Murray is an ATG

[Phoenix1983]

Sure, and out of the tens of thousands of players over the years, only a limited number have made the final of all 4 slams, won multiple slams and Masters, the WTFs, the #1 ranking, and was YE#1.

And, Roddick and Wawrinka have accomplished what a limited number of players have accomplished, so I have no problem with them meeting someone's subjective definition of ATG.

Then your standards for ATG are too low.

 

[Mainad]

Then your standards for ATG are too low.

But as you just said, there is no truly objective definition anyway.

 

[duaneeo]

Then your standards for ATG are too low.

That's subjective.

 

[BGod]

Problem here is if we take out Federer/Novak/Nadal we don't get some other worldly manic Murray. He was driven by those guys but for sake of argument these would have been his opponents in the 8 Finals losses:

2008 USO: Roddick, probable loss.
2010 AO: Tsonga, a toss-up
2011 AO: Berdych, hard to predict but Berdych would beat Murray later that year in Paris in 3 sets and lose in 4 sets at the 2012 USO. I guess we give Murray this one but it's not a slam dunk.
2012 WMB: WIN
2013 AO: Ferrer or Berdych. Okay yes.
2015 AO: Wawrinka, no.
2016 AO: If Berdych, yes, if Nishikori, probable.
2017 FO: Thiem, toss-up.

So I'm looking at 4 Slams there for sure and maybe 2 more. But this is in a world where I've taken out 3 players. As good as they are, that creates a whole other host of issues. Plus there's never been a player with literally nobody challenging them as much as Fed haters want to make it so, Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Davydenko did exist. Other things would come into play.

If I just get rid of Novak/Nadal as Murray's true contemporaries, he's looking at maybe 6 more Slams MAYBE.

I also love how the OP makes it seem Wilander/Becker/Edberg faced nobodies? They played eachother first off, and Lendl is indeed an ATG.

Becker's 10 Finals: Lendl x3, won all. Edberg x3, won 1. Sampras, Stich, Chang, Curren.
Edberg's 11 Finals: Becker x3, won 2. Courier x3, won 1. Sampras, Wilander, Cash, Chang.
Wilander's 11 Finals: Lendl x5, won 3. Cash, Leconte, Noah, Vilas, Edberg and Curren.


So what the hell are you talking about?

 

[Phoenix1983]

That's subjective.

OK, let's put it another way.

An ATG should be someone who is considered as such by let's say 95% of people.

Murray wouldn't make the cut.

 

[Phoenix1983]

But as you just said, there is no truly objective definition anyway.

True. However I don't think Murray is an unequivocal ATG I'm afraid - he has a lot of impressive achievements, but not enough to make him a dead cert for ATG status.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Problem here is if we take out Federer/Novak/Nadal we don't get some other worldly manic Murray. He was driven by those guys but for sake of argument these would have been his opponents in the 8 Finals losses:

2008 USO: Roddick, probable loss.
2010 AO: Tsonga, a toss-up
2011 AO: Berdych, hard to predict but Berdych would beat Murray later that year in Paris in 3 sets and lose in 4 sets at the 2012 USO. I guess we give Murray this one but it's not a slam dunk.
2012 WMB: WIN
2013 AO: Ferrer or Berdych. Okay yes.
2015 AO: Wawrinka, no.
2016 AO: If Berdych, yes, if Nishikori, probable.
2017 FO: Thiem, toss-up.

So I'm looking at 4 Slams there for sure and maybe 2 more. But this is in a world where I've taken out 3 players. As good as they are, that creates a whole other host of issues. Plus there's never been a player with literally nobody challenging them as much as Fed haters want to make it so, Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Davydenko did exist. Other things would come into play.

If I just get rid of Novak/Nadal as Murray's true contemporaries, he's looking at maybe 6 more Slams MAYBE.

I also love how the OP makes it seem Wilander/Becker/Edberg faced nobodies? They played eachother first off, and Lendl is indeed an ATG.

Becker's 10 Finals: Lendl x3, won all. Edberg x3, won 1. Sampras, Stich, Chang, Curren.
Edberg's 11 Finals: Becker x3, won 2. Courier x3, won 1. Sampras, Wilander, Cash, Chang.
Wilander's 11 Finals: Lendl x5, won 3. Cash, Leconte, Noah, Vilas, Edberg and Curren.


So what the hell are you talking about?

He lost to Wawrinka at the 2017 FO and probably would have met him in 2013 AO if you remove Novak.

 

[Plamen1234]

Problem here is if we take out Federer/Novak/Nadal we don't get some other worldly manic Murray. He was driven by those guys but for sake of argument these would have been his opponents in the 8 Finals losses:

2008 USO: Roddick, probable loss.
2010 AO: Tsonga, a toss-up
2011 AO: Berdych, hard to predict but Berdych would beat Murray later that year in Paris in 3 sets and lose in 4 sets at the 2012 USO. I guess we give Murray this one but it's not a slam dunk.
2012 WMB: WIN
2013 AO: Ferrer or Berdych. Okay yes.
2015 AO: Wawrinka, no.
2016 AO: If Berdych, yes, if Nishikori, probable.
2017 FO: Thiem, toss-up.

So I'm looking at 4 Slams there for sure and maybe 2 more. But this is in a world where I've taken out 3 players. As good as they are, that creates a whole other host of issues. Plus there's never been a player with literally nobody challenging them as much as Fed haters want to make it so, Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Davydenko did exist. Other things would come into play.

If I just get rid of Novak/Nadal as Murray's true contemporaries, he's looking at maybe 6 more Slams MAYBE.

I also love how the OP makes it seem Wilander/Becker/Edberg faced nobodies? They played eachother first off, and Lendl is indeed an ATG.

Becker's 10 Finals: Lendl x3, won all. Edberg x3, won 1. Sampras, Stich, Chang, Curren.
Edberg's 11 Finals: Becker x3, won 2. Courier x3, won 1. Sampras, Wilander, Cash, Chang.
Wilander's 11 Finals: Lendl x5, won 3. Cash, Leconte, Noah, Vilas, Edberg and Curren.


So what the hell are you talking about?

Yes if there was no Federer,Nadal and Djokovic Murray would have won few more Slams which would have made him an ATG.But at the end what matters in the ATG discussion is how many Slams you have won not how many you would have won if you played in other era or if some players didnt exist

 

[RF-18]

Yes if there was no Federer,Nadal and Djokovic Murray would have won few more Slams which would have made him an ATG.But at the end what matters in the ATG discussion is how many Slams you have won not how many you would have won if you played in other era or if some players didnt exist

Even with 3 he has 11 slam finals, and won every major title in the sport. Pluss his stats in terms of consistency and beating the field is ATG quality.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Even with 3 he has 11 slam finals, and won every major title in the sport. Pluss his stats in terms of consistency and beating the field is ATG quality.

How has he won Roland Garros and the Australian Open?

Because he wet the bed a few times in major finals against your boy and Federer doesn't mean he's an ATG.

He's very, very good however. Probably just off being an ATG. If he had 4 majors I'd say he's an ATG. But he is a tiny bit below the requirements in my mind.

Basically if he had all of his current stats and the same amount of majors as Courier I'd hands down say he's an ATG. But because he wet the bed so many times against top competition he doesn't belong in the conversation.

Even Courier was capable of beating Sampras and Agassi so no excuses.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

That's equally ridiculous as saying: "in any other time Soderling would have won 3 RG, thus he is a greater clay player than Agassi". Or: "Nadal would have won 6 Wimbledon titles in the 1970s, thus he is a greater grass player than Borg".

Let us stop with unfalsifiable claims in tennis disccusions. Unfalsifiable = can't be proved false. Unfalsifiable claims should not be tolerated in any serious tennis discussion.

We should discuss facts and data, not hypothetical/unfalsifiable scenarios. Fact is, Murray has 3 Grand Slams. Whether he would have won more Grand Slams in any other era is untestable, thus irrelevant.

Or saying Andy Roddick would win as much 10-12 majors without Federer, Michael Chang would win 5 majors without Sampras, etc.

 

[Towny]

OP loves H2H stats to prove his agenda so here are some to consider:

Murray slam H2H against all time greats (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic) 5-20 (20%)

Becker slam H2H against ATGs (Connors, McEnroe, Wilander, Edberg, Lendl, Sampras, Agassi) 8-15 (35%)

Edberg slam H2H against ATGs (Connors, McEnroe, Wilander, Lendl, Becker, Sampras, Agassi) 14-13 (52%)

Wilander slam H2H against ATGs (McEnore, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Agassi) 14-13 (52%)

All 3 clearly superior to Murray against ATG competition and it shows in their superior slam totals

And before it's pointed out that Fed, Nadal and Djokovic are superior competition, beating Federer at AO13 is clearly less impressive than Edberg beating prime Becker at Wimbledon

Murray obviously very consistent but let's not forget he didn't manage to take Fed/Djoker to 5 sets in any of the 8 finals he lost against them and in the remaining 12 matches he lost against F/N/D, he went to 5 sets only 3 times. He really wasn't pushing them all that hard most of the time. Let's not pretend he simply wins all these slams if those guys aren't around.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

OP loves H2H stats to prove his agenda so here are some to consider:

Murray slam H2H against all time greats (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic) 5-20 (20%)

Becker slam H2H against ATGs (Connors, McEnroe, Wilander, Edberg, Lendl, Sampras, Agassi) 8-15 (35%)

Edberg slam H2H against ATGs (Connors, McEnroe, Wilander, Lendl, Becker, Sampras, Agassi) 14-13 (52%)

Wilander slam H2H against ATGs (McEnore, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Agassi) 14-13 (52%)

All 3 clearly superior to Murray against ATG competition and it shows in their superior slam totals

And before it's pointed out that Fed, Nadal and Djokovic are superior competition, beating Federer at AO13 is clearly less impressive than Edberg beating prime Becker at Wimbledon

Murray obviously very consistent but let's not forget he didn't manage to take Fed/Djoker to 5 sets in any of the 8 finals he lost against them and in the remaining 12 matches he lost against F/N/D, he went to 5 sets only 3 times. He really wasn't pushing them all that hard most of the time. Let's not pretend he simply wins all these slams if those guys aren't around.

Lleyton Hewitt would arguably be an ATG if he played in the 90s. Not because he's as good as Becker/Edberg/Wilander but he'd be winning quite a few majors when it's just Corretja, Rios and Korda as the main competition.

I feel Murray is similar in this regard. Although the Muzz is a better player both are quite similar in a lot of ways.

 

[Mainad]

OP loves H2H stats to prove his agenda so here are some to consider:

Murray slam H2H against all time greats (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic) 5-20 (20%)

Becker slam H2H against ATGs (Connors, McEnroe, Wilander, Edberg, Lendl, Sampras, Agassi) 8-15 (35%)

Edberg slam H2H against ATGs (Connors, McEnroe, Wilander, Lendl, Becker, Sampras, Agassi) 14-13 (52%)

Wilander slam H2H against ATGs (McEnore, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Agassi) 14-13 (52%)

All 3 clearly superior to Murray against ATG competition and it shows in their superior slam totals

And before it's pointed out that Fed, Nadal and Djokovic are superior competition, beating Federer at AO13 is clearly less impressive than Edberg beating prime Becker at Wimbledon

Yes but, unlike all those others, Murray only had 3 ATGs to contend with and they are by far the greatest ATGs in the history of the game, much greater than most of the ATGs Becker, Edberg and Wilander had to contend with apart from Sampras.

Murray obviously very consistent but let's not forget he didn't manage to take Fed/Djoker to 5 sets in any of the 8 finals he lost against them and in the remaining 12 matches he lost against F/N/D, he went to 5 sets only 3 times. He really wasn't pushing them all that hard most of the time. Let's not pretend he simply wins all these slams if those guys aren't around.

Hard to see who else he would lose to with the possible exception of Wawrinka on surfaces other than grass.

 

[Sport]

2008 USO: Roddick, probable loss.

Murray destroyed peak Nadal at the USO 2008. I don't see how the unidimensional server Andy Roddick would have beaten Murray at the 2008 USO final. If Murray was able to defeat Nadal at the USO 2008, please explain how would he lost to Roddick.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Murray destroyed peak Nadal at the USO 2008. I don't see how the unidimensional server Andy Roddick would have beaten Murray at the 2008 USO final. If Murray was able to defeat Nadal at the USO 2008, please explain how would he lost to Roddick.

This is 2008 Roddick. He would lose to Murray, no question about it. He would take a set though I think because of his serve and hold game.

And Roddick was a gritty fighter, he is underrated in that aspect.

But I think on grass 2004 Roddick could beat 2015 Murray for example. Proof of this is at 2009 Wimbledon.

 

[duaneeo]

An ATG should be someone who is considered as such by let's say 95% of people.

Murray wouldn't make the cut.

You agree that all-time-great is subjective, but keep arguing that you're right that Murray isn't an ATG.

And, this isn't a vote. Regardless of what "95% of people" think, all-time-great is still very subjective. If it refers to players just outside of being the GOAT...the greatest (numero uno) of all time..then only Nadal, Djokovic, and Sampras are ATGs.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Clay Murray is underrated. Losses at RG:

2006: Monfils
2007: -
2008: Almagro
2009: Gonzalez
2010: Berdych
2011: Nadal
2012: Ferrer
2013: -
2014: Nadal
2015: Djokovic
2016: Djokovic
2017: Wawrinka
2018: -

He lost only to top-10.

 

[Pheasant]

Slam finals won

Wilander 7
Becker/Edberg 6
Murray 3

The stat that actually matters

Boom shakalaka!

 

[Mainad]

Whether you consider him an ATG or not it's noteworthy, in my opinion, that Murray is the only player within the last 30 years to win at least 1 title in every single category of big tennis tournament on the main tour: Slams, WTF, Masters 1000, Olympics and Davis Cup as well as being ranked #1 and finishing as YE #1.

 

[Towny]

Yes but, unlike all those others, Murray only had 3 ATGs to contend with and they are by far the greatest ATGs in the history of the game, much greater than most of the ATGs Becker, Edberg and Wilander had to contend with apart from Sampras.

I don't disagree that they're greater. However, it's not like all 3 have been in their prime throughout all of Murray's career. Federer hasn't for most of it, but I'll grant that Djokodal were. However, dealing with prime Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Sampras, Agassi and old Connors and McEnroe thrown in for good measure is not exactly a walk in the park. Murray had it harder overall I think, but that doesn't simply negate the fact that Becker has double the number of slams he does. Murray's not super far off in my opinion though. Maybe another slam or two at most.

Hard to see who else he would lose to with the possible exception of Wawrinka on surfaces other than grass

I agree he wins most of them, probably largely Wawrinka who stops him at a couple. My point was more that Murray is not losing to these guys only because they're GOAT candidates. If the competition for Murray had been more normal with fewer GOAT candidates and more normal ATGs, Murray doesn't just simply win all of those slams

I actually do rate Murray highly; I'd put him above Wawrinka and Courier. But this thread is patently a thinly veiled attempt to make Novak look more impressive

 

[Mainad]

But this thread is patently a thinly veiled attempt to make Novak look more impressive

And here's me thinking that it's designed to make Andy look more impressive. This board is far too Machiavellian for my poor, naive brain at times!

 

[ABCD]

I don't care about design. I just always tell the truth. Anyone who claims that Murray is not an ATG either 1) Does not know anything about tennis, or 2) Deliberately lies (for whatever reason) or 3) Is mentally severally impaired.

 

[ABCD]

But this thread is patently a thinly veiled attempt to make Novak look more impressive

Regarding Djokovic, there is nothing that can make him more impressive than he is. Spending 7 precious childhood years in war and under UN sanctions, being personally bombed (this is the most impressive) and coming to do what nobody has ever done (9+4+1) can't be bettered. If he won a single slam under those circumstances he would be more than impressive, not this.

 

[Towny]

Regarding Djokovic, there is nothing that can make him more impressive than he is. Spending 7 precious childhood years in war and under UN sanctions, being personally bombed (this is the most impressive) and coming to do what nobody has ever done (9+4+1) can't be bettered.

We're not talking about who is the most impressive person. We're talking about most impressive in tennis terms. Djokovic is impressive in both regards. However, he is not the GOAT, no matter how many stats OP wants to spew out.

The obvious intention of this thread is to legitimise Djokovic's 2015-16 competition and make it a strong era.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Slam finals: above Becker

Slam semifinals: above Edberg, McEnroe, Becker, Borg, Wilander

Olympics: above all ATGs

Masters: above Becker, Sampras, Edberg, Wilander

YEC: above Nadal, Wilander

Titles: above Edberg, Wilander

Winning percentage: above Sampras, Becker, Agassi, Edberg, Wilander

GS winning percentage: above Agassi, Becker, Wilander, Edberg

Davis Cup winning percentage: above Federer, Djokovic, Sampras, Connors, Lendl, McEnroe, Edberg, Wilander

 

[ABCD]

We're not talking about who is the most impressive person. We're talking about most impressive in tennis terms. Djokovic is impressive in both regards. However, he is not the GOAT, no matter how many stats OP wants to spew out.

The obvious intention of this thread is to legitimise Djokovic's 2015-16 competition and make it a strong era.

For me, after Cincinnati 2018, Djokovic is the GOAT and I have put forward my argumentation numerous times. Are you saying that you are going to consider whether Murray is ATG based on what it means in relation to Djokovic's legacy and not based on Murray as a tennis player? Have you ever heard of "Plato is dear to me, but dearer still is truth".

 

[Phoenix1983]

You agree that all-time-great is subjective, but keep arguing that you're right that Murray isn't an ATG.

And, this isn't a vote. Regardless of what "95% of people" think, all-time-great is still very subjective. If it refers to players just outside of being the GOAT...the greatest (numero uno) of all time..then only Nadal, Djokovic, and Sampras are ATGs.

He’s a borderline great. End of.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

For me, after Cincinnati 2018, Djokovic is the GOAT and I have put forward my argumentation numerous times. Are you saying that you are going to consider whether Murray is ATG based on what it means in relation to Djokovic's legacy and not based on Murray as a tennis player? Have you ever heard of "Plato is dear to me, but dearer still is truth".

Disagree, but Federer is not either.

Wins past 4th round over Big3 in their slam feud (Djokovic = AO; Nadal = RG; Federer = WI)

Djokovic 3
Tsonga 2
Nadal 1
Wawrinka 1
Berdych 1
Roddick 1
Raonic 1
Anderson 1
Federer 0

 

[Towny]

For me, after Cincinnati 2018, Djokovic is the GOAT and I have put forward my argumentation numerous times. Are you saying that you are going to consider whether Murray is ATG based on what it means in relation to Djokovic's legacy and not based on Murray as a tennis player? Have you ever heard of "Plato is dear to me, but dearer still is truth".

GOAT after 13 slams? I'm assuming it's because of NCYGS and career masters slam? Well each to their own I guess

My whole point regarding Murray is the opposite of what you said. I'm trying to evaluate him based on his merits. Lew has an agenda

 

[Plamen1234]

I don't care about design. I just always tell the truth. Anyone who claims that Murray is not an ATG either 1) Does not know anything about tennis, or 2) Deliberately lies (for whatever reason) or 3) Is mentally severally impaired.

One question - was Djokovic peak at ATP Finals 2018?

 

[ABCD]

One question - was Djokovic peak at ATP Finals 2018?

You should follow the literature. Read:

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/abcd-response.631599/

 

[ABCD]

I'm trying to evaluate him based on his merits.

I am glad to hear that.

 

[ABCD]

One question - was Djokovic peak at ATP Finals 2018?

I have just seen that you commented on a thread I made about that and you are now asking me the same question again. If you are younger than 75 visit a neuropsychiatrists.