Murray is close to Becker, Edberg and Wilander

Gattone said:
In relative terms, I don't find this an outlandish claim: Murray was in the top 5 in the year-end rankings for eight times (and one time he finished at #6), Becker and Edberg nine times, Wilander six.

The main difference, I think, is in how one would rank them among the players of their generation. If there's no doubt that Lendl is the #1 player born in the 1960s, Becker, Edberg, and Wilander are unquestionably right behind him, even if the exact order may vary according to the numbers you take into account. The point is that, whatever your pick, one of those three has to be considered the second best player born in the 1960s. If we talk about players born in the 1980s, we have the opposite situation: you may argue until the end of time over who was better between the Big 3, but no one could rank Murray above #4 (or below, I guess).
Click to expand...
Murray was a great player, but the concept of an ATG is one that dominates or contests domination in their era and has the results to back it up. While it is true Murray was a threat to the Big 3, he couldn't establish himself as an era defining player apart from a relatively short time period where he finished Year End #1. He is probably almost as good or equal to Beckbergander but he couldn't establish sustained dominance and hence he can't be an ATG like they are.
 
4UTRMoutet said:
Murray was a great player, but the concept of an ATG is one that dominates or contests domination in their era and has the results to back it up. While it is true Murray was a threat to the Big 3, he couldn't establish himself as an era defining player apart from a relatively short time period where he finished Year End #1. He is probably almost as good or equal to Beckbergander but he couldn't establish sustained dominance and hence he can't be an ATG like they are.
Click to expand...
Murray was a threat to the big three outside slams. At slams itself his H2H against them is worse than Tsonga’s or Berdych’s let alone Stan’s. Everyone, even the big three lose from time to time, but you cannot say, Murray was more of a threat to them than way worse players. He was the best of the rest and incredibly consistent in beating lower players (similar to Ferrer) but couldn’t bring it on against the big guys unlike Becker whose score against top players in phenomenal.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
Murray was a threat to the big three outside slams. At slams itself his H2H against them is worse than Tsonga’s or Berdych’s let alone Stan’s. Everyone, even the big three lose from time to time, but you cannot say, Murray was more of a threat to them than way worse players. He was the best of the rest and incredibly consistent in beating lower players (similar to Ferrer) but couldn’t bring it on against the big guys unlike Becker whose score against top players in phenomenal.
Click to expand...
Regardless he still won YE#1 which was never accomplished by anyone else outside of the big 3 from 2004 to 2021 which was phenomenal (even if Fedal were crippled in that period). And even though he floundered in big matches against Big 3 he still won 3 slams in that time period PLUS multiple other big titles and 2 OG.
 
That no one else outside of "The Big 3" was #1 in that long of a time span says more about the rest of circuit than it says about them.
 
Do we at least agree that Murray is an ATG

1) on grass (2 Wimbledon, 1 Olympic Gold, 5 Queen's)

2) in best of 3 / outside Slams (14 Masters, 1 YEC, 2 Olympic gold)

?
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
Murray was a threat to the big three outside slams. At slams itself his H2H against them is worse than Tsonga’s or Berdych’s let alone Stan’s. Everyone, even the big three lose from time to time, but you cannot say, Murray was more of a threat to them than way worse players. He was the best of the rest and incredibly consistent in beating lower players (similar to Ferrer) but couldn’t bring it on against the big guys unlike Becker whose score against top players in phenomenal.
Click to expand...
because Murray was frequently ranked top4 and faced them in finals and semifinals, so he faced them when they were in better form.

Slam finals and semifinals won against Big3:

Murray 4
Wawrinka 4
Berdych 1
Tsonga 1

Murray has a much higher peak than Berdych and Tsonga, and an equal peak to Stan but with much greater longevity/consistency.
 
junkieballer said:
Criteria:

3 points for every Slam title
1.2 Slam finals
0.7 Slam semis
0.3 Slam quarterfinals
1.5 Tour Finals titles
1 Tour Finals final
0.5 Tour Finals semifinal
1 Alternative Tour Finals titles
0.6 Alternative Tour Finals finals
0.3 Alternative Tur Finals semifinals
1.5 Olympic gold
1 Olympic silver
0.5 Olympic bronze
1 Masters title
0.6 Masters final
0.3 Masters semifinal
0.5 500 title
0.2 250 title
0.2 win over a top10 in team events

Total points:

Becker 76.1
Edberg 68.7
Murray 64.2
Wilander 52.2
Click to expand...
3 slam titles (incl. 2 Wimbledons), 8 more slam finals, about 40 weeks as #1, 2 Olympic gold medals.
And all that in a time when the Big Three ruled supreme!
Murray is easily at least on the same greatness level as Becker, Edberg, Wilander.
 
mike danny said:
True, but they are the most important and Murray doesn’t even have the most slams outside the Big 3.

The main narrative is that it was very difficult to win slams in Murray’s era, but here comes Stan and manages 3 in 4 years which is not a good look
Click to expand...
I am quite sure that both Murray or Wawrinka would have won 7-10 slams in the 1980s or 1990s.
 
Murray had to deal with the big 3 no doubt but i recall him imploding a few times even in AO finals that cost him matches.. his mental toughness isn’t on the same level as wilander, Becker, and probly edberg . So I put the old folkies above him.
 
mike danny said:
True, but they are the most important and Murray doesn’t even have the most slams outside the Big 3.

The main narrative is that it was very difficult to win slams in Murray’s era, but here comes Stan and manages 3 in 4 years which is not a good look
Click to expand...

Stan is a true anomaly given he never won anything else of any significance save 1 Masters in his break out year. Kudos to him but Murray did so much more besides.
 
Mainad said:
Stan is a true anomaly given he never won anything else of any significance save 1 Masters in his break out year. Kudos to him but Murray did so much more besides.
Click to expand...

With regards to Stan and Murray I agree, BUT I will say it is always confusing with me how Stan is criticized for being a 3 slam winner with only 1 Masters, but Kafelnikov seems to get a free pass from people for being a 2 slam winner who won 0 Masters, which I would say is as bad or worse in relative terms. To be a Masters less 2 slam winner is just as bad a look as being a 3 slam winner with only 1. And many of the people who dump on Stan for this try and rank Kafelnikov higher than other 2 slam winners which IMO is ridiculous, other than possibly Bruguera, but even he has Masters titles, multiple in fact.
 
junkieballer said:
Do we at least agree that Murray is an ATG

1) on grass (2 Wimbledon, 1 Olympic Gold, 5 Queen's)
Click to expand...
Definitely, 3 big titles on grass is enough to make him a grass ATG, if he had 2 Wimby and 5 queen's but no OG then I wouldn't think so.
junkieballer said:
2) in best of 3 / outside Slams (14 Masters, 1 YEC, 2 Olympic gold)
Click to expand...
Best of 3 definitely. I'd say the requirement to be a bo3 ATG is 10 bo3 big titles or around that threshold
 
NatF said:
Murray is missing a truly great slam run and great wins in slams. That's why he's not a peer of these guys.
Click to expand...
I somewhat disagree.
US Open 2012 and Wimbledon 2013 were actually pretty great in terms of toughness of the draw, as he beat prime Djokovic in those finals.
Who else has beaten a prime Djokovic on multiple non-clay Slam finals? Nadal. That's it. No one else.

However, admittedly, Murray's Wimbledon 2016 was not memorable at all...
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
I mean not even 10 lol. It is like in medal ranking at the olympics one gold is better than any number of silvers. Of course nobody would trade any win for runner-ups.
Click to expand...
Yeah i wonder if a pro player would exchange any number of runner ups with a slam title? I doubt it. Having 20 runner ups but no title would give you the reputation of the biggest choker ever :laughing: :laughing:
 
Jonas78 said:
3 Slam runner ups isnt better than one title, its as simple as that. No player would trade 1 slam title for 3 runner ups. Points only matter for rankings, not greatness.
Click to expand...
runner up in Big3 era is worth a Slam title in other eras.

2008-16 was basically a run for the second place.
 

Ultimate Tennis Statistics - GOAT List

Open Era GOAT List (a.k.a. GOATometer) compares tennis player career achievements expressed by GOAT Points
www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com

overall GOAT list:

Becker 369
Edberg 328
Murray 313
Wilander 243

GS, big titles and no.1 focus:

Becker 1259
Edberg 1139
Murray 1053
Wilander 977

Minimalist:

Wilander 63
Edberg 58
Becker 51
Murray 28

Peak emphasis:

Becker 399
Edberg 352
Murray 343
Wilander 267

Minimalist peak:

Becker / Murray 10
Edberg / Wilander 8

Era difficulty tweak:

Becker 422
Edberg 370
Murray 363
Wilander 276
 
Jonas78 said:
Well i think Murray likely goes slamless if you move 2008-2016 to 2004-2012.
Click to expand...
baby 19-21 years old Murray 6-1 vs peak 25-27 years old Roger:

Screenshot-2026-05-07-at-09-32-44-Roger-Federer-VS-Andy-Murray-Head-2-Head-H2H-ATP-Tour-Tennis.png
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
Lol what???? Ask this to Johansson and Gaudio whether they want to trade their slam titles for a trashing at the hands of the big three in a slam final.
Click to expand...
this is not only about greatness, but also level of play in general.

50 years from now people will only remember the Slam winners, I don't dispute that.
 
junkieballer said:
runner up in Big3 era is worth a Slam title in other eras.

2008-16 was basically a run for the second place.
Click to expand...

No its not

A Runners up has no value in any era, it is like a failed summit climb of mount everest, no matter how many times you failed, you are still a loser
 
Razer said:
No its not

A Runners up has no value in any era, it is like a failed summit climb of mount everest, no matter how many times you failed, you are still a loser
Click to expand...
In my mind Soderling, Berdych, Nishikori, Tsonga, Ferrer are winners because they reached a final in 2008-15 when 99% of the finals were between Big4s.
 
Last edited:
slam finals between big4:

2007 - 3
2008 - 3
2009 - 1
2010 - 2
2011 - 4
2012 - 4
2013 - 3
2014 - 2
2015 - 3
2016 - 2

Even reaching a final in this period was a huge task. For example Ferrer was the only non-Big4 to reach a Slam final from 2010 US Open to 2013 US Open, it was like winning a Slam for me. In fact it required huge consistency from Ferrer:

2012 UO semifinal, lost to Djokovic
2013 RG final, lost to Nadal
2012 WI quarterfinal, lost to Murray
2012 RG semifinal, lost to Nadal
2012 AO quarterfinal, lost to Djokovic
 
Last edited:
junkieballer said:
In my mind Soderling, Berdych, Nishikori, Tsonga, Ferrer, Raonic are winners because they reached a final in 2008-16 when 99% of the finals were between Big4s.
Click to expand...
Soderling, Berdych and to a smaller extent Tsonga and Nishi deserve praise because they beat a big three member on their way to a final, nevertheless they would in a heartbeat trade their runner-ups for a slam win against a weak draw. Ferrer does not deserve any praise, he came to the final without beating a big three member and got trashed by Nadal 6-3, 6-2, 6-3. Raonic lol, he did not beat anyone of note and got beaten by Murray. How is that a winner? Every slam winner maybe save some early OE AOs is hundred times more impressive.
 
Jonas78 said:
Slams my friend, slams.

The only time Murray could touch Roger in a slam was injury worst season ever 2013, which is no proxy for their rivalry. It would be like using 2017 as a proxy for Noles level of play.
Click to expand...
Murray would not win a slam match in 2003-2008 against Federer, no matter what. He would not do any better than Rod/Hewitt.
 
Jonas78 said:
Slams my friend, slams.

The only time Murray could touch Roger in a slam was injury worst season ever 2013, which is no proxy for their rivalry. It would be like using 2017 as a proxy for Noles level of play.
Click to expand...
excuses, Federer was #2 in the world at AO 2013 and in good enough form to reach the semifinal dropping just 2 sets.
 
Jonas78 said:
If you cant even admit that Fed was out of form in 2013 its just sad. Im no fan of Nole but i admit when he was out of form.
Click to expand...
in his last tournament, ATP Finals, he had a reached the final and played a great match with peak Novak. At AO 2013 he was #2 and reached the semi dropping just 2 sets.

he declined after AO 2013, there was no sign of decline at AO 2013.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
Soderling, Berdych and to a smaller extent Tsonga and Nishi deserve praise because they beat a big three member on their way to a final, nevertheless they would in a heartbeat trade their runner-ups for a slam win against a weak draw. Ferrer does not deserve any praise, he came to the final without beating a big three member and got trashed by Nadal 6-3, 6-2, 6-3. Raonic lol, he did not beat anyone of note and got beaten by Murray. How is that a winner? Every slam winner maybe save some early OE AOs is hundred times more impressive.
Click to expand...
Ferrer deserves credit for his consistency, he only lost to Djokovic, Nadal and Murray in finals, semis and quarterfinals in 6 consecutive Slams from 2012 AO to 2013 RG.

yeah Raonic shouldn't be included, since Big4 era ended pretty much at RG16.
 
junkieballer said:
''peak'' is just a word. I posted facts, real matches.
Click to expand...
Connors vs Rosewall USO and Wimbledon 1974 were also real matches. Do you really think the distance between them prime vs prime was as big as showcased in those matches? If I beat 80 years old Laver today it would also be a real match. If peak is just a word then this would be 100% legit.
 
Jonas78 said:
3 Slam runner ups isnt better than one title, its as simple as that. No player would trade 1 slam title for 3 runner ups. Points only matter for rankings, not greatness.
Click to expand...
Ehh... I am not sure I entirely agree.
To be fair, some factors like the era strength, the toughness of the draw, and the fight you put up in the finals also must be taken into consideration.
Hypothetically, someone who is a runner-up at 2008 RG, but pushes Nadal to a five setter (!!), deserves far more credit than someone who wins the CYGS in 2023.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
Connors vs Rosewall USO and Wimbledon 1974 were also real matches. Do you really think the distance between them prime vs prime was as big as showcased in those matches? If I beat 80 years old Laver today it would also be a real match. If peak is just a word then this would be 100% legit.
Click to expand...
also sample size matters.

Murray played Federer a similar number of matches as Roddick and Hewitt
 
Megafanoftennis100 said:
Ehh... I am not sure I entirely agree.
To be fair, some factors like the era strength, the toughness of the draw, and the fight you put up in the finals also must be taken into consideration.
Hypothetically, someone who is a runner-up at 2008 RG, but pushes Nadal to a five setter (!!), deserves far more credit than someone who wins the CYGS in 2023.
Click to expand...
There is some truth behind it. Let's say Soderling had put up a more or less good fight against Fed in the FO 09 final (preferably going over 5), I would say this run was more impressive than many slam wins with weak draws. Same for Pete 2001 USO (if he does not get trashed by Hewitt of all people) or Berd Wimbledon 2010 with Nadal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

George Turner
Andy Murray vs Boris Becker
3 4 5
Replies
246
Views
13K
Razer
Razer
B
Why wasn't Edberg better at the 3 biggest indoor events?
2
Replies
52
Views
4K
timnz
T
powerangle
Greatest between Edberg/Becker/Wilander/Djokovic?
Replies
11
Views
2K
corners
C
M
Do you put Andy Murray at same tier as Edberg/Wilander/Becker?
3 4 5
Replies
202
Views
12K
Mustard
Mustard
BGod
The Legacies of Edberg/Becker/Wilander IF?
Replies
15
Views
734
hoodjem
hoodjem
Back
Top