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

Sunny014

Legend
We are not comparing one surface, but overall achievements.
No ifs and buts. Ask Nadal or Safin.

No need to ask anyone when they have played in 09 at their best surface and Murray was close to his best, he was beaten by Roddick in a 1 sided match

Also peak Roddick of 2004 against whom the rain rescued Roger would also beat Murray

They are both same tier
 

Sunny014

Legend
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

Safin at 28 ?

At his peak he is in the GOAT Tier, who are these mediocre placed above him? lol
 

BlueB

Legend
No need to ask anyone when they have played in 09 at their best surface and Murray was close to his best, he was beaten by Roddick in a 1 sided match

Also peak Roddick of 2004 against whom the rain rescued Roger would also beat Murray

They are both same tier
You cannot grasp onto single matches, not even to h2h, just overall achievements. Rod was a talented also-ran, who probably underachieved, but it is what it is. He's nowhere near Sir Andy.
 

Sunny014

Legend
You cannot grasp onto single matches, not even to h2h, just overall achievements. Rod was a talented also-ran, who probably underachieved, but it is what it is. He's nowhere near Sir Andy.

He has beaten Sir Andy on Grass when he was 27 and Andy was like 22, that is enough to know who is better
 

Sunny014

Legend
Peak Roddick vs Peak Murray

AO and Clay - Murray wins as he is a better slow court player.
W - Roddick wins or else it is a 50-50 call
USO - Roddick 2003 beats Murray 2008/2012
 

Sunny014

Legend
You cannot be behind someone peak to peak in 2 out of 4 slams and then claim to be in a higher tier.

This applies for anyone....
 

Sunny014

Legend
I am accepting that Murray is a better player than Andy Roddick

But the difference is not tier difference!

There are in the same tier, Murray is very high placed on that tier, Roddick is perhaps quite low on that tier, but the tier is same.
 

BlueB

Legend
Who is Stakhowski ?
Stop bringing irrelevant clowns in the discussion, Fed was in backpain when he lost to Stakhowski
You know what, it's actually you who is clowning. You came up with a good list in the beginning, but now degrading entire thread to hypotheticals based of single matches. That's where Stakhor comes in play.
I think it's better that we drop this kind of discussion and stick to numbers...
 

BlueB

Legend
I am accepting that Murray is a better player than Andy Roddick

But the difference is not tier difference!

There are in the same tier, Murray is very high placed on that tier, Roddick is perhaps quite low on that tier, but the tier is same.
That's more reasonable.
It's probably to wide of a tier then, and should be split in 2.
 

Sunny014

Legend
That's more reasonable.
It's probably to wide of a tier then, and should be split in 2.

Problem is it cannot be split because Murray has not stood out enough from the pack to do that.
Even guys like Ivanisevic who made many finals and won once can beat Murray on Grass.
So when these guys are beating each other at the highest stages with same games how to place Murray ahead?

I am sure if Murray and Stan are sent to Fed's birth year then their slams would all become 0, Murray would be very lucky to win 1-2 slams at best, Stan will 100% be on 0, so they are in the same tier more or less.

It is like writing a book, on a page if Murray is mentioned at the top then on the same page at the mid/bottom Roddick will also be there as their levels r more or less same, Murray was more consistent of course hence a bit better.
 
Last edited:

BlueB

Legend
Problem is it cannot be split because Murray has not stood out enough from the pack to do that.
Even guys like Ivanisevic who made many finals and won once can beat Murray on Grass.
So when these guys are beating each other at the highest stages with same games how to place Murray ahead?

I am sure if Murray and Stan are sent to Fed's birth year then their slams would all become 0, Murray would be very lucky to win 1-2 slams at best, Stan will 100% be on 0, so they are in the same tier more or less.

It is like writing a book, on a page if Murray is mentioned at the top then on the same page at the mid/bottom Roddick will also be there as their levels r more or less same, Murray was more consistent of course hence a bit better.
You can easily split the multi slam winners from one slam wonders (where ARod and Goran lead the pack).
You still choose to play hypothetical, so at this point, I have to disengage.
 

Sunny014

Legend
You can easily split the multi slam winners from one slam wonders (where ARod and Goran lead the pack).
You still choose to play hypothetical, so at this point, I have to disengage.

Roddick is not a 1 slam wonder, he has made 6 finals in total and also apart from those finals he lost in semis 5 times, and 9 times lost in the Qfs, so we are talking about a guy who is regularly in the second week and only losing to federer types

FYI Murray has lost in slams 13 times to the eventual champion, Roddick has also lost 10 times, the numbers are pretty closer than it looks.

Plus Roddick is a former YE1 like Murray is.
 

Sunny014

Legend
In short @BlueB

Tier 1 : GOAT Tier
Tier 2 : Higher Tier ATGs are not GOATs but have beaten GOATs many times.
Tier 3 : Lower tier ATGs
Tier 4 : Great players who are not ATGs (this is where murray and roddick are in) but regularly in the second week losing to ATGs and GOATs
Tier 5 : 1 slam wonders who would not have won slams in other eras
Tier 6 : Guys who never won slams but were in second week of slams a few times
Tier 7 : Journeymen
Tier 8 : Outside top 100, players who are no longer a threat to anyone, impotent !
 
Last edited:

zvelf

Hall of Fame
Safin at 28 ?

At his peak he is in the GOAT Tier, who are these mediocre placed above him? lol

Your posts pretend like Safin was at his peak all the time when he actually played his best tennis for about 15% of his entire career. Again, as I stated in my post, my ranking is based on achievements. Safin doesn't have that many no matter how well he played once in a while. He only had 3 1/2 good years in his entire career.
 

zvelf

Hall of Fame
Why are Ivanisevic and Medvedev not ahead of Thiem?

Thiem and Ivanisevic's achievements are pretty similar except that Thiem won the YEC and Ivanisevic never did. For Medvedev, Thiem has also been in 1 more slam final than Medvedev and has won more tournaments overall.
 

James P

G.O.A.T.
Some say no. I think a strong case can be made. Still hard to see him inside the top 10 of all time, though.
 

BlueB

Legend
Thiem and Ivanisevic's achievements are pretty similar except that Thiem won the YEC and Ivanisevic never did. For Medvedev, Thiem has also been in 1 more slam final than Medvedev and has won more tournaments overall.
Thiem atually didn't win the YEC, he lost finals to Tsitsipas and Medvedev.
Ivanisevic won the Grand Slam Cup, which was a parallel event and more or less equivalent to Tour Finals.
Both Ivanisevic and Medvedev won way more Masters than Thiem (1). Thiem sort of specialized in small titles...
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
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.
You're assuming Murray would do great against other ATGs. No proof of that.

Might as well put Murray above Sampras and Borg if facing the Big 3 is the sole criteria.

Murray laid way too many eggs against the Big 3 to give him the benefit of the doubt.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
You cannot grasp onto single matches, not even to h2h, just overall achievements. Rod was a talented also-ran, who probably underachieved, but it is what it is. He's nowhere near Sir Andy.
They are comparable on grass in terms of level. Roddick's probably slightly higher.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Thiem and Ivanisevic's achievements are pretty similar except that Thiem won the YEC and Ivanisevic never did. For Medvedev, Thiem has also been in 1 more slam final than Medvedev and has won more tournaments overall.
Thiem never won the YEC.
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
6-2 7-5 6-2, 6-3 6-4 7-6, 6-4 7-6 6-4, 6-4 6-2 6-3, 6-4 7-5 6-4, 5-7 6-2 6-2 6-4, 6-4 6-2 3-6 6-2, 6-3 6-2 6-1, 7-6 6-7 6-3 6-0, 6-3 6-3 5-7 5-7 6-1, 7-5 7-5 6-4, 6-1 7-5 7-6, 3-6 6-1 6-2 6-4.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
That doesn't mean much.

Well, when you consider that none of the Big 3 had to face each other to win their maiden Slams whilst Murray had to face them constantly and still had to beat one for his maiden Slam, it shows that only the very best were able to beat peak Murray in a Slam final and then not always so.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Peak Murray the legendary plate collector has a losing H2H in best of 5 to Fedal's pigeon like Stan

Also he has lost in slams to Gonzales, Verdasco, Cilic, Berdych, Ferrer, Kevin Anderson, Nishikori, Mischa Zverev? haha, Sam Querrey etc etc

The whole field used to thrash Murray.
 

Wurm

Professional
Did you just compare Nadal at Wimbledon to Pete ****ing Sampras?

Oh, I was aware it might draw such a response. However, I compared 6 time winner Djokovic to 7 time winner Pete ****ing Sampras first for a good reason.

Wimbledon was ATG Becker's best slam by far but he didn't get close to beating Sampras there, lost in straight sets to Ivanisevic, Stich and Rafter (albeit aged 31) over the years, got knocked out in the 2nd round as defending champion in 1987 and won his third (one more title than Murray) and final title at the age of 21. He wasn't quite the impregnable force at Wimbledon I think someone's fantasising he was. Some of us actually watched Becker's career at Wimbledon unfold, you know.

At Murray's best slam, the AO*, he met Rafa twice, took him to 5 sets the first time round in 2007 and then was 2 sets up against him in 2010 before Rafa got injured (he was pelting it around absolutely fine at least for the one point he won in the second set tiebreak)... but somehow his record against the two time Wimbledon champion, 5 time finalist at Wimbledon is relevant because someone thinks Becker would've done better against him? It's risible.

There is one, and only one, argument against Murray being in the same tier as Edberg, Wilander and Becker and that's his record in slam finals. Given the focus most posters put on slam titles I expect hardly anyone to include Murray in that tier and I'm fine with that. However, as far as I'm concerned the whole "6 slams to be an ATG" is a questionable cut off point anyway as it eliminates Courier, Vilas and Pancho Gonzales (who was all about the Benjamins so didn't hang around on the amateur circuit very long).

Oh, and for the record, do I actually think Becker would've done better against Rafa in that window of Rafa's career, with poly string era technology? Maybe. Put Rafa in Becker's era? Definitely.

* It's just unfortunate that that's Novak's pet slam and the worst match-up conditions for Murray against Novak.
 
Last edited:

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Well, when you consider that none of the Big 3 had to face each other to win their maiden Slams whilst Murray had to face them constantly and still had to beat one for his maiden Slam, it shows that only the very best were able to beat peak Murray in a Slam final and then not always so.
I agree, I'm just saying that not all non-Big 3 are created equal.
 

martinezownsclay

Hall of Fame
There are many valid speculations what someone might have achieved or what level they might be at if born into another era. That is the thing though, there are many of those, and they are all unproveable. This particular one just being one of many examples of those. It might be a unique situation in that it was someone with the misfortune of being in the Big 3, but the same basic principle applies. Like someone like Sabatini may have won 5-6 slams if she didn't have the horrible luck to be in the Graf-Seles era, when both are nemisis and horrible opponents for her, or even ifs he peaked more after the Seles stabbing, and maybe towards the end of Graf's prime with injuries and more the interim period with people like Hingis on top. Or that may not be the case at all, there is no way to know if her career is that different in another time or not.

That is how I generally cede to results and achievements first in all cases. Only going into more subjective variables when the achievements are close enough. With that being said, no Murray IMO cannot be in the same tier as those. What he might have achieved or if he would be in that tier if born into another time, is interesting speculation, and a seperate topic altogether for me.
 
Thiem atually didn't win the YEC, he lost finals to Tsitsipas and Medvedev.
Ivanisevic won the Grand Slam Cup, which was a parallel event and more or less equivalent to Tour Finals.
Both Ivanisevic and Medvedev won way more Masters than Thiem (1). Thiem sort of specialized in small titles...
Also when we are comparing their respective slam wins we have Goran’s magical Wimbledon run beating Roddick, Henman, Rafter and Medvedev’s USO where he stopped Djoker from the CYGS whereas Thiem’s sole title only came with one of the biggest asterisks in recent time with all big three out and through one of the worst finals ever. So while technically all three are one time slam winners, the circumstances under which they won their slams should already set Goran and Med apart.
 
He has never lost to anyone who is not a Big 3 player in a Slam final.
Given that other than Wimbledon 2016 and USO 2014 there was at least one big three member in literally every slam final starting from FO2005 (so basically during Murray’s whole career) he also did not have many chances to lose slam finals against non-Big 3 members.
 
There is one, and only one, argument against Murray being in the same tier as Edberg, Wilander and Becker and that's his record in slam finals. Given the focus most posters put on slam titles I expect hardly anyone to include Murray in that tier and I'm fine with that.
By the same logic you can say his record in slam finals is the only argument against Lendl being in the same tier as Sampras or even the big three. He actually has one more final than Pete and assuming a similar conversion rate he could have 15 slams while at the same time beating Pete in many other achievements (more tournament wins, more masters, arguably better competition faced). Unfortunately this is not how it works. How you perform in slam finals i.e. under the biggest pressure is one of of not the most important ability for ATGs. In addition, as already said, Edberg also has considerably more weeks at No.1 than Murray and Becker is way ahead in success at YEC (also need to factor in the different value it had during his time).
 

Wurm

Professional
He isn’t though. What sets Sampras apart is his mental strength and his ability to deliver when it counts most.

That would be one conclusion you might draw.

Another conclusion might be that the likes of Cedric Pioline, Pat Rafter, Goran Ivanisevic, Todd Martin and Carlos Moya were easier for an ATG to beat than fellow ATGs Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Wilander and Becker.

Don't make the mistake of assuming what my actual opinion on this is.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Also when we are comparing their respective slam wins we have Goran’s magical Wimbledon run beating Roddick, Henman, Rafter and Medvedev’s USO where he stopped Djoker from the CYGS whereas Thiem’s sole title only came with one of the biggest asterisks in recent time with all big three out and through one of the worst finals ever. So while technically all three are one time slam winners, the circumstances under which they won their slams should already set Goran and Med apart.

tbf to Thiem in this comparision, he did beat Med in straights in USO 20 semi.
 
tbf to Thiem in this comparision, he did beat Med in straights in USO 20 semi.
True that but when comparing their actual slam wins beating Djokovic on the way to CYGS is more impressive than choking Zverev or even 2020 Med (even though Novak was below par in that final Med’s level was really good during the whole tournament).
 
Top