Murray should have more than one HC major by now

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
I mean just look at the guy's stats. 32 HC titles including a USO, WTF, 12 Masters, an Olympic gold and 8 500s. He features in the top 10 for players with the best W-L% in the Open Era and only Federer, Djokovic, Sampras, Lendl and Agassi have reached more HC slam finals. :oops: I know some of you will say "he didn't play well enough in the finals he lost to deserve more titles" but at the end of the day he'd still likely be sitting on at least a couple of AO trophies without the two greatest ever HC players standing in his way so yes, to a certain degree he has been unlucky whichever way you look at it.

It goes without saying that as a huge Nole fan I'll be absolutely ecstatic if he wins a 7th title this year(and even that's putting it mildly) but if Andy does go on to finally win there's no way I could begrudge him given his incredible consistency over the last 6-7 years. As I said in the match thread the other day, he's a champion in every sense of the word and a first Aussie Open title to go alongside his US Open trophy and all the other big HC tournaments he's won over the years would be no less than he deserves. Good luck to him and all the other players for that matter, it should be a fantastic tournament.

C'est tout pour le moment. :)
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
one more HC major I think, but he'll probably get that before his career finishes ...
 

batz

G.O.A.T.
He's won as many as he's been able to win. I know it's a bit of cliche but it's true. If he had played better he might have won more - but he didn't. That said, playing at the same time as Roger and Novak hasn't exactly helped his cause but it is what is is. Whether that is 'deserving' or not will be in the eye of the beholder.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
IMO it goes like this:

Take out Federer and Djokovic and Murray would have 1 more USO title and 3 more AO titles. I'm not giving 2013 and 2015 to Murray just yet because Stan was in fine form in both of those years.

So 4 HC majors.
 

Chicharito

Hall of Fame
Why?

Has he ever been close really? Yes he reached finals, but never got close to winning them. Has never lost a 5 set final or anything.
The Australian Open SF he wins is normally a lot closer than the final he loses.

If he had a few really close calls in finals maybe I'd agree.
 

Poisoned Slice

Bionic Poster
Let's take Celtic out of the Scottish premier league and give the title to Rangers. Rangers are so unlucky to have Celtic standing in their way at this time. How about we delete Chelsea while we are at it? Transporting players to other era as well. He would win such and such in this time frame. So?

I guess, from a certain point of view, he has been unlucky to have to face Djokovic in 4 of the finals. Like Billy Zane says, you make your own luck. He didn't play well enough to win so he doesn't deserve more titles, not even imaginary titles.
 

SinjinCooper

Hall of Fame
If anything, he's overperformed. He's a slightly more athletic Michael Chang in an era that rewards the playstyle better than Chang's own did.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Why?

Has he ever been close really? Yes he reached finals, but never got close to winning them. Has never lost a 5 set final or anything.
The Australian Open SF he wins is normally a lot closer than the final he loses.

If he had a few really close calls in finals maybe I'd agree.
I don't really think it maters that he never came close to winning them. Simply put, without having to face Federer and Djokovic so many times, chances are he'd've won at least a couple of the 5 finals he reached, and quite possibly more than that.
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
IMO it goes like this:

Take out Federer and Djokovic and Murray would have 1 more USO title and 3 more AO titles. I'm not giving 2013 and 2015 to Murray just yet because Stan was in fine form in both of those years.

So 4 HC majors.
You can say that for a lot of players though. And I really wouldn't give Murray 2011 because his level of play was garbage in the final.

For example without Federer and Safin Hewitt would have won 2 or 3 more HC majors pretty much for sure and that's just in a span of 2 years.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
The 'Murray hype machine ' is Working overtime to project an image of a competitive tour where your no 3 is fleet footed Raonic
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
Murrays more of a fast slam player than a hard court player. In other words hes better on grass than slow hc imo.
 
It's a real pity that the tiltles over the last 12 years or so hasn't been spread around another 8 or so players, then some of you lot would have to get a fecking life.
 

Noelan

Legend
On the other side, Murray love story ended as soon as he lost to Djokovic:D


I dont know really:confused: As Nadal once said. "I was unlucky and lucky at the same time to play in the same era with _____"
But it is what it is..
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
He hasn't been close to win in any of those finals, so I don't believe he should have more.
I don't mean he should've necessarily won any of the finals, just that a great HC player like him with his impressive resume should have more than the one major but he hasn't yet been able to due to the era he's been competing in.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
I mean just look at the guy's stats. 32 HC titles including a WTF, 12 Masters, an Olympic gold and 8 500s. He features in the top 10 for players with the best W-L% in the Open Era and only Federer, Djokovic, Sampras, Lendl and Agassi have reached more HC slam finals. :oops: I know some of you will say "he didn't play well enough in the finals he lost to deserve more titles" but at the end of the day he'd still likely be sitting on at least a couple of AO trophies without the two greatest ever HC players standing in his way so yes, to a certain degree he has been unlucky whichever way you look at it.

It goes without saying that as a huge Nole fan I'll be absolutely ecstatic if he wins a 7th title this year(and even that's putting it mildly) but if Andy does go on to finally win there's no way I could begrudge him given his incredible consistency over the last 6-7 years. As I said in the match thread the other day, he's a champion in every sense of the word and a first Aussie Open title to go alongside his US Open trophy and all the other big HC tournaments he's won over the years would be no less than he deserves. Good luck to him and all the other players for that matter, it should be a fantastic tournament.

C'est tout pour le moment. :)
Yes, he should have had at least 1 AO title by now and maybe more but, as others have pointed out, it's down to him to go out and win one. He had chances in several of them eg. 2013 and 2015 but just didn't capitalise. The AO final together with Indian Wells are the 2 hardcourt events where Murray has most often underperformed and it's something of a puzzle given that he has been so clutch on hardcourt pretty nearly everywhere else (as the stats you refer to indicate) and beaten his nemesis Djokovic in practically every other hardcourt event on the tour.

He should have at least 1 AO title by now but that doesn't mean he deserves one. He needs to go out and do it and he knows that.
 

duaneeo

Legend
Must be like 2-5000 against the top guys there now.
Djokovic has established himself as the king of plexicushion, and Murray lost to this one player in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, and 2016. He lost to Federer in 2014, but had just recently returned to the game after back surgery.

I think a better argument can be made that Murray should have more US Open titles. After winning it in 2012, Andy should have established himself as the dominant USO player. No one player has dominated since Federer.
 
Djokovic has established himself as the king of plexicushion, and Murray lost to this one player in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, and 2016. He lost to Federer in 2014, but had just recently returned to the game after back surgery.

I think a better argument can be made that Murray should have more US Open titles. After winning it in 2012, Andy should have established himself as the dominant USO player. No one player has dominated since Federer.
Definitely. My post was tongue in cheek. Just a reference to one of the previous poster's fine threads re Nishikori and his 2-5000 record. :)

Murray's had a heck of a career, and has overcome some major hurdles along the way.
 

SaltWater

New User
The thing for me about Andy Murray is the "On his best day..." test.

Like, I feel comfortable saying, "On his best day, Federer could beat anybody."
Ditto for, "On his best day, Nadal could beat anybody."
Ditto for Djokovic. Possibly even for Stan.

But for Murray, I sort of trail off. "On his best day, Murray...would be great, no question, but..."
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
The thing for me about Andy Murray is the "On his best day..." test.

Like, I feel comfortable saying, "On his best day, Federer could beat anybody."
Ditto for, "On his best day, Nadal could beat anybody."
Ditto for Djokovic. Possibly even for Stan.

But for Murray, I sort of trail off. "On his best day, Murray...would be great, no question, but..."
On his best day, Murray can beat anybody. How do we know this? Because he has.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Without Djokovic, he still wouldn't be winning many AOs.

2011 he loses to Fed.
2012 to Nadal
2013 to Wawrinka
2015 I'd give him that one although it would be close to 50/50 between him and Wawrinka
2016 loses to Fed
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Without Djokovic, he still wouldn't be winning many AOs.

2011 he loses to Fed.
2012 to Nadal
2013 to Wawrinka
2015 I'd give him that one although it would be close to 50/50 between him and Wawrinka
2016 loses to Fed
But think how many he'd be winning without Djokovic and Federer. ;)
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Djokovic has established himself as the king of plexicushion, and Murray lost to this one player in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, and 2016. He lost to Federer in 2014, but had just recently returned to the game after back surgery.

I think a better argument can be made that Murray should have more US Open titles. After winning it in 2012, Andy should have established himself as the dominant USO player. No one player has dominated since Federer.
By that premise, Hewitt and Roddick should have more USO titles too. Murray isn't better than them at the USO.

And that's his own fault. Since winning the title in 2012, he hasn't been able to even reach a SF at the event. His loss to Nishikori was a bit inexcusable. What was that 4th set? o_O
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Well IMO Agassi would also have far less than 6 HC slams (probably 2-3 tops) if he had Federer and Djokovic to compete against.

He wouldn't have 4 AO titles if he had to contend with a consistent 4 time winner and another consistent 6 time winner.

At the USO he would also have it very difficult, even if Djokovic isn't as good at the USO as he is at the AO.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Well IMO Agassi would also have far less than 6 HC slams (probably 2-3 tops) if he had Federer and Djokovic to compete against.

He wouldn't have 4 AO titles if he had to contend with a consistent 4 time winner and another consistent 6 time winner.

At the USO he would also have it very difficult, even if Djokovic isn't as good at the USO as he is at the AO.
Agassi had Sampras to compete with at the USO e.g. a much tougher prospect than anyone in this era bar Federer. Not to mention the fact that Agassi first played the AO in 1995, if he had competed at it throughout his career there's the potential for a couple more - though Edberg/Courier would have been tough.

In this era Agassi probably squeeks out a couple of USO's and splits AO meetings with Djokovic/Federer. Obviously Djokovic/Federer would have less AO's as well.
 
He'd probably have 3 AOs without Djokovic but he isn't the only one who was denied a lot of success at a certain tournament by one player over and over again.

The thing he doesn't get enough credit for is going far pretty much every year. People ignore the effort that the player has to put in to reach a Slam final and only look at the final result.
This, bunch of winner blinkers on here, what would the tennis be like without matchups, if you can't give the opponent credit then what's the point of watching, I can guarantee that everyone posting here could be good in their chosen field... but I'm willing to bet that out there is someone who is better, making them numpty losers ripe for ridicule on social media.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
The truth is you can say that for a lot of players.

Without Federer, Hewitt would probably have 3 HC slams and Roddick would probably have 2-3 HC slams too.

Agassi without Sampras would have 3 more HC slams too.

Murray drew the shorter stick though, in that he got 2 all time greats on HC, while the aforementioned guys got "just" 1.
 

PMChambers

Hall of Fame
If Murray has one more HC Major, who has one less HC Major. The obvious call would be Djockovic at AO. But to say he should have mores requires you to state who should have less and that comes from a field of 6 players in his playing career. But he struggled to get through the Big 3.
 

Jonas78

Legend
Not easy with Fedalovic around for the most of his career. But thats no excuse, and can be said for almost every player; how many FO's for Fed/Nole if not for Rafa, how many slams for Hewitt/Roddick without Fed, etc.
 

AngryBirds

Semi-Pro
If you couldn't beat the best, then you don't deserve to win the slam, period. Stan has beaten Djokovic in all his slam titles. He doesn't make any excuses.
 

AngryBirds

Semi-Pro
Not easy with Fedalovic around for the most of his career. But thats no excuse, and can be said for almost every player; how many FO's for Fed/Nole if not for Rafa, how many slams for Hewitt/Roddick without Fed, etc.
The scary part is Federer could play this 'excuse' game better than anyone. Without Nadal and Djokovic, Fed would be sitting at 25 slams with 4-5 Calendar Grand Slam and more.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Think how weak the field would be without Djokovic and Federer...
I don't really think it matters. The record books don't care how strong or weak your competition is and if Murray could look at a couple of AO trophies in his cabinet that he'd won without Federer or Djokovic in the field I doubt he would either.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I don't really think it matters. The record books don't care how strong or weak your competition is and if Murray could look at a couple of AO trophies in his cabinet that he'd won without Federer or Djokovic in the field I doubt he would either.
No but then again you're blaming the competition on why he hasn't won a boat load more HC slams. It's a two way street, if he had been better in the first place it wouldn't have mattered.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
No offense, but you lack the intellect to tell me when I'm behind. You continually botch your points, then blame others. Knock it off.
Listen dork, the point was about Murray being better on faster surfaces, which he is.

Not for you to pedantically make some unrelated point about the speed of surfaces overall (which I agree somewhat but is totally besides the point)

Murray is a counterpuncher like Hewitt, he doesn't have a classic game for fast surfaces but does well anyway because of his counterpunching ways, flat strokes and wily game despite being defensive or as some deride a pusher. (I don't believe this myself)

I wanted to try avoid going off topic since this was hardly the point, but I felt it was critical to set you straight.

Got it, dork?
 

Rafa the King

Hall of Fame
Not in my opinion, look at how the guy played in the final. I think that from the 6 finals, he's played 2 good ones at most. Being poor in finals (the most important match) means that he wasn't really good enough. Although he faced 2 Tier 1 ATGs, his performances did indeed only deserve 1 title.
 
Top