If Sharapova is an all time great, then is Murray as well?

deacsyoga

deacsyoga

Banned
While on the surface I do not think Murray is an ATG as I have a higher standard than I suspect a lot of the posters here do. However on a recent Sharapova fan 55% of the people here rate Sharapova and All Time Great. Well IMO IF Maria is an all time great (which IMO she is not) then Murray should be too. I consider his career atleast on par with hers. Comparision:

Slams- Maria 5 to Murray 3
Olympics/YEC- Murray has 2 Olympic Golds and a YEC title. Maria has a YEC title and 0 Olympic Golds
YE#1s- Murray has been a YE#1, Maria never, even with years it was wide open and she had no competition
Consistency- Murray way ahead
Longevity- Even, both are excellent
Dominance- Even, or Murray a bit ahead. Neither demonstrated dominance ever, but Murray has his YE#1 and another time he was the only man to hold 2 majors at once (after Wimbledon 2013).
Tier 1/Premier titles- Murray is way ahead here, and that is more important than total tournament wins since nobody cares about tiny titles.
Other achievements- Sharapova obviously has the famed Career Slam which is her other big edge on Murray besides the 2 extra slams.
Competition- Maria's has been a joke, she mostly vultured the times Serena, Henin, Clijsters, Davenport, Capriati, Mauresmo, Venus, Hingis were all faded/gone, apart from a very old Serena who still owns her. Murray's has been weaker for the last few years but mostly very strong facing the Djokovic/Nadal/Federer trio.

I think Murray is atleast close to Maria's career since outside the 2 fewer slams and the Career Slam he destroys her in every other way. It is similar to how Murray would be seen as roughly equal (achievements wise) to Wawrinka even if he reaches 5 slams and Murray stays at 3. So if she is an ATG (which again I dont believe she is but much of this forum believes) then he should be too.
 
Antonio Puente said:
Not sure about comparing WTA to ATP, but 5, including Career Slam compared to 3 with no RG or AO is a pretty big gap. Even if two players were tied at 5, I would give the nod to the player with a Career Slam over any other consideration, and Murray still needs two slams to arrive at that point.
Click to expand...

Yes but Murray is way ahead in other achievements. A YE#1 (which according to some is worth roughly 1 slam), 2 Olympic Golds vs 0 for Sharapova, a YEC for both, many more Premier/Tier 1 titles, much better consistency, tougher competition than Vulturepova.

To those gushing about Maria's Career Slam do keep in mind there is probably no other time besides he the last 5 years she probably wins any French Open, let alone 2. Imagine her ever winning a single French Open from 1988 to 2009, LOL! That she has 2 RG titles is a sign of the ultimate joke the womens field on clay is today, nothing more, as she is not a championship caliber clay courter at all. She even calls herself Cow on Ice, mocking her own ineptitude on clay, by FAR her weakest surface (yet she has more titles at RG than the other 3 slams somehow despite it being by her own admission, by far her worst surface).
 
Sharapova is borderline, if she is an all-time great. And it's relative to her position in the womens open era game. Sharapova is joint 11th in Open era Grand slam titles. That's nearly in the top 10. Career grand slam helps her case as well.

Murrary is not even close to the top 10 in Grand slam titles in the Open era mens game. Murrary isn't even in the top 20. He needs to increase his slam count. You don't get any shortcuts to all-time great status. Case closed.
 
User123 said:
Are you serious? Sharapova won the career grand slam, Murray isn't even close to that. Come on, even Wawrinka is closer to a career grand slam than Murray. (even though Wawrinka will probably never win it, grass is his worst surface)
Click to expand...

The only reason she has a Career Slam is Henin retiring and the worst clay field in history, otherwise she never wins a RG title (let alone 2 to reach her 5 slams).

There is a reason her nickname in the tennis world is commonly Vulturepova and most rank her even below Davenport and Clijsters, who like Murray only have 3 or 4 slams, and like Murray have no Career Slam, showing my Murray reference isnt that unreasonable (albeit he doesnt have 4 YE#1 like Davenport does).
 
Also, I think history is probably going to downgrade Sharapova a bit. Especially with the 10 year Meldomium binge. Who knows how much of an unfair advantadge she had in winning her titles.
 
octogon said:
Also, I think history is probably going to downgrade Sharapova a bit. Especially with the 10 year Meldomium binge. Who knows how much of an unfair advantadge she had in winning her titles.
Click to expand...

Yes that too. While Murray has all his achievements cleanly, Maria had a massive PED advantage for years, using all kinds of steroids and others PEDs to gain an edge as we have now learnt.
 
To be fair, both are overrated. Sharapova's record against Serena is even worse than Murray's record against Djokovic. But still I would rate her a lot above Murray.
 
octogon said:
Also, I think history is probably going to downgrade Sharapova a bit. Especially with the 10 year Meldomium binge. Who knows how much of an unfair advantadge she had in winning her titles.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? Meldonium was absolutely legal until 2016. She didn't get any "unfair" advantage, she didn't break any rules until early 2016 when she probably just didn't know it turned to be illegal.
 
:rolleyes:

_79397985_sharapova_murray.jpg
 
They're both borderline ATG's, on the cusp, imo.
If Maria comes back and wins a Slam after everything that's gone on and Murray wins another Slam too, then yeah, I'll call 'em both ATG's.
Adversity and bouncing back...
 
User123 said:
What are you talking about? Meldonium was absolutely legal until 2016. She didn't get any "unfair" advantage, she didn't break any rules until early 2016 when she probably just didn't know it turned to be illegal.
Click to expand...

Most succesful PED users take stuff that hasn't yet been made illegal or discovered by testers. It's a common saying that drug cheats are usually 10 years ahead of testers, just like Sharapova.

She was using a PED for a supposed heart ailment that she never disclosed. Just because she would have gotten away with it on a technicality for much of that time, doesn't mean history and the court of public opinion won't view the majority of her career as tainted.She hid her usage for a reason.
 
killerboi2 said:
Can't be an ATG with 5 slams and caught doping in my opinion. Maybe Sharapova was borderline ATG before the cheating was revealed.
Click to expand...

Yes IMO neither Sharapova or Murray are All Time Greats at all. IMO Becker/Brough/ Hart/ Edberg/Wilander is the bottom of all time greats, and you go up from there. All those are much better than Sharapova, Davenport, Clijsters, and Murray with either 6 or 7 majors as opposed to 3-5, more time at #1, more YEC and important titles, and just overall better stats and level all around. For some that bottom ATG barrier is Courier or Fry (I assume those who voted Sharapova is), in which case Sharapova, Clijsters, Davenport and Murray are at that bottom too and just make the ATGs themselves, but for me it isnt the Couriers or Frys, but the Hart's, Brough's, Edberg's, and Becker's.

I just wanted to make clear IF Sharapova is an ATG (which for me she definitely isnt) but 55% of this forum voted her as, then Murray would be too.
 
Career Slam remains an important thing so I'd say yes she is an all time great. I'd consider Andy one as well if he wins 1-2 more Slams since his consistency is something to be really admired.
 
Neither is ATG imo; but answering your question as a logical statement the answer is no because as I said in the other thread, Shap has achieved more than Murray.

As a side point the slam win for either player I was most impressed with was when Shap won RG beating Halep. It was an anomaly - a high quality female GS final.

Whearas Murray's wins have all been low quality matches.
 
The difference between 5 and 3 is too big. If Murray wins just 1 more Slam, then by weight of his two OSGs and other stats he'll be a borderline ATG, like Sharapova is with her 5 and Career Slam and other lesser titles.
 
They are both Hall of Famers. In terms of total career achievements at the highest level, Maria is a fair way ahead. Major count and career slam are unassailable career advantages for Maria.

There is a weird pendulum swing in Murray's favour once you go down a tier, though. Murray has had huge success at M1000, WTF and OG level, and Maria's Meldonium issue is a chink in the armour.
 
deacsyoga said:
While on the surface I do not think Murray is an ATG as I have a higher standard than I suspect a lot of the posters here do. However on a recent Sharapova fan 55% of the people here rate Sharapova and All Time Great. Well IMO IF Maria is an all time great (which IMO she is not) then Murray should be too. I consider his career atleast on par with hers. Comparision:

Slams- Maria 5 to Murray 3
Olympics/YEC- Murray has 2 Olympic Golds and a YEC title. Maria has a YEC title and 0 Olympic Golds
YE#1s- Murray has been a YE#1, Maria never, even with years it was wide open and she had no competition
Consistency- Murray way ahead
Longevity- Even, both are excellent
Dominance- Even, or Murray a bit ahead. Neither demonstrated dominance ever, but Murray has his YE#1 and another time he was the only man to hold 2 majors at once (after Wimbledon 2013).
Tier 1/Premier titles- Murray is way ahead here, and that is more important than total tournament wins since nobody cares about tiny titles.
Other achievements- Sharapova obviously has the famed Career Slam which is her other big edge on Murray besides the 2 extra slams.
Competition- Maria's has been a joke, she mostly vultured the times Serena, Henin, Clijsters, Davenport, Capriati, Mauresmo, Venus, Hingis were all faded/gone, apart from a very old Serena who still owns her. Murray's has been weaker for the last few years but mostly very strong facing the Djokovic/Nadal/Federer trio.

I think Murray is atleast close to Maria's career since outside the 2 fewer slams and the Career Slam he destroys her in every other way. It is similar to how Murray would be seen as roughly equal (achievements wise) to Wawrinka even if he reaches 5 slams and Murray stays at 3. So if she is an ATG (which again I dont believe she is but much of this forum believes) then he should be too.
Click to expand...
I don't follow women's tennis, but in my view Courier is not an ATG and in my opinion Murray is around his level or slightly below him -- so by virtue of that Murray isn't an ATG.

Even Sharapova wouldn't be IMO. You need a Becker type career or better to qualify as an ATG tbh.
 
Ten Slams and above seems to give you around eight names, so that is a reasonable cut-off point for ATG.

It gives you seven ATG in the women's field. So that's fifteen in total, which is a very select company.
 
Of course, Murray is a legit ATG, lots of Masters, number one in the world, multiple GS. It's nothing to sniff at.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

deacsyoga
Where does Sharapova rank amongst women of the last 15 years if she retired tommorow
2
Replies
90
Views
6K
deacsyoga
deacsyoga
R
Can Sharapova surpass her idol Seles
Replies
33
Views
3K
TMF
T
S
  • Poll Poll
Wozniacki vs Sharapova if Wozniacki reaches 3 majors
Replies
34
Views
2K
letstakeourshirtsoff
letstakeourshirtsoff
G
Hewitt vs Murray if Murray wins 3rd slam this weekend
2
Replies
92
Views
4K
timnz
T
D
  • Poll Poll
Stan with the hypothetical Career Grand Slam vs Andy Murray
2
Replies
88
Views
2K
tennis_pro
tennis_pro
Back
Top