I wonders peoples often suggest Murray in current era's
great players.
Murray doesn't fits in this list not even close to this guys
fed, nadal , rafa .
murra got two slams and Olympic gold . I'm not saying this is not impressive but murra couldn't reach the levels of these three.
Now comparing their records
1) federer vs Murray
17 majors >>>>>>> 2 majors
also 302weaks at no 1 >>>>>>>>> 0 weaks at no 1
murra haven't achieved this task because he lacks in
consistency.
21 masters >>> 9 masters
also completed career slam.
77 titles>>> 28 titles
Also fed had his ultra dominant era from 04- 07. murra hadn't dominated the tour yet that's why he couldn't
achieve no 1 spot and in future will not achieve anyway.
conclusion - Fed is GOAT candidate . he don't deserve
to be in the list Murray. I.e big four.
2) R . Nadal
12majors >>>> 2 majors
26 masters >>>> 9 masters
59 titles>>> 28 titles
102 weeks at no1 >>> 0 week at no1
Nadal has long dominance on one surface that is clay.
he also evolved his game to complete career slam.
no chance Murray will complete career slam.
nadal is almost of same age of murra so we can see large
difference in their resumes.
conclusion- Nadal is also GOAT Candidate also don't
deserve to be in same list of Murray.
3) N . Djokovic-
6 majors >>>2 majors
14 masters>>9 masters
100 weeks at no 1>>>> 0 weeks at no 1
Djokovic have beaten nada or federer to win 5 of his
6 slams who are goat candidates.
currently riding on second longest SF streak in open era (14)
shows his consistency.
He is often called. second best HC player in his era
also have super dominant 2011 season with 5 masters(0pen
era record) and 3 slams
also have 2 consecutive year end no 1 finishes.
He also of same age of murra but you can see big difference
between their resumes.
i can't understand why peoples says murra is more
talented than nole.but records tell true story.
Currently nole has tied with Becker for slam record
and most like will break this record to tie with mcenroe
for slam record for 7.
conclusion- djokovic already in the list of legends of tennis
in his prime may overtake other sports greats in future.
he also don't deserve to be in same list murra.
ANOTHER APPROACH-
This three have elevated their games to new levels to achieve that consistency that no one have achieved before.
This three are in list of all time greats of this sport.
and occasionally playing in the same era of Murray who hadn't achieved many records like these. guys can't fit
in their list
WHAT MURRAY LACKS?
He has never achieved no 1 spot in his career shows that
how inconsistent he is.
He always fails on clay . by skipping 3 masters and one
major he can not dominate tour.
He is very late starter . he wins his first slam at 26 at same
age federer done his work , Borg retired at this age.
He wins his first slam after worlds best coaching from
lendl at the age of retirement in tennis shows that he is not
talented enough to win his first slam at 20-22 age.
he required lots of mug. work achieve this.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
fed nadal nole are legends of the sport. they only deserve
honour of era's best players.
Big four concept is fake. Viewing records we can conclude that murra not even closer to this guys.
He better fits in the list of one or two slam wonders
like Hewitt, safin and roddick
he also not achieved no spot so he worse than Hewitt also
which was considered as weak era clown.
then how he is in same list. of fed even he is worse than
his pigeon?.
murra is still impressive but not like this three .
winning two fluke slams cant make him to sit in list of
these three
SO WE SHOULD CALL BIG THREE INSTEAD OF FOUR REFERRING THIS FOUR. .
great players.
Murray doesn't fits in this list not even close to this guys
fed, nadal , rafa .
murra got two slams and Olympic gold . I'm not saying this is not impressive but murra couldn't reach the levels of these three.
Now comparing their records
1) federer vs Murray
17 majors >>>>>>> 2 majors
also 302weaks at no 1 >>>>>>>>> 0 weaks at no 1
murra haven't achieved this task because he lacks in
consistency.
21 masters >>> 9 masters
also completed career slam.
77 titles>>> 28 titles
Also fed had his ultra dominant era from 04- 07. murra hadn't dominated the tour yet that's why he couldn't
achieve no 1 spot and in future will not achieve anyway.
conclusion - Fed is GOAT candidate . he don't deserve
to be in the list Murray. I.e big four.
2) R . Nadal
12majors >>>> 2 majors
26 masters >>>> 9 masters
59 titles>>> 28 titles
102 weeks at no1 >>> 0 week at no1
Nadal has long dominance on one surface that is clay.
he also evolved his game to complete career slam.
no chance Murray will complete career slam.
nadal is almost of same age of murra so we can see large
difference in their resumes.
conclusion- Nadal is also GOAT Candidate also don't
deserve to be in same list of Murray.
3) N . Djokovic-
6 majors >>>2 majors
14 masters>>9 masters
100 weeks at no 1>>>> 0 weeks at no 1
Djokovic have beaten nada or federer to win 5 of his
6 slams who are goat candidates.
currently riding on second longest SF streak in open era (14)
shows his consistency.
He is often called. second best HC player in his era
also have super dominant 2011 season with 5 masters(0pen
era record) and 3 slams
also have 2 consecutive year end no 1 finishes.
He also of same age of murra but you can see big difference
between their resumes.
i can't understand why peoples says murra is more
talented than nole.but records tell true story.
Currently nole has tied with Becker for slam record
and most like will break this record to tie with mcenroe
for slam record for 7.
conclusion- djokovic already in the list of legends of tennis
in his prime may overtake other sports greats in future.
he also don't deserve to be in same list murra.
ANOTHER APPROACH-
This three have elevated their games to new levels to achieve that consistency that no one have achieved before.
This three are in list of all time greats of this sport.
and occasionally playing in the same era of Murray who hadn't achieved many records like these. guys can't fit
in their list
WHAT MURRAY LACKS?
He has never achieved no 1 spot in his career shows that
how inconsistent he is.
He always fails on clay . by skipping 3 masters and one
major he can not dominate tour.
He is very late starter . he wins his first slam at 26 at same
age federer done his work , Borg retired at this age.
He wins his first slam after worlds best coaching from
lendl at the age of retirement in tennis shows that he is not
talented enough to win his first slam at 20-22 age.
he required lots of mug. work achieve this.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
fed nadal nole are legends of the sport. they only deserve
honour of era's best players.
Big four concept is fake. Viewing records we can conclude that murra not even closer to this guys.
He better fits in the list of one or two slam wonders
like Hewitt, safin and roddick
he also not achieved no spot so he worse than Hewitt also
which was considered as weak era clown.
then how he is in same list. of fed even he is worse than
his pigeon?.
murra is still impressive but not like this three .
winning two fluke slams cant make him to sit in list of
these three
SO WE SHOULD CALL BIG THREE INSTEAD OF FOUR REFERRING THIS FOUR. .
Last edited:
