Murray planning for Wimbledon/Olympic retirement

Poisoned Slice said:
Yes, all the best to him.

On the bright side, the retirement version could mean we get the real Murray in top spin, rather than this level 25 rubbish we have now. And then I'll beat you with him @fedfan24 (y)
Click to expand...
Is Murray that guy with average 60-70 all his stats? Very harsh on his BH to have likes of Fritz rated above him there. Should have high BH, speed, stamina, reflex and respectable volley too.
 
Mainad said:
He will be second only to Perry in the British Tennis Hall of Fame. Wonder if he will get a statue like they gave Perry (finally)?
Click to expand...
When did Perry get his statue? I've read before that despite all his successes he wasn't really liked by the establishment during his own career because of being too working-class.
dapchai said:
He's indeed an ATG - All Time Glaswegian. But he's not even close to an all-time-great and will never be for sure.
Click to expand...

Again, depends on where your line of being an all-time great or not falls. If you call Mats Wilander or Arthur Ashe ATGs, Murray is then easily also one. If your borderline ATG is a Jimmy Connors, then Andy doesn't make the cut.
 
Wander said:
When did Perry get his statue? I've read before that despite all his successes he wasn't really liked by the establishment during his own career because of being too working-class.
Click to expand...

s-l1600.webp

Wander said:
Again, depends on where your line of being an all-time great or not falls. If you call Mats Wilander or Arthur Ashe ATGs, Murray is then easily also one. If your borderline ATG is a Jimmy Connors, then Andy doesn't make the cut.
Click to expand...

That particular poster has zero respect for Murray and his accomplishments. The "not even close" line tells you all you need to know. If Murray is "not even close" then anybody else who didn't win the fabled 6 Slams must be in another galaxy!
 
Wander said:
Again, depends on where your line of being an all-time great or not falls. If you call Mats Wilander or Arthur Ashe ATGs, Murray is then easily also one. If your borderline ATG is a Jimmy Connors, then Andy doesn't make the cut.
Click to expand...
Mats is of course an all time great, having won 7 slams on all 3 surfaces (at least twice each), defended a slam title, and had a 3-slam season. Not to mention he was also a year-end No.1, and his 1982 RG run was very impressive by beating four top-10s in a row en route to the title.

Ashe is not an all time great indeed.

Murray is not even close to Wilander in terms of achievements. Mats is in a different league. This has been discussed to death here.
Mainad said:
That particular poster has zero respect for Murray and his accomplishments. The "not even close" line tells you all you need to know. If Murray is "not even close" then anybody else who didn't win the fabled 6 Slams must be in another galaxy!
Click to expand...
I have a lot of respect for Murray and he has had a great career but that's about it. The truth is he is really not even close to be an all time great and I already told you the reasons. And I didn't even rely solely on that 6 slams criterion!
 
dapchai said:
Murray is not even close to Wilander in terms of achievements. Mats is in a different league. This has been discussed to death here.

I have a lot of respect for Murray and he has had a great career but that's about it. The truth is he is really not even close to be an all time great and I already told you the reasons. And I didn't even rely solely on that 6 slams criterion!
Click to expand...
Clearly hasn't been discussed enough, since Murray has had a career better than Mats.

Let's see:

Career win percentage:
Andy > Mats

Titles:
Andy > Mats

Weeks at #1:
Andy > Mats

Tour Finals titles:
Andy > Mats

Wimbledon titles:
Andy > Mats

Gold medals:
Andy > Mats

Grand Slam titles:
Andy < Mats

Davis Cups:
Andy < Mats

How do we ever conclude that Mats had a better career than Andy? By narrowly focusing on the total Grand Slam titles tally of course. Who cares that Mats got to win some of his Grand Slam finals against such luminaries as Henri Leconte, Pat Cash and Kevin freaking Curren while Andy got to play against a player not named Novak Djokovic or Roger Federer... exactly once at which time he comfortably delivered a win in straight sets (against Raonic). Mats could even afford to lose a French Open final to Yannick Noah and still collect his seven Majors. Good on him.

All that matters is the end result number of Major titles, of course. Hence why Novak Djokovic > Rafael Nadal > Roger Federer > Pete Sampras > Roy Emerson > Rod Laver > Björn Borg > Bill Tilden > the rest. Who cares about context or anything else any player ever did outside of the Grand Slam tournaments. Major title count is where the argument begins and ends.

Or so about 50% of tennis fans would have you believe. I simply beg to differ.
 
Wander said:
Clearly hasn't been discussed enough, since Murray has had a career better than Mats.

Let's see:

Career win percentage:
Andy > Mats

Titles:
Andy > Mats

Weeks at #1:
Andy > Mats

Tour Finals titles:
Andy > Mats

Wimbledon titles:
Andy > Mats

Gold medals:
Andy > Mats

Grand Slam titles:
Andy < Mats

Davis Cups:
Andy < Mats

How do we ever conclude that Mats had a better career than Andy? By narrowly focusing on the total Grand Slam titles tally of course. Who cares that Mats got to win some of his Grand Slam finals against such luminaries as Henri Leconte, Pat Cash and Kevin freaking Curren while Andy got to play against a player not named Novak Djokovic or Roger Federer... exactly once at which time he comfortably delivered a win in straight sets (against Raonic). Mats could even afford to lose a French Open final to Yannick Noah and still collect his seven Majors. Good on him.

All that matters is the end result number of Major titles, of course. Hence why Novak Djokovic > Rafael Nadal > Roger Federer > Pete Sampras > Roy Emerson > Rod Laver > Björn Borg > Bill Tilden > the rest. Who cares about context or anything else any player ever did outside of the Grand Slam tournaments. Major title count is where the argument begins and ends.

Or so about 50% of tennis fans would have you believe. I simply beg to differ.
Click to expand...

It's not just about the slam counts but about slam performances in general. Mats won 7 slams on all 3 surfaces (at least twice each), defended a slam title, and had a 3-slam season.

Murray only won 3 slams on 2 surfaces, never went past QF as defending champions at any slams (heck he didn't even lose to any of the big 3 there), and never had a multi-slam season.

Mats also beat Vilas to win RG 82 and Lendl to win USO 88 (one of the most epic USO finals ever), why didn't you mention this? Mats' slam performances heavily trump everything you said about Murray non-slam achievements, and it's not even close.

This is my last reply to you on this topic. Wilander vs Murray has been discussed heavily here, check these out:

Mats Wilander vs Andy Murray: Revisiting the classic debate.

I was reading another tennis forum which I can't mention here, and I saw that a user called Fedjkodal posted a ranking GOAT criteria. In his ranking he not only accounts Grand Slams, but also WTFs, Olympics, Masters 1000, weeks as #1, etc. Even though his ranking was interesting and very...
tt.tennis-warehouse.com tt.tennis-warehouse.com

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

Andy Murray - Same # of Grand Slam finals as McEnroe/Edberg/Wilander - more semifinals than McEnroe/Edberg/Becker/Borg/Wilander - more quarterfinals than Sampras/McEnroe/Edberg/Becker/Wilander - more Grand Slam matches won than Edberg/McEnroe/Becker/Wilander/Borg - Year end #1 once - same as...
tt.tennis-warehouse.com tt.tennis-warehouse.com

Is Sir Andy Murray a better Tennis Player than Stefan Edberg & Mats Wilander ?

Total Titles Murray - 46 Edberg - 42 Wilander - 33 Big Titles Murray - 20 Wilander - 15 Edberg - 14 Win% Edberg - 74.79% Murray - 74.62% Wilander - 71.84% Win% vs Top 10 Murray - 52.5% Wilander - 50% Edberg - 46.7% Win% vs Top 5 Wilander - 42.65% Murray - 43.09% Edberg - 40.16% Win% in...
tt.tennis-warehouse.com tt.tennis-warehouse.com

My point of view is similar to much of other posters' expressed in those 2 threads. Case closed.
 
dapchai said:
Mats is of course an all time great, having won 7 slams on all 3 surfaces (at least twice each), defended a slam title, and had a 3-slam season. Not to mention he was also a year-end No.1, and his 1982 RG run was very impressive by beating four top-10s in a row en route to the title.

Ashe is not an all time great indeed.

Murray is not even close to Wilander in terms of achievements. Mats is in a different league. This has been discussed to death here.

I have a lot of respect for Murray and he has had a great career but that's about it. The truth is he is really not even close to be an all time great and I already told you the reasons. And I didn't even rely solely on that 6 slams criterion!
Click to expand...

Well, we're not getting into that pointless debate again but, as I said to @Wander, if a player with the achievements of Murray can't even be considered close no other player without 6 Slams has any chance whatsoever.
 
dapchai said:
Murray only won 3 slams on 2 surfaces, never went past QF as defending champions at any slams (heck he didn't even lose to any of the big 3 there), and never had a multi-slam season.
Click to expand...

Murray would've had a multi Slam season too in 2016 (or 2012, 2013, take your pick) if he got to play against Leconte and Cash instead of Djokovic and Federer. That was my whole point.
 
fedfan24 said:
Is Murray that guy with average 60-70 all his stats? Very harsh on his BH to have likes of Fritz rated above him there. Should have high BH, speed, stamina, reflex and respectable volley too.
Click to expand...
Another, they massacred my boy situation. I can understand the reasoning, putting the players in at the level they are at now, it's not uncommon or anything, but I do agree with all the comments that say put everybody at level 30.
 
Poisoned Slice said:
Another, they massacred my boy situation. I can understand the reasoning, putting the players in at the level they are at now, it's not uncommon or anything, but I do agree with all the comments that say put everybody at level 30.
Click to expand...
Yeah man some weird ratings. Feel like Federer got done bad on his serve, volley and speed too. His special abilities are weird too, I would’ve thought inside out master should be one of his, not shot counter or whatever the other one is.
 
aldeayeah said:
Andy has been having a rough time recently while trying to come back from his Miami injury, losing his latest 4 matches and dropping out of the top 100.

It seems this time he's really planning to hang the racquet in the following 2 months.

www.eurosport.com

'I would rather finish at Wimbledon or an Olympic Games,' Murray says on retirement plans

Andy Murray admits retiring at Wimbledon or the Olympic Games would be a fitting way to cap his iconic 19-year career.
www.eurosport.com www.eurosport.com
Click to expand...
He prolonged his career longer than he should because he believed he could still be competitive on the tour.
He only has to retire in the competitions that gave him his greatest joys: Wimbledon and the Olympic Games.
It is also true that it will take a long time to find a British tennis player of his quality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

edberg volleys
Australian Open: Carlos Alcaraz targets career Grand Slam in 2025 after 'year of ups and downs' - 'I want more'
Replies
43
Views
1K
Tallawah Tennis
T
Sysyphus
Wilander on Why Murray May Be the Greatest
2
Replies
55
Views
3K
DjokoLand
D
Zardoz7/12
'I'll do my best': Andy Murray suggests imminent end to tennis career
Replies
20
Views
936
Rebel-I.N.S
Rebel-I.N.S
ffw2
Federer Corner-man for Murray; Sells Tennis Like a Boss
Replies
10
Views
674
ffw2
ffw2
Krish872007
The moment has arrived: Murray to officially retire after Paris Olympics
2
Replies
99
Views
2K
Wurm
Wurm
Back
Top