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

SamprasisGOAT

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
I like this idea
Here is mine in order

Tier 1
1.Federer 2.Djokovic

Tier 2
1.Sampras 2.Nadal 3.Borg 4.Lendl

Tier 3
1.Agassi 2.Connors 3.McEnroe

Tier 4
1.Wilander 2.Becker 3.Edberg

Tier 5
1.Vilas 2.Couier 3.Murray 4.Wawrinka

Tier 6
Any other Slam Winners

Tier 7
Greatest non Slam Winners like Ferrer Corretja Henman

Tier 8
Anyone else
 

Third Serve

G.O.A.T.
I like this idea
Here is mine in order

Tier 1
1.Federer 2.Djokovic

Tier 2
1.Sampras 2.Nadal 3.Borg 4.Lendl

Tier 3
1.Agassi 2.Connors 3.McEnroe

Tier 4
1.Wilander 2.Becker 3.Edberg

Tier 5
1.Vilas 2.Couier 3.Murray 4.Wawrinka

Tier 6
Any other Slam Winners

Tier 7
Greatest non Slam Winners like Ferrer Corretja Henman

Tier 8
Anyone else
Nadal's a tier 1 player and it's kind of silly to argue otherwise at this point in time. I would also bump Lendl down to tier 3 or raise Connors to tier 2.
 

SamprasisGOAT

Professional
Nadal's a tier 1 player and it's kind of silly to argue otherwise at this point in time. I would also bump Lendl down to tier 3 or raise Connors to tier 2.
Okay thanks for your input. I don’t agree Nadal is a slow court vulture who’s dipped his bread with the racket string technologies that have been more to his advantage than any other player in history. Fair play to him but Wimbledon 08 and 10 were the 2 slowest years in the tournament’s history
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
I like this idea
Here is mine in order

Tier 1
1.Federer 2.Djokovic

Tier 2
1.Sampras 2.Nadal 3.Borg 4.Lendl

Tier 3
1.Agassi 2.Connors 3.McEnroe

Tier 4
1.Wilander 2.Becker 3.Edberg

Tier 5
1.Vilas 2.Couier 3.Murray 4.Wawrinka

Tier 6
Any other Slam Winners

Tier 7
Greatest non Slam Winners like Ferrer Corretja Henman

Tier 8
Anyone else
Sorry, but Henman should be nowhere near a list of past greats; even a Tier 7! I'd feel better if you meant Justine Henin! A couple good outings w/o a final isn't enough! :-D
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
Nadal's a tier 1 player and it's kind of silly to argue otherwise at this point in time. I would also bump Lendl down to tier 3 or raise Connors to tier 2.
Lendl was unfortunate to start play at end of Borg era, then have to deal with the next wave; Connors, McEnroe, Edberg, Becker, Cash, & Wilander! Then Agassi, Chang, Courier, & Sampras! He never had it easy! Lendl was the consummate professional and like Djokovic got very little love from the Tennis Intelligentsia! :whistle::giggle::sneaky:
 

Rosstour

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
So Murray spent more time at #1 than Becker, during the most stiflingly competitive era in men's tennis, and this is still an argument?
 

Rosstour

Legend
Nadal's a tier 1 player and it's kind of silly to argue otherwise at this point in time. I would also bump Lendl down to tier 3 or raise Connors to tier 2.
I think it actually does a disservice to Djok and Fed's consistency to put Rafa on their level.

Yes, major count is the same (for now, obviously Djok and Nadal will win many more), but after that Nadal's case breaks down quickly, especially weeks at #1 and YECs.
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
So Murray spent more time at #1 than Becker, during the most stiflingly competitive era in men's tennis, and this is still an argument?
Back in those days a Major tournament could have a dozen GS event winners! Today with Fedal fading, there's only a handful of players outside Djokovic! There wasn't a lock on #1 like it's been with Fedalovicray! :giggle:
 

Rosstour

Legend
Back in those days a Major tournament could have a dozen GS event winners! Today with Fedal fading, there's only a handful of players outside Djokovic! There wasn't a lock on #1 like it's been with Fedalovicray! :giggle:
Yeah except Murray's run at #1 was already five years ago now. And things were a lot different then.

Winning in an era with extreme parity is less impressive than winning in an era of oppressing dominance by three ATGs.

Apologies if you were supporting my point somehow and I missed it.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Back in those days a Major tournament could have a dozen GS event winners! Today with Fedal fading, there's only a handful of players outside Djokovic! There wasn't a lock on #1 like it's been with Fedalovicray! :giggle:
Nice though that you acknowledge there was once such a thing! :cool:
 

jondice

Rookie
I like this idea
Here is mine in order

Tier 1
1.Federer 2.Djokovic

Tier 2
1.Sampras 2.Nadal 3.Borg 4.Lendl

Tier 3
1.Agassi 2.Connors 3.McEnroe

Tier 4
1.Wilander 2.Becker 3.Edberg

Tier 5
1.Vilas 2.Couier 3.Murray 4.Wawrinka

Tier 6
Any other Slam Winners

Tier 7
Greatest non Slam Winners like Ferrer Corretja Henman

Tier 8
Anyone else
The second you put Nadal not only on Tier 2, but number 2 on Tier 2? This means you either know nothing about tennis (and I know that's not true) or you simply hate Nadal. Which means you're putting your feelings before clear logic. Sadly, that renders all of your other analysis moot. At least to me.
 

Sudacafan

Bionic Poster
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
No way Gaudio in a higher tier than Nalbandian.
 

Sunny014

Legend
No way Gaudio in a higher tier than Nalbandian.
@Sudacafan Problem is Gaudio has won a slam while Nalbandian hasn't, in history Gaudio will be remembered as a former french open champ while nalbandian as a former wimbledon finalist only, so not sure how prestigious or high is that, maybe they should be in the same tier....? but would have change for some others as well

Logically even Agassi should not be on par with Mcenroe in the same tier, hell he is even below Lendl as Lendl dominated a phase of Tennis while Agassi dominated nothing except endorsements list.... So he too might have to be demoted if we properly judge
 

RS

G.O.A.T.
I think Murray needed a better fight in a couple of his slam final losses plus one extra slam to be in that tier.
 
Last edited:

Sunny014

Legend
So Murray spent more time at #1 than Becker, during the most stiflingly competitive era in men's tennis, and this is still an argument?
If Murray being 1 more than Becker is so important then let me remind you that there is a certain gentleman who won 2 year end titles and was ranked 1 for 80+ weeks and is still the youngest rank1 ever, why shouldn't he be ahead of Murray ??
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
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
Not one of Sir Andy's losing slam finals went to 5. So that suggests that in spite of turning up equally as often as that group of players, he was not as good as them when it came to WINNING slams.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
So Murray spent more time at #1 than Becker, during the most stiflingly competitive era in men's tennis, and this is still an argument?
Murray only got to no. 1 with Fedal missing the second half of the season and Novak sinking into a slump. So it wasn't all that stiflingly competitive when he did make it.
 

Sunny014

Legend
How is this ? @NonP

Slams+YEC(both official+unofficial)

Tier 1
01. Federer (20+6+0) = 26
02. Djokovic (20+5+0) = 25
03. Sampras (14+5+2) = 21
04. Nadal (20+0+0) = 20
Tier 2
05. McEnroe (7+3+5) = 15
06. Lendl (8+5+2) = 15
07. Borg (11+2+1) = 14
08. Connors (8+1+2) = 11
Tier3
09. Becker (6+3+2) = 11
10. Agassi (8+1+0) = 09
11. Edberg (6+1+0) = 07

12. Wilander (7+0) = 07
Tier 4

Vilas : 4+1 = 5
Courier : 4+0 = 4

Murray : 3+1 = 4
Hewitt : 2 + 2 = 4
 

Sunny014

Legend
Or this is even better

Slams + YEC(Offical+Unofficial) + years ended as 1

Tier 1 (21 to 30+)

01. Federer (20+6+0+5) = 31
02. Djokovic (20+5+0+6) = 31
03. Sampras (14+5+2+6) = 27
04. Nadal (20+0+0+5) = 25

Tier 2 (16-20)
05. McEnroe (7+3+5+4) = 19
06. Lendl (8+5+2+4) = 19
07. Borg (11+2+1+2) = 16
08. Connors (8+1+2+5) = 16

Tier 3 (8 to 15)
09. Becker (6+3+2+0) = 11
10. Agassi (8+1+0+1) = 10
11. Edberg (6+1+0+2) = 09
12. Wilander (7+0+0+1) = 08

Tier 4 (4 to 7)
Hewitt : 2 + 2 +2= 6
Vilas : 4+1+0 = 5
Courier : 4+0+1 = 5
Murray : 3+1+1 = 5
Kuerten : 3+1+1 = 5

@Sudacafan
 
Last edited:

Sudacafan

Bionic Poster
@Sudacafan Problem is Gaudio has won a slam while Nalbandian hasn't, in history Gaudio will be remembered as a former french open champ while nalbandian as a former wimbledon finalist only, so not sure how prestigious or high is that, maybe they should be in the same tier....? but would have change for some others as well

Logically even Agassi should not be on par with Mcenroe in the same tier, hell he is even below Lendl as Lendl dominated a phase of Tennis while Agassi dominated nothing except endorsements list.... So he too might have to be demoted if we properly judge
Disagree. If so, where’s Thomas Johansson?
 

goldengate14

Professional
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.
Never won Wimbledon. Sorry but in tje 80s wimbledon dwarfed any other event. Even Lendl is not remembered as much as she should be given his numbers.
no, wilander is overrated.
 

Wurm

Semi-Pro
I can imagine Murray being 5-0 in sets at Wimbledon against a six times champion.

I can imagine Becker going 2-9 in sets against Sampras at Wimbledon.

I can also imagine Becker losing a Wimbledon final in straight sets to the one slam wonder he let have the title.
 

Sunny014

Legend
I can imagine Murray being 5-0 in sets at Wimbledon against a six times champion.

I can imagine Becker going 2-9 in sets against Sampras at Wimbledon.

I can also imagine Becker losing a Wimbledon final in straight sets to the one slam wonder he let have the title.
What you need to understand is that Becker had an X Factor which Murray lacked.
Thats why Becker quickly won some slams as a teenager while Murray had to toil hard like a mule until age 25 to win his first major.

Boris is a real man, not a weakling.

Did you see how he converted Novak into a GOAT candidate ??? Novak was an ATG but he wasn't a GOAT candidate, after his initial big year (2011) he was all lost and going down, Boris arrived and did what he had to do.

Now that is what a real champion is..... even as a coach he shows his greatness ....
 

BlueB

Legend
Or this is even better

Slams + YEC(Offical+Unofficial) + years ended as 1

Tier 1 (21 to 30+)

01. Federer (20+6+0+5) = 31
02. Djokovic (20+5+0+6) = 31
03. Sampras (14+5+2+6) = 27
04. Nadal (20+0+0+5) = 25

Tier 2 (16-20)
05. McEnroe (7+3+5+4) = 19
06. Lendl (8+5+2+4) = 19
07. Borg (11+2+1+2) = 16
08. Connors (8+1+2+5) = 16

Tier 3 (8 to 15)
09. Becker (6+3+2+0) = 11
10. Agassi (8+1+0+1) = 10
11. Edberg (6+1+0+2) = 09
12. Wilander (7+0+0+1) = 08

Tier 4 (4 to 7)
Hewitt : 2 + 2 +2= 6
Vilas : 4+1+0 = 5
Courier : 4+0+1 = 5
Murray : 3+1+1 = 5
Kuerten : 3+1+1 = 5

@Sudacafan
YE1 should probably not be included. It only shows that a players dominance has peaked at a right time, even if for a short while. Weeks at No1 are much better indication of the dominance.
Problem with both weeks and YE is how to weigh them, in relation to slams.

As for YEC, they should be weighed at 4 YEC = 3 Slams, just as ATP does.
 

Sunny014

Legend
On Clay neither Roddick nor Murray are great ....

On Grass Roddick, Murray and Goran Ivanisevic are equally great, Murray has 2 slams, Roddick has 0, Goran has 1, these numbers should not deceive us, they are all same.

At USO Roddick is ahead
At AO Murray is ahead
 

Harry_Wild

G.O.A.T.
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
Where is Michael Chang, Ille Nastase, Stan Smith, Rod Laver, Ken Rosewall, Arthur Ashe in your tier?
 

Sunny014

Legend
Where is Michael Chang, Ille Nastase, Stan Smith, Rod Laver, Ken Rosewall, Arthur Ashe in your tier?
`No idea where to place Laver, Nastase, Smith, Rosewall etc etc, they r too ancient.... Better to exclude them from rating.

Chang is placed now in tier 5, please check


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, Kafelnikov etc etc
Tier 5 : Thiem, Medvedev, Muster, Chang etc etc
Tier 6 : Gaudio, Nalbandian, Raonic, Nishikori, Tsonga, Zverev, Sissypas etc etc
Tier 7 : Top 50 players who are journeymen
Tier 8 : Those ranked outside the top 100
 

BlueB

Legend
Roddick has also made many finals and semis, he is also in this same league, maybe a little low placed in that league but his league is that.
He was good, but we can not award him imaginary achievements. If we started adding runner-up trophies, Lendl would suddenly jump into Sampras' tier...
 

Sunny014

Legend
He was good, but we can not award him imaginary achievements. If we started adding runner-up trophies, Lendl would suddenly jump into Sampras' tier...
But by that logic Hewitt would be a better player on grass than Roddick because Hewitt has won wimbledon while Roddick has not
Thomas Johansson will look better than Murray at the Aus open and on par with Nadal as well.
Gaudio would look equal to Muster and Federer.

We have to give some considerations to IFs and BUTs

I am not denying that Murray is ahead of Roddick in Tennis as a player, but they are in the same tier of guys with 1-3 slams and some semis/finals here and there.....Both are former YE1s ... even at queens their records are identical ....If Murray was born in 81 then he would be on 0 wimbledons, Roger isn't letting him win even 1, so are we supposed to lower Roddick's tier ??? Roddick has won like 32 titles, Murray 46, which this number might 50% more than Roddick's tally one could argue that had Roddick been born 5-6 years later then his career would have been longer and he would have been on 40+ titles too like Murray ...

At the USO and Grass Roddick definetly is level or ahead of Murray, at the AO Murray's best achievement is stretching Novak to 5 sets and Roddick's is stretching Safin to 5 sets, I would rate Murray higher at the AO and on clay it doesn't matter, send them both to the 90s and Roddick with his serve would be a greater force .... overall they r in the same tier... neither of them are ATGs but both of them are greats of the game and former rank 1s
 

BlueB

Legend
But by that logic Hewitt would be a better player on grass than Roddick because Hewitt has won wimbledon while Roddick has not
Thomas Johansson will look better than Murray at the Aus open and on par with Nadal as well.
Gaudio would look equal to Muster and Federer.

We have to give some considerations to IFs and BUTs

I am not denying that Murray is ahead of Roddick in Tennis as a player, but they are in the same tier of guys with 1-3 slams and some semis/finals here and there.....Both are former YE1s ... even at queens their records are identical ....If Murray was born in 81 then he would be on 0 wimbledons, Roger isn't letting him win even 1, so are we supposed to lower Roddick's tier ??? Roddick has won like 32 titles, Murray 46, which this number might 50% more than Roddick's tally one could argue that had Roddick been born 5-6 years later then his career would have been longer and he would have been on 40+ titles too like Murray ...

At the USO and Grass Roddick definetly is level or ahead of Murray, at the AO Murray's best achievement is stretching Novak to 5 sets and Roddick's is stretching Safin to 5 sets, I would rate Murray higher at the AO and on clay it doesn't matter, send them both to the 90s and Roddick with his serve would be a greater force .... overall they r in the same tier... neither of them are ATGs but both of them are greats of the game and former rank 1s
We are not comparing one surface, but overall achievements.
No ifs and buts. Ask Nadal or Safin.
 

zvelf

Hall of Fame
Murray is nowhere near Becker, Edberg and Wilander. Murray isn't even an ATG, he was just a decent player in a very weak era and managed to snatch a couple of slams when like the 2/3 other good players were injured.
"Very weak era"? That's ridiculous. To give you an idea of how difficult Murray's competition has been, roughly 1 out of every 10 matches Murray has played in his entire career has been against Federer, Djokovic, or Nadal. He's played the Big 3 a combined 85 times. For comparison, Sampras played Edberg, Becker, Agassi, and Courier a combined 87 times and all of them are below the Big 3.
 

zvelf

Hall of Fame
Based on achievements, these are your top 30 players whose entire careers have been within the Open Era:

1. Novak Djokovic
2. Roger Federer
3. Rafael Nadal
4. Pete Sampras
5. Ivan Lendl
6. Jimmy Connors
7. Bjorn Borg (based on only have 2/3 of a career)
8. John McEnroe
9. Andre Agassi
10. Boris Becker
11. Stefan Edberg
12. Mats Wilander
13. Guillermo Vilas
14. Andy Murray
15. Jim Courier
16. Ilie Nastase
17. Lleyton Hewitt
18. Gustavo Kuerten
19. Stan Wawrinka
20. Yevgeny Kafelnikov
21. Andy Roddick
22. Sergi Bruguera
23. Manuel Orantes
24. Patrick Rafter
25. Vitas Gerulaitis
26. Thomas Muster
27. Michael Chang
28. Marat Safin
29. Michael Stich
30. Dominic Thiem
 
Top