4th round loss)​

Wimbledon: 90 (2006: 1st round loss), 91 (2007: DNP), 92 (2008: QF loss), 96 (2012: finals loss)​

USO: 91 (2006: 4th round loss), 93 (2008: finals loss), 94 (2009: 4th round loss)​

I see 4 shots at a Major under this timeline (bolded). At the 1993 U.S. Open, he has to beat peak Sampras. At the 1995 Australian Open, he has to beat Agassi and Sampras. At the 1996 Australian Open, he has to beat Becker, Chang, and maybe Agassi. At Wimbledon 1996, he has to beat redlining Krajicek. So, basically, he has a good shot at the two 1996 Majors, a longer shot at the 1993 U.S. Open, and a much longer shot at the 1995 Australian Open. So, he probably ends w/1-4 Majors, pretty similar to his actual haul.

Good analysis Steve. Loved you in Reservoir Dogs btw.

 

[DjokoGOAT]

Actual winners were:

AO: Becker, Courier, Courier, Agassi, Becker
RG: Courier, Courier, Kafelnikov
W: Edberg, Stich, Agassi, Krajicek
US: Edberg, Sampras, Agassi

At the very most he gets something like 2 AO, 1 RG, 1 W. Most of those guys are greater than him and you know it.

Only Sampras is better, I prefer murray to all others except big 3 and Sampras.

In your hypo, Murray is born on August 17, 1970 (Courier's birthdate). So, let's map those tournaments w/ Murray's results in his original timeline:

AO 91 (2007: 4th round loss), 92 (2008: 1st round loss), 93 (2009: 4th round loss), 95 (2011: finals loss), 96 (2012: finals loss)​

RG 91/92 (2007: DNP/2008: 3rd round loss), 96 (2012: 4th round loss)​

Wimbledon: 90 (2006: 1st round loss), 91 (2007: DNP), 92 (2008: QF loss), 96 (2012: finals loss)​

USO: 91 (2006: 4th round loss), 93 (2008: finals loss), 94 (2009: 4th round loss)​

I see 4 shots at a Major under this timeline (bolded). At the 1993 U.S. Open, he has to beat peak Sampras. At the 1995 Australian Open, he has to beat Agassi and Sampras. At the 1996 Australian Open, he has to beat Becker, Chang, and maybe Agassi. At Wimbledon 1996, he has to beat redlining Krajicek. So, basically, he has a good shot at the two 1996 Majors, a longer shot at the 1993 U.S. Open, and a much longer shot at the 1995 Australian Open. So, he probably ends w/1-4 Majors, pretty similar to his actual haul.

Fair analysis I meant 2011-2016 murray though.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Only Sampras is better, I prefer murray to all others except big 3 and Sampras.

You may prefer him, but there's no evidence to suggest he was better than Agassi, Becker or Edberg, child.

 

[SonnyT]

The fact that you ignore a FOUR time slam winner as an "ATG" in Courier over a 3 time slam champ in Murray shows how ridiculously bias this thread is.

If you don't like his criteria, stop complaining and do an analysis with your own criteria. Nobody is stopping you!

That's major-league impressive of Novak!

 

[CYGS]

GOATovic.

 

[JaoSousa]

Actual winners were:

AO: Becker, Courier, Courier, Agassi, Becker
RG: Courier, Courier, Kafelnikov
W: Edberg, Stich, Agassi, Krajicek
US: Edberg, Sampras, Agassi

At the very most he gets something like 2 AO, 1 RG, 1 W. Most of those guys are greater than him and you know it.

Don't even bother. The troll probably never even watched tennis in the 90s.

 

[JaoSousa]

Only Sampras is better, I prefer murray to all others except big 3 and Sampras.

Oh my...
You heard it here folks, Murray is better than every single tennis player except for Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Sampras.

 

[Service Ace]

Lol at Murray being an ATG.

 

[Pinocchio]

Lol at people thinking Murray would have won roughly the same amount of slams in Courier's time that he actually has won in the DNF era, or maybe not even that many!

 

[DjokoGOAT]

Oh my...
You heard it here folks, Murray is better than every single tennis player except for Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Sampras.

Murray is Borg level

 

[JaoSousa]

Murray is Borg level

You and Lew are the same user.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Murray is Borg level

Taller, stronger, higher ELO

 

[Lew II]

Slam finals against GOATs:

Courier 1
Murray 10

 

[King No1e]

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 absence of Djokovic, Nadal and Federer is more than 50 weeks in another era.

FTFY

 

[Third Serve]

You and Lew are the same user.

No, that's an insult to Lew.

 

[King No1e]

I disagree with everything Lew says and think he's wrong on nearly every topic, but I agree. He's still pretty respectful a lot of the time and isn't quite as repetitive and annoying as this DjokoGOAT guy. Hearing the same old "Kiefer, Baghdatis, Ancic, Grosjean, etc" (were any of those guys even Fed's rivals, lol?) gets tiresome after about three poasts.

I'd like to see him play any of those aforementioned mugs.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Djokovic by far won the most boring matches of all time

 

[King No1e]

Ahh, that's what he/she wants you to think. Lew did statistics, but his/her true feelings we bottled up inside. So he/she created a second account to release his/her anger.

We've got ourselves a case of Jekyll and Hyde

 

[King No1e]

Djokovic by far won the most boring matches of all time

I need to catch up on the current slang terms. Didn't know "boring" was the new word for "epic"

 

[Lew II]

Why every thread of mine ends up being a thread about me?

 

[Third Serve]

Why every thread of mine ends up being a thread about me?

Because, as @Sysyphus so eloquently points out, "this is too internet".

 

[MichaelNadal]

I need to catch up on the current slang terms. Didn't know "boring" was the new word for "epic"

Epicly boring his hair doesn't even move

 

[King No1e]

Why every thread of mine ends up being a thread about me?

You're famous

 

[FatHead250]

OK - please tell me, if Murray had been the same age as Courier, which slams he would have won.

Literally all the slams

 

[junior74]

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.

I can't stop laughing at this post. It's the purest TT gold.

Being No1 for one week with this top 5:
Murray
Djokovic
Raonic
Wawrinka
Nishikori

Is worth more than 50 weeks at No1 with this top 5:
McEnroe
Lendl
Wilander
Connors
Edberg



I love Murray. And I felt it was deserved when he got his #1 ranking.
But he would/ could never earn the #1 spot without Federer and Nadal leaving the tour and Djokovic leaving mentally.

 

[Mainad]

I love Murray. And I felt it was deserved when he got his #1 ranking.
But he would/ could never earn the #1 spot without Federer and Nadal leaving the tour and Djokovic leaving mentally.

Nadal played almost all of 2016 missing only Paris and the WTF (as he often does). He could not have caught up with Murray. Djokovic may have been a bit subpar but he cruised his way through the draw at the WTF far more easily than Murray.

 

[Lew II]

I can't stop laughing at this post. It's the purest TT gold.

Being No1 for one week with this top 5:
Murray
Djokovic
Raonic
Wawrinka
Nishikori

Is worth more than 50 weeks at No1 with this top 5:
McEnroe
Lendl
Wilander
Connors
Edberg



I love Murray. And I felt it was deserved when he got his #1 ranking.
But he would/ could never earn the #1 spot without Federer and Nadal leaving the tour and Djokovic leaving mentally.

I think he meant that Murray was only behind Big3 in the ranking for hundreds of weeks... He ended 6 years only behind them, plus 2016 on top.

He's been ''#1 among humans'' for a long time.

 

[Lew II]

I disagree that Murray needed Djokovic to be out of the picture to be #1. Djokovic in 2016 had over 11,000 ATP points, he was the second #2 with the most points in this era. He also beat Murray in two Slam finals, taking many points from him. And Murray didn't even get ATP points from his Olympic gold medal.

 

[junior74]

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.

I think he meant that Murray was only behind Big3 in the ranking for hundreds of weeks... He ended 7 years only behind them.

He's been ''#1 among humans'' for a long time.

The point is, Murray's achievement was done in the absence of Federer and (partly) Nadal, and with a Djokovic who was subpar the second half of 2016. Raonic was #3 and Nishikori #5...

 

[Lew II]

The point is, Murray's achievement was done in the absence of Federer and (partly) Nadal, and with a Djokovic who was subpar the second half of 2016. Raonic was #3 and Nishikori #5...

But was close to perfection in the first half. See my post #95.

 

[junior74]

But was close to perfection in the first half. See my post #95.

Your post #95 has nothing to do with my opinion. I said Djokovic was subpar 2nd half of the season, Federer was out with surgery, Nadal was out and withdrew from 2 slams - and I never said "Djokovic to be out of the picture to be #1", so I'm assuming you're replying someone else here.

 

[Lew II]

Years ended #1 or only behind GOATs:

Federer 13
Nadal 12
Djokovic 11
Murray 7
Sampras, Connors 6
McEnroe 5

 

[ABCD]

If Djokovic was subpar that was his problem; I count Federer 2017AO win as a win against best possible competition. If Nadal and Federer have problems/issues/injuries that was their problem. They played 2016 ATP season. Competition Murray faced was uncomparable better than anything anyone faced prior to 2008 (even 2011). I give Murray 10-15 GS in any other era easily.

 

[junior74]

If Djokovic was subpar that was his problem; I count Federer 2017AO win as a win against best possible competition. If Nadal and Federer have problems/issues/injuries that was their problem. They played 2016 ATP season. Competition Murray faced was uncomparable better than anything anyone faced prior to 2008 (even 2011). I give Murray 10-15 GS in any other era easily.

The competition Murray faced in 2nd half of 2016 was awful. You can't say it's the toughest competition ever, and at the same time say it's their own problem if the couldn't play because of surgery/ injury

Wimbledon final: Raonic
Cincy final: Cilic (lost)
US Open QF: Nishikori (lost)
China: Dimitrov
Shanghai: Bautista-Agut
Vienna: Tsonga
Paris: Isner
WTF: Djokovic

You can give Murray as many slams you like. He won 3. And he played a tough era, obviously. But not in 2016.

 

[Lew II]

Slam finals played against 3+ slam champions:

Djokovic 22/26 (84.6%)
Federer 18/31 (58%)

Wawrinka > Roddick/Hewitt because 3 > 2/1, right?

 

[tennis_pro]

No, he's far from top10 ever in every stat.

and murray is not, lol?

 

[tennis_pro]

Slam finals played against 3+ slam champions:

Djokovic 22/26 (84.6%)
Federer 18/31 (58%)

Wawrinka > Roddick/Hewitt because 3 > 2/1, right?

Whose fault is it that Djokovic cant beat Wawrinka?

Isnt Fed like 20-0 against him outside of clay?