Murray never had the level or effectiveness of Courier, who could beat anyone at his two best slams. Murray managed to win 2 of his 3 slams against a deflated Nole at Wimbers/Open, whereas Jimbo beat a great Andre a number of times at RG, and got a good win over him at the Open as well.
Consensus on this board would be that Federer is GOAT, and we know that isn't true either.
Sure, if we’re talking peak level, we could even put Stan over Murray. But I weigh consistency with good results over peak level when it comes to who the better player may be. Peak level comes to play when we’re talking about strength of opposition imo as someone with a high peak level will generally be the more dangerous opponent to face... even if they aren’t as good across the board.
That's certainly your right, but I value fair generational comparisons even more, and you can't compare Murray's consistency to Courier's because Courier despite being a vastly more potent player, didn't have the wonders of modern medicine and training methods open to extend his longevity. Despite that, he had an extra slam, ability to beat anyone at his best venues, and more weeks at #1 which were part of his own little era of dominance. Murray was never dominant, he filled in the spots between greater players' dominance because of his own good-greatness as a player.
Which recent year is 2006 better than? I can’t think of any where Ljubicic and Blake would finish in the top 5
Anything starting from 2016 honestly. Not really a point I’m interested in arguing because it should be fairly obvious now.Which recent year is 2006 better than? I can’t think of any where Ljubicic and Blake would finish in the top 5
You can define ATG how you like. You're entitled to your opinion. There is no objective definition of ATG. Reasoned consensus is about the best we've got. In any case, Becker/Edberg/Wilander are clearly a class above Courier. And even more so above Thiem and Medvedev as things stand now.
2017 I can see as similar. Fedal playing at a similar level except 3017 Federer didn’t play on clay, but 2017 Nadal was much better on HCs.
Courier has 4 times the # of weeks at #1 as Becker. He has 20 more weeks at #1 than Wilander and Becker combined. He has more weeks at #1 than Becker and Murray combined. Courier had his own mini-era of dominance, unlike Murray who was a place-filler between Nadal and Djokovic.
Courier was 23 when he started declining though. One of these days you need to stop modern medicine as argument to pump up some of the players using "what if" arguments.
Weeks at number 1 are important but context must be considered. Hewitt had 80 weeks at number 1. Is he also greater than these 3? Courier peaked at the tail-end of Edberg's time at the top and before Sampras came up. He won zero slams after Sampras won Wimbledon in 93. This is in spite of him being only 22 at the time, so we can't talk about lack of modern medicine being the decisive factor.
No one gives a hoot about the Masters in a discussion about ATGs. What matters is spams and weeks at #1.
Except neither are ATG, so Masters and Slam finals have a lot of value for them. Hence why most people consider them comparable.
True sometimes but other times 2010 is grouped with as like 2008-2013 as the period that was way tougher than the Federer era.
According to you. According to me, Courier is an ATG because of his slams and weeks at #1 won against great competition playing great tennis.
2010 is better than any of 2003-2006 and just below 2007.
Disagree but you have your view.
A fair position to have indeed.
Now that is a movie I need to see at some point.
2007 is much better than 2010.
His response will be that Federer had a 5-6 year headstart on them
Whatever gibberish that is. Like clockwork.
