Do you put Andy Murray at same tier as Edberg/Wilander/Becker?

thrust

Hall of Fame
Andy Murray
- Same # of Grand Slam finals as McEnroe/Edberg/Wilander
- more semifinals than McEnroe/Edberg/Becker/Borg/Wilander
- more quarterfinals than Sampras/McEnroe/Edberg/Becker/Wilander
- more Grand Slam matches won than Edberg/McEnroe/Becker/Wilander/Borg
- Year end #1 once - same as Wilander, Becker never achieved this
Wilander had 1 YE at #1, Edberg had 2 plus 72 weeks at #1. Wilander won 7 slams, Edberg and Becker-6, Murray- 3
 

BorgTheGOAT

Hall of Fame
I probably wouldn't go that far but Becker's top 10 record is truly extraordinary: 65.1% which is comparable to the Big 3's (64.6%, 64.3% and 68.6% for Fed, Rafa and Novak respectively), Pete's (63.6%) and Lendl's (64.3%). My 1st tennis hero might have loved the good life a tad too much, but when he was focused he could hang with anyone.
Becker has positive H2H against next to every slam winner/top player he played against apart from Lendl (very close 10-11), Sampras (7-12) and Agassi (4-10). This includes Connors, Mac, Wilander, Ivanisevic, Stich, Courier, Edberg, Mecir, Cash, Rafter, Gilbert, Hewitt, Chang, Noah, Muster, Krajicek, Kafelnikov, Korda, Henman. He has some surprising losses against lower ranked players but as you say when on and motivated, he could beat anyone.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
The lack of great peak exploits in BO5 for Mandy allows for no equivalence.
Lol... the only person to ever beat Djokovic in a BO5 set final, one of only 2 players ever to straight-set Federer in a BO5 set final, beat Nadal in 2 BO5 set finals. That equates to no great peak exploits in BO5 as far as you're concerned........like REALLY???
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
It is kind of funny, but almost every slam Murray didn't win I can think of 2 atleast who probably would have beaten him, including the ones he loses in finals. So I am not sure if even just removing 1 of the Big 3 makes a big difference or not.
He has never lost to anyone who is not a Big 3 player in a Slam final.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Becker's H2H in Best of 5 vs some guys

vs Sampras 0-3
vs Agassi 2-4
vs Ivanisevic 2-3
vs Wilander 2-3
vs Mcenroe 1-1 (8 years older Mcenroe beat him as late as in 1992)
 

goldengate14

Professional
8 Tennis Tiers as on today (GOAT in BOLD)

Tier 1 : FEDERER, Djokovic, Peter Sampras & Nadal
Tier 2 : Borg, Mcenroe, Lendl, Connors & Agassi
Tier 3 : Becker, Wilander, Edberg
Tier 4 : Safin, Courier, Kuerten, Murray, Hewitt, Roddick, Stanimal, Ivanisevic, Bruguera etc etc
Tier 5 : Gaudio, Thiem, Medvedev, Muster etc etc
Tier 6 : Nalbandian, Raonic, Nishikori, Tsonga, Zverev, Sissypas etc etc
Tier 7 : Top 50 players who are journeymen

Tier 8 : Those ranked outside the top 100
Disclaimer. This the poster who has Graf not in top 5 of all time. We need an asterisk here.
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
No. Why should anyone put Murray remotely near Becker or Stefan who both have 6 slams (twice as many as Andy) or Mats, who has 7 slams? He's not an ATG, the other three are without doubt all ATG's. Compare Murray to Courier, never to Becker, Edberg or Wilander.
 

goldengate14

Professional
No. Why should anyone put Murray remotely near Becker or Stefan who both have 6 slams (twice as many as Andy) or Mats, who has 7 slams? He's not an ATG, the other three are without doubt all ATG's. Compare Murray to Courier, never to Becker, Edberg or Wilander.
Courier was better than Murray.
 

NonP

Hall of Fame
Mac is nowhere near GOAT material.
Ándale, ándale arriba!
Well I'm right about everything, so you're wrong!

(I put a lot of stock in peak play. Of course YMMV.)

Becker has positive H2H against next to every slam winner/top player he played against apart from Lendl (very close 10-11), Sampras (7-12) and Agassi (4-10). This includes Connors, Mac, Wilander, Ivanisevic, Stich, Courier, Edberg, Mecir, Cash, Rafter, Gilbert, Hewitt, Chang, Noah, Muster, Krajicek, Kafelnikov, Korda, Henman. He has some surprising losses against lower ranked players but as you say when on and motivated, he could beat anyone.
Yeah you could make a strong argument that your countryman is the unluckiest ATG ever, to be stuck with not one but two terrible matchups in his prime. We all know Pistol was basically a superior version of Boris, while Dre was of course every big server/attacker's nightmare.

But as I like to say matchups are almost irrelevant at this level. Boris' indoor H2H vs. Pete (7-6!) is a good indication of what Boom Boom was capable of, and his record vs. Dre almost certainly looks better with more meetings on grass and carpet. As you might have noticed I consider Boris the best indoor player of the OE peak to peak, and though I'd still back Pistol in a big match you really can't play better indoor tennis than these two at full throttle. I would've been very interested to see younger/'96 Boris vs. '97/'99 Pistol, cuz Pete's return wasn't quite up to par in '96 and in (late) '94 he was still dealing with the aftermath of his freak foot injury thx to Nike.
 

Rosstour

Legend
Murray is better than all three of them IMO.

None of those guys ever faced a player on the level of B3...let alone three of them simultaneously for an entire career. Not to mention Courier fell off a cliff at like 24. Murray has an artificial hip and is still able to win titles.
 
D

Deleted member 771911

Guest
Let's throw ATG status around to guys who couldn't beat the big 3 even though Federer himself said it was easier to win slams the last decade than other times. :laughing: :-D :laughing:
 

BorgTheGOAT

Hall of Fame
Well I'm right about everything, so you're wrong!

(I put a lot of stock in peak play. Of course YMMV.)



Yeah you could make a strong argument that your countryman is the unluckiest ATG ever, to be stuck with not one but two terrible matchups in his prime. We all know Pistol was basically a superior version of Boris, while Dre was of course every big server/attacker's nightmare.

But as I like to say matchups are almost irrelevant at this level. Boris' indoor H2H vs. Pete (7-6!) is a good indication of what Boom Boom was capable of, and his record vs. Dre almost certainly looks better with more meetings on grass and carpet. As you might have noticed I consider Boris the best indoor player of the OE peak to peak, and though I'd still back Pistol in a big match you really can't play better indoor tennis than these two at full throttle. I would've been very interested to see younger/'96 Boris vs. '97/'99 Pistol, cuz Pete's return wasn't quite up to par in '96 and in (late) '94 he was still dealing with the aftermath of his freak foot injury thx to Nike.
Have read your post back then. Agree that peak for peak the two best indoor players of all time. Was surprised you have Boris ahead of Pete since Boris himself said he couldn’t play better than in the 96 final (you did include the caveat though that for the big match you would still choose Pete). Would you say YEC was Pete’s best indoor performance? 99 final was also a joy to watch (even more impressive attacking tennis than in the 99 Wimbledon final), even though Agassi played poorly as well.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Let's throw ATG status around to guys who couldn't beat the big 3 even though Federer himself said it was easier to win slams the last decade than other times. :laughing: :-D :laughing:
Many posters on this forum (Like that Mainad Murray fanatic above) have assumed that Big 3 are some Super Saiyan Gods who are ahead of any ATG who ever played by a massive margin, so whoever is regularly a beta male to the Big 3 (Murray, Stan, Roddick and Hewitt) can be rated as better than some alphas in previous eras or at least on par.

Thats why Murray is being considered on par with Agassi or Becker or Edberg by those posters.

These guys need to be educated that Murray is nothing more than Hewitt/Roddick/Stan peakwise and a beta in 1 era is a beta in any era, so this whole flawed logic arises from the fact that Big 3 have been overrated to extreme levels.......
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
As much as i like Murray he is not as good as Becker Edberg. That said he is better than Wilander who was overrated.
Overrated by who? He's criminally underrated here since 90% of TTW folks weren't even born when he was an active player and have no clue what he was like as a player, physically or mentally.

Mats Wilander clearly had the greater career (by a significant margin) over Andy Murray. He has more than twice as many slams! And he had massive competition across all surfaces with clay, grass and indoor specialists. Murray played in an era with completely homogenized surfaces, slow grass, slow HC's for the most part.

Wilander


7 majors, 33 career titles, won 3/4 slams in one year, 3 Davis Cups, #1 ranked player

Murray

3 majors, 46 career titles, OGM's, #1 ranked player, 1 DC.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Pete is the best of his era. The clear top player of any era is special. No one in the 1990s could have or should have won 20 majors.
I agree. Winning 3 slams per year was not possible for the 90s.
But I feel Pete should have had some more 2 slam years and maybe should have had one 3 slam year.

1994 USO
1996 AO
1997 USO
1998 AO
1998 USO

2-3 slams of these had he picked it would have looked better for his peak level dominance I feel
 

BorgTheGOAT

Hall of Fame
To the question: Murray is of course not on the level of the other three. Other than slams Becker leads him in YECs (which on top was a way bigger event during Becker’s time than when Murray won it) while Edberg leads him comfortably in weeks at No.1 (72 vs 41) so it is not that Murray is ahead in all other important metrics to make up for a 3 slam deficit (which would not be possible to begin with).

If at all one could argue that Murray leads Wilander outside of slams but here again we are talking a 4 slam difference now with a 3 slam year to boot so again way too big of a margin to overcome.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Murray is better than all three of them IMO.

None of those guys ever faced a player on the level of B3...let alone three of them simultaneously for an entire career. Not to mention Courier fell off a cliff at like 24. Murray has an artificial hip and is still able to win titles.

If Sampras can lose in the 3rd/4th round of slams so many times in his era, then do you think Murray would be regularly reaching semis in previous eras ?

Jeez, he would be a 1-2 slam winner in other eras, he has already been too lucky to always reach semis in the homogenous era and lose to big 3 to be eulogized and get a lot of benefit of a doubt that should never exist.

Murray is not even in Courier's league
 

Wurm

Semi-Pro
There isn't a single coherent argument against Murray being an ATG other than his conversion rate of slam finals (therefore slam title count).

His achievements in every other category puts him squarely in the mix with Becker, Edberg and Wilander (and I would include Courier in the list). Choosing whichever player happens to have better stats in any given category is just childlike reasoning.
 
D

Deleted member 771911

Guest
Murray-won 'only' 3 slams (half the number of Edberg and friends); never defended a slam; never had a multi slam season; won slams at only 2 of the 4 venues.
But wait- he played in big 3 era! Award him ATG status!
Apparently as talented as big 3 but is 3-20-20-20!
:-D :laughing: :-D
 

Sunny014

Legend
Win% after reaching Qfs and beyond in Slams @Devtennis01

Laver - 89%
Borg - 81%
Sampras - 78%
Nadal - 77%
Djokovic - 74%
Federer - 72%
Wilander - 71%
Lendl - 68%
Becker - 67%
Mcenroe - 66%
Courier - 65%
Edberg - 65%
Safin - 65%
Agassi - 64%
Connors - 62%


OMG, I cannot find Murray !!
Where is he ???
He played in the homogenous era and yet I cannot find him in the 60+ bracket ? :-D :-D :-D

Wait... I found him ... he is sitting in the late 40s- mid 50% league along with some buffoons who are in his league as I've been saying all along! :-D:-D:-D:-D

Murray - 56%
Hewitt - 52%
Wawrinka - 52%
Kafelnikov - 50%
Ivanisevic - 48%
Roddick - 47%
 
D

Deleted member 771911

Guest
Win% after reaching Qfs and beyond in Slams @Devtennis01

Laver - 89%
Borg - 81%
Sampras - 78%
Nadal - 77%
Djokovic - 74%
Federer - 72%
Wilander - 71%
Lendl - 68%
Becker - 67%
Mcenroe - 66%
Courier - 65%
Edberg - 65%
Safin - 65%
Agassi - 64%
Connors - 62%


OMG, I cannot find Murray !!
Where is he ???
He played in the homogenous era and yet I cannot find him in the 60+ bracket ? :-D :-D :-D

Wait... I found him ... he is sitting in the 50% league along with some buffons who are in his league as I've been saying all along! :-D:-D:-D:-D

Murray - 56%
Hewitt - 52%
Wawrinka - 52%
Kafelnikov - 50%
Ivanisevic - 48%
Roddick - 47%
Lucky for Muzza he has 40% of TTW to prop him up a few tiers or two lol.
 
He has never lost to anyone who is not a Big 3 player in a Slam final.
I know, but when I said 2 people, I did not neccessarily mean someone outside the Big 3. The person rationalized removing just 1 person from the Big 3, which means leaving the other 2, plus the rest of the field. I am not sure even just taking away 1 of the Big 3 would make that huge a difference. I will give you an example of what I am talking about.

2008 U.S Open- He most likely loses to both Federer (who he lost to in the actual final) and Djokovic. Djokovic had more experience, was much higher ranked at the time, and played Federer a lot closer in the semis than Murray in the final. And it would have been Murray's first slam final, while it would have been Djokovic's 3rd in 12 months.

2010 Australian- OK this one maybe he can win if there is no Federer (who he lost to in the final) but his performance in the final was very subpar, and one of his worst slam final performances. So I am not even 100% sure he wins against who his new opponent is with the redone draw (Djokovic, Tsonga).

2010 Wimbledon- He lost to Nadal in the semis. It is possible he wins without Nadal, but there are many potential obstacles with the redone draw- Djokovic, Federer, Berdych, depending who he winds up playing. The semi final was a decent match but straight sets. Hard to say what happens with Nadal not here.

2011 French/2011 Wimbledon/2011 U.S Open- He lost to Nadal in the semis of all 3 of these. I group these together as it is fairly obvious he likely loses to Djokovic in all 3 of these, and quite possibly/probably Federer at the French and U.S Opens too.

2012 Australian Open- He lost to Djokovic in the semis in a 5 setter. He has a chance without Djokovic, but I don't see how he likely wins, when he would probably play Nadal who beat him in the last 3 slams. And there is also Federer possibly.

I could keep going but I think you get the picture.
 

Kralingen

Legend
Win% after reaching Qfs and beyond in Slams @Devtennis01

Laver - 89%
Borg - 81%
Sampras - 78%
Nadal - 77%
Djokovic - 74%
Federer - 72%
Wilander - 71%
Lendl - 68%
Becker - 67%
Mcenroe - 66%
Courier - 65%
Edberg - 65%
Safin - 65%
Agassi - 64%
Connors - 62%


OMG, I cannot find Murray !!
Where is he ???
He played in the homogenous era and yet I cannot find him in the 60+ bracket ? :-D :-D :-D

Wait... I found him ... he is sitting in the late 40s- mid 50% league along with some buffons who are in his league as I've been saying all along! :-D:-D:-D:-D

Murray - 56%
Hewitt - 52%
Wawrinka - 52%
Kafelnikov - 50%
Ivanisevic - 48%
Roddick - 47%
Punishing him for his consistency?

Guys like Wilander, Courier and Safin made half the Slam SFs he did.
 

Rosstour

Legend
Punishing him for his consistency?

Guys like Wilander, Courier and Safin made half the Slam SFs he did.
Yup

If Sampras can lose in the 3rd/4th round of slams so many times in his era, then do you think Murray would be regularly reaching semis in previous eras ?

Jeez, he would be a 1-2 slam winner in other eras, he has already been too lucky to always reach semis in the homogenous era and lose to big 3 to be eulogized and get a lot of benefit of a doubt that should never exist.

Murray is not even in Courier's league
How old was Courier when he won his last Slam?

Also, I think we overrate Sampras around here.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Punishing him for his consistency?

Guys like Boom Boom, Edberg, Wilander, and Courier and Safin made half the Slam SFs he did.
Will you bet against Safin to drop his percentage if he reached more Qfs/Semis?
Will you bet against Wilander to surrender after reaching more Qfs/Semis?

Look at the 1990s and see how many times Sampras lost in the 3rd rounds and 4th rounds, do you think Murray wouldn't if he played then? Are you dreaming of him reaching semis consistently???? Dude, this Murray guy was a huge beneficiary of the homogenous era, his numbers would look a lot worse in other eras, I guess homogenization reached its apex in 04 or 05 ??? Since then same guys started to reach the last stages, Murray's whole career lies in this bracket, and yet you feel he is penalized ????
 

Sunny014

Legend
Yup



How old was Courier when he won his last Slam?

Also, I think we overrate Sampras around here.
I donno... maybe 23 ?
Murray has won his 1st at 25 and last slam at 29 but that was due to this era where players have extended longevity, very less injuries, fitness is also quite streamlined ......we can only compare champions based on how they responded to challenges in their eras, not by this age criteria
Peaks of players ended by 24-25 in prev eras because every set of 5 years some great athletes arrived....
 

NonP

Hall of Fame
I think Pete deserves his Tier 1 status. If he knew he had to hit 20, hypothetical more motivated Pete wouldn’t have slacked off in the tail end of his career.
Pete is the best of his era. The clear top player of any era is special. No one in the 1990s could have or should have won 20 majors.
Not just Pete, but I bet just about every old GOAT wins 20-ish majors in lieu of 1 of the Big 3. The conditions are simply ideal for extended dominance: tour standardization, lack of specialists, 32 seeds, increased longevity (this is where I can buy the talking point about medical advancements), ample $$$ and of course the other two GOATs to fend off aka extra motivation.

Have read your post back then. Agree that peak for peak the two best indoor players of all time. Was surprised you have Boris ahead of Pete since Boris himself said he couldn’t play better than in the 96 final (you did include the caveat though that for the big match you would still choose Pete). Would you say YEC was Pete’s best indoor performance? 99 final was also a joy to watch (even more impressive attacking tennis than in the 99 Wimbledon final), even though Agassi played poorly as well.
Hard to say. On an absolute level '97 and '99 probably tops '96. ('94 could've been up there but tough breaks are unavoidable in sports.) Now was '96 his greatest indoor performance? Yup.

And yeah I do give Boris the edge for his BH. People dunno/forget the guy used to be annoyed that journos were overlooking his (probably superior, relatively speaking) FH. At their best Becker's BH topspin and return were better than Fed's and I'd say Lendl's too, though Fed's slice and Ivan's greater reliability do complicate the overall equation.

That said... Pete was of course the superior mover by some distance, so this GOAT indoor matchup really depends on who's feeling it more. If Boris limits Pistol's % of serves unreturned to 35% or less he probably wins (Pete's unusually paltry 31.3% in the '96 YEC final notwithstanding), and vice versa. Barring a stinker from either we're almost certainly looking at a minimum of 4 super-tight sets.

I agree. Winning 3 slams per year was not possible for the 90s.
But I feel Pete should have had some more 2 slam years and maybe should have had one 3 slam year.

1994 USO
1996 AO
1997 USO
1998 AO
1998 USO

2-3 slams of these had he picked it would have looked better for his peak level dominance I feel
FYI Pete had missed all of the summer HC season and was dealing with blisters in that Yzaga match at the '94 USO. Like I said you can blame Nike for that missed chance at a 3-Slam season!

Ditto '96 AO. Pete had to withdraw from his QF vs. Goran at the '95 GSC due to inflamed muscles in his right leg. His '95 DC heroics had taken a toll and he should've rested for the next month or so, but the $5 million was too enticing to pass up and he paid the price. Not to mention Scud probably put in the performance of his life in his big W Down Under.

At the '97 USO Korda got him good, and though my opposition to fancy stats hasn't changed Rafter's dominance ratio at the '98 USO confirms my infallible observation that the SF likely remains 50-50 even without Pete straining his quads.

The '90s might not have been top heavy but this era was loaded with these dangerous floaters. Youngsters and old farts that dismiss this decade for its lack of marquee names have no clue what they're talking about.
 

Kralingen

Legend
Will you bet against Safin to drop his percentage if he reached more Qfs/Semis?
Will you bet against Wilander to surrender after reaching more Qfs/Semis?

Look at the 1990s and see how many times Sampras lost in the 3rd rounds and 4th rounds, do you think Murray wouldn't if he played then? Are you dreaming of him reaching semis consistently???? Dude, this Murray guy was a huge beneficiary of the homogenous era, his numbers would look a lot worse in other eras, I guess homogenization reached its apex in 04 or 05 ??? Since then same guys started to reach the last stages, Murray's whole career lies in this bracket, and yet you feel he is penalized ????
Well they lost before they could get to the QF/SFs lol. Why would I give them extra credit for losing to mugs in the 3rd round? Seriously how does that logic make any sense?

Also..

were the surfaces super homogenized when Agassi won Wimbledon and Courier made Wimbledon finals the very next year? What about when Krajicek, Stich, Pete, and Becker were making French Open SFs? Or when 8+ players made Slam SFs on 3 surfaces in the 90s?

I blame the 16 seed system and deeper field back then WAAAAY more than surface homogenization whatever that is supposed to mean.
 

Sunny014

Legend
@Kralingen

I have not penalized Murray for reaching Semis

Check my post again, it is Quarterfinals only!

If I take semis as filter then Murray will drop to 40% while everyone else is 50-60% or more

That would be penalizing, but I kept it at Qf so that it looks balanced.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Well they lost before they could get to the QF/SFs lol. Why would I give them extra credit for losing to mugs in the 3rd round? Seriously how does that logic make any sense?

Also..

were the surfaces super homogenized when Agassi won Wimbledon and Courier made Wimbledon finals the very next year? What about when Krajicek, Stich, Pete, and Becker were making French Open SFs? Or when 8+ players made Slam SFs on 3 surfaces in the 90s?

I blame the 16 seed system and deeper field back then WAAAAY more than surface homogenization whatever that is supposed to mean.
How about win% when players reached Qf and beyond in slams and in this win% lets include round1 till 4th round matches wins as well to boost up their percentages..... Murray should benefit from this, right?

Sadly he still doesn't.

He is lower than all the ATGs and Murray, Stan and Hewitt have 85% each, Roddick is also at 83.64% which is not too far behind..... the numbers are similar for Murray in that league, so there is no excuse for any failures in beating big 3.... his peak level has not been any better than those other dudes with 1-3 slams and some semis/finals here and there.... murray has more semis and finals, true, but result is same because of his own drawbacks.
 

Rosstour

Legend
Many posters on this forum (Like that Mainad Murray fanatic above) have assumed that Big 3 are some Super Saiyan Gods who are ahead of any ATG who ever played by a massive margin, so whoever is regularly a beta male to the Big 3 (Murray, Stan, Roddick and Hewitt) can be rated as better than some alphas in previous eras or at least on par.

Thats why Murray is being considered on par with Agassi or Becker or Edberg by those posters.

These guys need to be educated that Murray is nothing more than Hewitt/Roddick/Stan peakwise and a beta in 1 era is a beta in any era, so this whole flawed logic arises from the fact that Big 3 have been overrated to extreme levels.......
Murray became #1 in the world when Djok and Nadal were 29/30.
 

NonP

Hall of Fame
Man y'all are just getting savage with Murray. I don't usually dive into this convo cuz I feel he unjustly gets the punching-bag treatment while defending him brings its own booby traps, but I'll add that he's roughly equal to Courier in my book where they sit at the top of non-6+ Slammers (OE) along with Nastase. Ilie's game may be flashier and Jim's peak higher, but as Rosewall and Evert (plus moi) will tell you consistency has its own rewards and that's where he's got every one of his peers beat.

One more digression on the depth of the '90s. Since most of you probably skipped my earlier dissertation on the historic nature of Mac's '84 season here again are some of the most statistically dominant seasons in men's tennis history (hat tip to @pc1 for the details), in terms of GW%:

1937 Budge - 64.14% (982/1531)
1938 Budge - 62.70% (780/1244)
1978 Borg - 65.54% (from UTS so excludes TBs)
1980 Borg - 65.50% (ditto)
1984 McEnroe - 65.32% (1279/1958)
1995 Agassi - 61.51% (1192/1938)
2004 Federer - 61.88% (1245/2012)
2006 Federer - 61.72% (1556/2521)
2015 Djokovic - 62.68% (1369/2184)

As you can see Dre sticks out like a sore thumb even though his % is comparable to Fed's or Novak's. Now the easy explanation is that these #s are misleading cuz he's not on par with the Big 3, but you can see how circular this rationale is. Sure, Dre won a measly 8 majors in his career so he can't begin to compare to the 20-timers... even though the seasonal GW%s suggest otherwise... but we can dismiss them because... he just wasn't good enough!

So let's take a closer look. Right off the bat we can say his '95 AO was fully legit. How come? 'Cause only his '03 self won a higher GW% Down Under in the entire OE (champs only)... and that was vs. not-so-world-beating Schuttler in the final... as opposed to Pete friggin' Sampras in '95... and Kafelnikov (QF) was no pushover that year, either!

That's only the 1st major of the year. Now comes the weakest link, which shows Dre losing to Yevgeny this time at RG. No doubt a "bad" loss by GOAT standards... except that '95 was Muster's very best season where he won 62.0% of his games and finished with a strong 64.5% at RG. Compare those %s with '06 Rafa's 62.4% and 60.9% respectively, both of which are his lowest %s in a championship season since '05 (though 62.9% and 60.9% in '13 come close). Would you still pick '04/'06 Fed or '15 Novak as a sure bet against that Muster having the run of his life, when Fed couldn't even take a set off Guga and was battling Nalby hard before the Argie's retirement, or given how tentative Djoker was in the '15 final? I wouldn't.

Moving on to Wimbledon. FYI we really don't need to think twice about Dre's form here, cuz his 35% and 62% in 1st- and 2nd-serve points won for the tourney vs. the likes of Wheaton and Becker, and the eye test of anyone who saw him return seemingly every other serve for a winner during the fortnight, almost certainly constitute the best RoS performance by anyone at SW19 since '91. And it took an inspired Becker to survive that SF as he was getting seriously outmatched early thx to Dre's red-hot return. Oh yeah, and you've got Pistol waiting in the final where he committed zero UFEs apart from his 7 DFs. Even if you insist on swapping Fed or Novak with Pete (which TBF would be a fairer hypothetical) you still have to deal with Goran in the SF who was literally unbreakable in the 2nd and 4th sets. Simply put this wouldn't be a walk in the park for Novak or even Fed.

And of course there's the famous USO showdown. Yes, Dre could and should have played better, but no, he ain't beating that Pistol no matter what. If there was one preordained outcome in tennis this was it. And if you again make the swap with Pete instead you still have Courier and Dre in the last two rounds. Quite doable for peak Fed/Novak, yes, but not easy.

The indoor season is moot due to Dre's season-ending chest injury (and mental fallout from the loss to Pete), but considering his hot streak it's quite possible he improves on his GW% with better luck even on indoor carpet. And regardless of Dre's performance Fed or Novak would be facing Becker in his imperious form at the YEC. If you think that match would be another gimme you badly need a crash course in Indoor Tennis 101.

That's the level and variety of competition you're looking at in '95. FWIW I actually think peak Fed or Novak still has a good chance of going 3/4 that year, if more so for Fed (I'm thinking Nole may not survive that SF vs. Goran, given how much he struggled against Anderson in the 4th round in '15). But I can also say this: substitute '95 Dre for '04/'06 Fed or '15 Novak and he wins at least 2 majors, if not 3 (Stanimal would likely be too much for him at RG). In other words, '95 > '04, '06 or '15. And yes, I'm right and you're wrong.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Murray became #1 in the world when Djok and Nadal were 29/30.
Murray became 1 when Novak was burned out and injured, Nadal & Fed were out with injuries..... the whole field collapsed and Murray was there to just be a caretaker 1.

When Federer and Nadal returned in 2017 with new drive and power after seeing Novak go down, Murray was done and dusted then.
 
8 Tennis Tiers as on today (GOAT in BOLD)

Tier 1 : FEDERER, Djokovic, Peter Sampras & Nadal
Tier 2 : Borg, Mcenroe, Lendl, Connors & Agassi
Tier 3 : Becker, Wilander, Edberg
Tier 4 : Safin, Courier, Kuerten, Murray, Hewitt, Roddick, Stanimal, Ivanisevic, Bruguera etc etc
Tier 5 : Gaudio, Thiem, Medvedev, Muster etc etc
Tier 6 : Nalbandian, Raonic, Nishikori, Tsonga, Zverev, Sissypas etc etc
Tier 7 : Top 50 players who are journeymen

Tier 8 : Those ranked outside the top 100
Murray stays in Tier 4, but Agassi should be moved to Tier 1 as he's a "career grand slam" winner.
 

Rosstour

Legend
Murray became 1 when Novak was burned out and injured, Nadal & Fed were out with injuries..... the whole field collapsed and Murray was there to just be a caretaker 1.

When Federer and Nadal returned in 2017 with new drive and power after seeing Novak go down, Murray was done and dusted then.
He also beat Novak in two Slam finals in 12/13. Was Novak burned out and injured then too?
 

RaulRamirez

Legend
If you subscribe to the theory that majors (slams) are what counts - and that everything else is a tiebreaker - than no, three majors is not enough.
If (as me) you consider majors the most significant single category to compare/rank players. but other categories to also be heavily considered, then there is a case for Murray to be in a larger grouping with Edberg, Wilander and Becker. I'm okay either way on this, actually, but leaning toward inclusion.
...
Now, I am not saying that Andy would have won ___ amount of majors in any other era; I'm not a fan of hypotheticals. But 11 slam finals, 14 M1000s, 17 "Big Titles" (yes, I know they're not all equivalent), 46 overall titles, 41 weeks at #1 is a terrific resume.
If you grouped Becker, Wilander, Edberg and Murray, here is how they would line up from most to least:

Slams: Wilander 7; Becker and Edberg 6 ; Murray 3
Slam Finals: Murray, Wilander and Edberg 11; Becker 10,

Ranks among the 4:
M1000s: Murray, Becker, Wilander, Edberg
Weeks at #1: Edberg, Murray, Wilander, Becker
"Big Titles": Becker, Murray, Wilander, Edberg
Overall Titles: Becker, Murray, Edberg, Wilander
Win %: Becker, Murray, Edberg, Wilander
 

CHillTennis

Semi-Pro
8 Tennis Tiers as on today (GOAT in BOLD)

Tier 1 : FEDERER, Djokovic, Peter Sampras & Nadal
Tier 2 : Borg, Mcenroe, Lendl, Connors & Agassi
Tier 3 : Becker, Wilander, Edberg
Tier 4 : Safin, Courier, Kuerten, Murray, Hewitt, Roddick, Stanimal, Ivanisevic, Bruguera etc etc
Tier 5 : Gaudio, Thiem, Medvedev, Muster etc etc
Tier 6 : Nalbandian, Raonic, Nishikori, Tsonga, Zverev, Sissypas etc etc
Tier 7 : Top 50 players who are journeymen

Tier 8 : Those ranked outside the top 100
What about Laver and Rosewall?
 
Top