Murray stats among (other?) ATG

NatF said:
I don't even rank Wawrinka over Roddick let alone Murray (y)
Click to expand...
I wouldn't go quite that far. While, Roddick was more consistent and had the better career outside of slams I think Wawrinka was better by a pretty clear margin in slams in not just results but level. Wawrinka is better at 3/4 Slams and if you break it down best to worst I think he's better across the board.
Wawa French > Andy W
Wawa Aus > Andy USO
Wawa USO > Andy AO
Wawa W > Andy RG

Also their primes were about the same length and Wawa had more success against, in my opinion, more difficult opponents. Roddick definitely makes up some of the gap outside of slams but not quite enough imo.
 
The Guru said:
I wouldn't go quite that far. While, Roddick was more consistent and had the better career outside of slams I think Wawrinka was better by a pretty clear margin in slams in not just results but level. Wawrinka is better at 3/4 Slams and if you break it down best to worst I think he's better across the board.
Wawa French > Andy W
Wawa Aus > Andy USO
Wawa USO > Andy AO
Wawa W > Andy RG

Also their primes were about the same length and Wawa had more success against, in my opinion, more difficult opponents. Roddick definitely makes up some of the gap outside of slams but not quite enough imo.
Click to expand...

Wawrinka is not better at 3/4 slams lol. Arod is better at Wimby and the USO...

Breaking it down by best to worst I disagree with the ordering of the first two as well.

Fair enough if you put Wawrinka higher, 3-1 slams is a lot but I rate time at number one and especially a YE #1 very highly - I also think Roddick was unlucky to deal with his worst match-up in peak Federer.
 
One of the unluckiest players ever, who contended with the 3 greatest players ever in his prime.
Still a solid career , and definitely in the elite to ever play the game.
ATG is a strong phrase, but he needs to be accepted as a top , top player in a very tough era.
 
NatF said:
Wawrinka is not better at 3/4 slams lol. Arod is better at Wimby and the USO...

Breaking it down by best to worst I disagree with the ordering of the first two as well.

Fair enough if you put Wawrinka higher, 3-1 slams is a lot but I rate time at number one and especially a YE #1 very highly - I also think Roddick was unlucky to deal with his worst match-up in peak Federer.
Click to expand...

Stan wasnt unlucky facing peak Nadal and Djokovic then ?
 
kevaninho said:
Stan wasnt unlucky facing peak Nadal and Djokovic then ?
Click to expand...

Should be obvious that Djokovic is an easier match-up for Wawrinka than Federer was for Roddick. Nadal is super tough for Wawrinka but he was injured in the slam final he won over him...
 
NatF said:
Wawrinka is not better at 3/4 slams lol. Arod is better at Wimby and the USO...

Breaking it down by best to worst I disagree with the ordering of the first two as well.

Fair enough if you put Wawrinka higher, 3-1 slams is a lot but I rate time at number one and especially a YE #1 very highly - I also think Roddick was unlucky to deal with his worst match-up in peak Federer.
Click to expand...
I don't think the issue with Roddick/Fed was all matchup. There's just a tremendous level difference between the two players. Plus Wawrinka had to deal with not only Federer (who is also a bad matchup for Wawa) Nadal (worse matchup) Djokovic and Murray all of whom I consider ATGs. Wawrinka's resume is just a whole of a lot more impressive when looked at in context in full. Roddick only beat 4 top 10 players in his whole career who didn't retire. He only pushed top 10ers to 5 only to lose twice. His wins USO 03 Ferrero, 5 set win against 07 Ancic, 09 Murray, and 11 Ferrer. Compare that to Wawrinka's 20 wins against top players including scalps like AO 14 Djokovic and Nadal, RG 15 Fed and Djok, RG17 Murray, USO 13 Murray, and many more quality wins. He also has 3 5 set losses to number 1 Djok, a 5 set loss to AO 17 Fed, and he pushed 09 Murray at W (Roddick's career best win at a slam) to 5 on his worst surface outside his prime. Roddick was a very good player but he just never had it against the best in slams. Only his W 04 performance sticks out to me as particularly noteworthy and to me Wawa's level at multiple tournaments (AO 13/14, RG 15) was just better. Yes Roddick had weeks at number 1 but who was his competition at that point? Basically no one. Hewitt was injured, Fed was just starting up, Agassi was winding down, Ferrero is Ferrero. Wawa peaked during the Big 4 Era so it would've been a monumental achievement to have even one week at number 1. Wawrinka just has a gear that Roddick didn't and it shows in his results against the best competition on the biggest stages.
 
The Guru said:
I don't think the issue with Roddick/Fed was all matchup. There's just a tremendous level difference between the two players. Plus Wawrinka had to deal with not only Federer (who is also a bad matchup for Wawa) Nadal (worse matchup) Djokovic and Murray all of whom I consider ATGs. Wawrinka's resume is just a whole of a lot more impressive when looked at in context in full. Roddick only beat 4 top 10 players in his whole career who didn't retire. He only pushed top 10ers to 5 only to lose twice. His wins USO 03 Ferrero, 5 set win against 07 Ancic, 09 Murray, and 11 Ferrer. Compare that to Wawrinka's 20 wins against top players including scalps like AO 14 Djokovic and Nadal, RG 15 Fed and Djok, RG17 Murray, USO 13 Murray, and many more quality wins. He also has 3 5 set losses to number 1 Djok, a 5 set loss to AO 17 Fed, and he pushed 09 Murray at W (Roddick's career best win at a slam) to 5 on his worst surface outside his prime. Roddick was a very good player but he just never had it against the best in slams. Only his W 04 performance sticks out to me as particularly noteworthy and to me Wawa's level at multiple tournaments (AO 13/14, RG 15) was just better. Yes Roddick had weeks at number 1 but who was his competition at that point? Basically no one. Hewitt was injured, Fed was just starting up, Agassi was winding down, Ferrero is Ferrero. Wawa peaked during the Big 4 Era so it would've been a monumental achievement to have even one week at number 1. Wawrinka just has a gear that Roddick didn't and it shows in his results against the best competition on the biggest stages.
Click to expand...
And yet Wawrinka has done worse than Roddick against Fed.
 
mike danny said:
Probably his best losing effort in a slam final.
Click to expand...
Not just in the finals he lost. He played clearly better than in Wimbledon 2013 final. Though he could have been a bit more clutch in the second set. He had the advantage but let Federer take it from him. And after the second set I had no doubt about the outcome.
 
StrongRule said:
Not just in the finals he lost. He played clearly better than in Wimbledon 2013 final. Though he could have been a bit more clutch in the second set. He had the advantage but let Federer take it from him. And after the second set I had no doubt about the outcome.
Click to expand...
Federer was too clutch and stole it for Murray with a great return game. And Federer level in the last 3 sets was prime level.
 
mike danny said:
And yet Wawrinka has done worse than Roddick against Fed.
Click to expand...
There's a big level difference and matchup problem there too what's your point. Also are we really going to pretend that if Roddick got two more cracks at Roger he's have gotten a win, please even Red Rick would admit Andy would get schooled. You read a long post with a bunch of info and pick out one thing you think you can attack so it invalidates the whole thing. Be better.
 
ReeceSachs said:
Federer was too clutch and stole it for Murray with a great return game. And Federer level in the last 3 sets was prime level.
Click to expand...
I thought Murray could get a lead earlier in the set. Don't really remember the details. Well ok, that one wasn't a bad loss. But RG 2016 final was an absolutely terrible performance. No excuses for that one.
 
The Guru said:
I don't think the issue with Roddick/Fed was all matchup. There's just a tremendous level difference between the two players. Plus Wawrinka had to deal with not only Federer (who is also a bad matchup for Wawa) Nadal (worse matchup) Djokovic and Murray all of whom I consider ATGs. Wawrinka's resume is just a whole of a lot more impressive when looked at in context in full. Roddick only beat 4 top 10 players in his whole career who didn't retire. He only pushed top 10ers to 5 only to lose twice. His wins USO 03 Ferrero, 5 set win against 07 Ancic, 09 Murray, and 11 Ferrer. Compare that to Wawrinka's 20 wins against top players including scalps like AO 14 Djokovic and Nadal, RG 15 Fed and Djok, RG17 Murray, USO 13 Murray, and many more quality wins. He also has 3 5 set losses to number 1 Djok, a 5 set loss to AO 17 Fed, and he pushed 09 Murray at W (Roddick's career best win at a slam) to 5 on his worst surface outside his prime. Roddick was a very good player but he just never had it against the best in slams. Only his W 04 performance sticks out to me as particularly noteworthy and to me Wawa's level at multiple tournaments (AO 13/14, RG 15) was just better. Yes Roddick had weeks at number 1 but who was his competition at that point? Basically no one. Hewitt was injured, Fed was just starting up, Agassi was winding down, Ferrero is Ferrero. Wawa peaked during the Big 4 Era so it would've been a monumental achievement to have even one week at number 1. Wawrinka just has a gear that Roddick didn't and it shows in his results against the best competition on the biggest stages.
Click to expand...

Wawrinka had to deal with a much worse Federer and still can't beat him anywhere outside of clay - yet Arod is the one with the tremendous level difference? Hard disagree.

Discounting retirements seems a rather cheap way to score points if you ask me lol. The first 11 of Roddick's losses to top 10 players in slam were to players like Federer (x7), Hewitt (x3) and Djokovic (x1), he was hard blocked from scoring more of those wins by quality players. In other runs if the top 10 players didn't reach him then they weren't good enough, I don't think beating Murray (with a back injury) at the USO in 2013 is a better win then in-form Anic on the grass at Wimbledon in 2004 for example. Likewise his win over Nalbandian at the USO in 2003 doesn't count as a top 10 win but it was absolutely as good, if not much better, than beating 2015 Fed on clay. His legendary match against El Aynaoui at the AO in 2003 is an absolute classic but because El Aynaoui wasn't ranked top 10 it's not a big win? Disagree.

IMO Djokovic is simply a much easier match up for Wawrinka then Federer was for Roddick, yes Wawrinka has had Nadal and Federer too but I don't think getting pasted by old Fed at the USO in 2015 reflects well on Wawrinka's level at all for example...
 
The Guru said:
Then it's conceivable that Andy was a better player than some supposed ATGs and at that point what does ATG even mean. Context matters.
Click to expand...
And del Potro is more talented than a bunch of guys already in the Hall of Fame. Doesn't mean we grant him ATG status for what he could have done with better luck.

The history books will not care who had potential or why they didn't fully achieve it. At the end of the day either you did it or you didn't. Andy didn't. It sucks but it's the reality.
 
NatF said:
Wawrinka had to deal with a much worse Federer and still can't beat him anywhere outside of clay - yet Arod is the one with the tremendous level difference? Hard disagree.

Discounting retirements seems a rather cheap way to score points if you ask me lol. The first 11 of Roddick's losses to top 10 players in slam were to players like Federer (x7), Hewitt (x3) and Djokovic (x1), he was hard blocked from scoring more of those wins by quality players. In other runs if the top 10 players didn't reach him then they weren't good enough, I don't think beating Murray (with a back injury) at the USO in 2013 is a better win then in-form Anic on the grass at Wimbledon in 2004 for example. Likewise his win over Nalbandian at the USO in 2003 doesn't count as a top 10 win but it was absolutely as good, if not much better, than beating 2015 Fed on clay. His legendary match against El Aynaoui at the AO in 2003 is an absolute classic but because El Aynaoui wasn't ranked top 10 it's not a big win? Disagree.

IMO Djokovic is simply a much easier match up for Wawrinka then Federer was for Roddick, yes Wawrinka has had Nadal and Federer too but I don't think getting pasted by old Fed at the USO in 2015 reflects well on Wawrinka's level at all for example...
Click to expand...
They both have a tremendous level difference. Federer is possibly the greatest player ever and Wawa and Arod aren't even ATGs. I was just trying to say Roddick wasn't losing to Fed because of a horrible match up issue. I discounted retirements because I don't think beating an injured player is all that impressive but I'll do it anyway. Instead of it being 20-4 its 21-6 and they both pick up a win against Djokovic. Not much better. I just don't think it's possible to make the argument Roddick has better wins (or even close) to Wawrinka at slams. Wawrinka has wins against Djokovic x4 Murray x3 Fed and Nadal. You say Roddick has beaten in form lesser players who displayed good levels well I say Wawrinka has too. Beating an in form Nalbandian or Al Aynaoui (I do admit Ancic's level was fantastic) is not more impressive than beating in form Nishikori or Berdych or many more players along that line. Wawrinka has more of those type of wins too.
 
The Guru said:
There's a big level difference and matchup problem there too what's your point. Also are we really going to pretend that if Roddick got two more cracks at Roger he's have gotten a win, please even Red Rick would admit Andy would get schooled. You read a long post with a bunch of info and pick out one thing you think you can attack so it invalidates the whole thing. Be better.
Click to expand...
Stan is better at AO and FO, while Roddick is better at Wimb and the USO. Ismf Stan dors have a higher gear, it is mostly manifested at the first 2 slams, which are not Roddick's strongest suit, I agree.
 
StrongRule said:
Not just in the finals he lost. He played clearly better than in Wimbledon 2013 final. Though he could have been a bit more clutch in the second set. He had the advantage but let Federer take it from him. And after the second set I had no doubt about the outcome.
Click to expand...
For me that was his best effort in a slam final he lost, while AO 2012 was his best effort in a semi he lost.
 
MeatTornado said:
And del Potro is more talented than a bunch of guys already in the Hall of Fame. Doesn't mean we grant him ATG status for what he could have done with better luck.

The history books will not care who had potential or why they didn't fully achieve it. At the end of the day either you did it or you didn't. Andy didn't. It sucks but it's the reality.
Click to expand...
Not potential, level. Sure Del Po was talented and injuries let him down but Murray was talented and he delivered. He just played at the wrong time. Having luck doesn't make you greater and it certainly doesn't make you better. Maybe the history books won't care but informed tennis fans should be better. If European countries shut down all funds for tennis and 20 years from now some mediocre player feasts on that depleted field and wins 10 slams he's better than Lendl, than Agassi? That's just ridiculous. CONTEXT MATTERS
 
AnOctorokForDinner said:
As if Becker didn't lose plenty to fellow ATGs Lendl, Edberg, Sampras, Agassi. But he also beat them, particularly Lendl for his biggest non-grass titles (AO, USO and YEC). Couldn't trust Murray to beat a still-prime Lendl at all, so no comparison...
Click to expand...

Couldn't trust Murray to do what? What on earth are you talking about? Murray beat Djokovic for his biggest titles on grass AND hardcourt (Wimbledon, USO and YEC) and I think most people acknowledge Djokovic as an ATG and he beat Djokovic in straight sets more often than Becker did v Lendl .

You talk such amazing crap about Murray it's getting beyond a joke.
 
Mainad said:
Couldn't trust Murray to do what? What on earth are you talking about? Murray beat Djokovic for his biggest titles on grass AND hardcourt (Wimbledon, USO and YEC) and I think most people acknowledge Djokovic as an ATG and he beat Djokovic in straight sets more often than Becker did v Lendl .

You talk such amazing crap about Murray it's getting beyond a joke.
Click to expand...

Beating a great player in BO5 straights is actually cheaper than a close win, because it suggests said great player was subpar otherwise they find a way to win a set.

Your propensity to get triggered whenever Murray is not praised to the skies is well-known, knock it off already. Andy is great but not level with actual ATGs.
 
The Guru said:
They both have a tremendous level difference. Federer is possibly the greatest player ever and Wawa and Arod aren't even ATGs. I was just trying to say Roddick wasn't losing to Fed because of a horrible match up issue. I discounted retirements because I don't think beating an injured player is all that impressive but I'll do it anyway. Instead of it being 20-4 its 21-6 and they both pick up a win against Djokovic. Not much better. I just don't think it's possible to make the argument Roddick has better wins (or even close) to Wawrinka at slams. Wawrinka has wins against Djokovic x4 Murray x3 Fed and Nadal. You say Roddick has beaten in form lesser players who displayed good levels well I say Wawrinka has too. Beating an in form Nalbandian or Al Aynaoui (I do admit Ancic's level was fantastic) is not more impressive than beating in form Nishikori or Berdych or many more players along that line. Wawrinka has more of those type of wins too.
Click to expand...

Fed is a better player irrespective of the match up, that much goes without saying. But it's obviously harder to win when you're not only playing a better player but also one that hard counters your game. Wawrinka didn't have that with Djokovic.

As far as retirements go if the injury happens mid match when behind in the scoreboard then I don't see why it shouldn't count. I'm not familiar with what happened to Berdych in 2007 but Arod was in extremely good form anyway...as far as the AO 2009 goes that's a legit win, Djokovic couldn't handle the conditions that's not Arod's fault. I doubt he retires if he's up in the scoreboard.

And it would depend on the match but I don't think a top 10 win is inherently more impressive than any other - let alone one over Berdych or Nishikori :pBeating the Big 3/4 in average form isn't necessarily more impressive than any other win. Stan does have that AO win over Djokovic which is definitely the most impressive of either but otherwise Arod holds up imo.
 
AnOctorokForDinner said:
Beating a great player in BO5 straights is actually cheaper than a close win, because it suggests said great player was subpar otherwise they find a way to win a set.

Your propensity to get triggered whenever Murray is not praised to the skies is well-known, knock it off already. Andy is great but not level with actual ATGs.
Click to expand...

I don't need Murray to be praised to the skies only to be treated with respect which might come more naturally with a greater familiarity with his record.
 
The Guru said:
Not potential, level. Sure Del Po was talented and injuries let him down but Murray was talented and he delivered. He just played at the wrong time. Having luck doesn't make you greater and it certainly doesn't make you better. Maybe the history books won't care but informed tennis fans should be better. If European countries shut down all funds for tennis and 20 years from now some mediocre player feasts on that depleted field and wins 10 slams he's better than Lendl, than Agassi? That's just ridiculous. CONTEXT MATTERS
Click to expand...
We're arguing two different points.
 
MeatTornado said:
We're arguing two different points.
Click to expand...
The point I'm trying to make, and apparently failing to, is that under your definition players who are better than ATGs aren't always ATGs and that doesn't make any sense. If you are better than another ATG then you should be an ATG yourself, no?
 
The Guru said:
The point I'm trying to make, and apparently failing to, is that under your definition players who are better than ATGs aren't always ATGs and that doesn't make any sense. If you are better than another ATG then you should be an ATG yourself, no?
Click to expand...

Murray has a clearly lesser cumulative Slam+YEC peak than any OE ATG.
 
Murray has won 3 titles at Wimbledon (2 in The Championships, 1 in the Olympics).

Murray is GOAT.

We shall educate them, Mainad.
 
FedeRadi said:
Big 3 are not the floor of ATG level, they're probably 1st, 2nd and 3rd of all-time. You can argue Becker, Edberg and Wilander, maybe Agassi and Connors too, are closer to non-ATGs like Vilas and Courier than they're to big 3. So they aren't ATG?
Click to expand...
Thanks for the feedback. Again, the number of Grand Slams is the most relevant all-time great criterion and other criteria are only tie-breakers in case two players are tied in Slams. 7+ Slams is the minimum criterion to be an all-time great. Let us apply the "7 Slams criterion" to Murray. Has Murray won 7 Slams? No. Hence, he is not an ATG.

FedeRadi said:
I answered point by point in quote.
Click to expand...
It was an elaborated reply, but you didn't reply these four crucial points:

1. You didn't reply why should we rely on an unofficial rating. The ATP rating is official. the ELO rating is unofficial and so not part of tennis. ELO rating is just an invention of some tennis fans that designed the UTS and Tennis Abstract webpages. If ELO isn't official, it isn't part of tennis. Simple as that.
2. You didn't reply why should I prefer the UTS ELO rating over the Tennis Abstract tennis rating, when both pages present ELO rating with different scores.
3. You dind't answer why do you ignore the phenomenon of ELO inflation. Murray has a higher peak ELO than Sampras and it does not mean that his level was superior. It only means that Murray could inflate his ELO with victories against the Big 3, while Sampras could not increase his ELO as much because his victories were against players with lower ELO rating.
4. You didn't have any reply for the fact that, in chess, peak ELO rating is never used as a criterion of greatness. You totally ignored my example of the Levon Aronian vs. Bobby FIscher comparison. Aronian attained a higher peak ELO than Fischer and it doesn't mean he was a stronger or greater player than Fischer. Aronian just benefited from the ELO inflation, as he faced players with higher overall ELO and each victory or draw would allow him to achieve more points than Fischer. Please find an article of opinion stating that Levon Aronian is greater than Bobby Fischer. You won't find it. The chess example totally refutes the utility of ELO for greateness comparisons. Using ELO is a way to unfairly favor modern players over players from the past, as with the phenomenon of ELO inflation, ELO always increases. ELO has never been and will never be a greatness criterion.
 
Last edited:
The Guru said:
The point I'm trying to make, and apparently failing to, is that under your definition players who are better than ATGs aren't always ATGs and that doesn't make any sense. If you are better than another ATG then you should be an ATG yourself, no?
Click to expand...
Should be. But that's not the way the world works. It doesn't matter if you know in your heart of hearts than Andy Murray is one of the 10 best tennis players of all time. In 20 years time, he won't be remembered as such. You don't have to like it, just have to accept it.
 
Never agreed with the notion that Andy would've been more successful in previous eras because there wouldn't be Fedalovic on his way to the titles.
He wasn't good enough (way too defensive mindset when it matters the most) to deal with the ATG guys more often than not.

There is a guy like Ivan Lendl who never, literally never, had a break when it comes to "easy draws" as he had to compete against ATGs during his entire career (as a young player, during his prime/peak, and after), first against Borg and Connors, then came McEnroe, then Boris, Wilander, Edberg, bunch of grass specialists during 80s, Agassi, Sampras...and he still managed to win eight Majors.
 
AnOctorokForDinner said:
Keep disrespecting ATGs by putting Murray on their level.
Click to expand...

Disagree about that all you want, just don't use distorted and ridiculous arguments to support it eg. Murray would have had no chance against an ATG like Lendl (which is impossible to speculate about given they never met on a tennis court) when he has had great success against the ATGs of his own era.
 
MeatTornado said:
Should be. But that's not the way the world works. It doesn't matter if you know in your heart of hearts than Andy Murray is one of the 10 best tennis players of all time. In 20 years time, he won't be remembered as such. You don't have to like it, just have to accept it.
Click to expand...
Sure... but who cares if the uninformed masses forget about Murray and underrate him. Doesn't make him any less great. Doesn't mean we should not call him an ATG really is. I guess my question is why do you care what morons will say 20 years from now? Why not know the truth for yourself? Why give a rats ass about public opinion? Just because the majority of people believe something doesn't make it right. Just seems like a weird way to think about it.
 
Sport said:
Thanks for the feedback. Again, the number of Grand Slams is the most relevant all-time great criterion and other criteria are only tie-breakers in case two players are tied in Slams. 7+ Slams is the minimum criterion to be an all-time great. Let us apply the "7 Slams criterion" to Murray. Has Murray won 7 Slams? No. Hence, he is not an ATG.
Click to expand...

So let's apply it to other players many think of as ATGs eg. Becker and Edberg. That means they're not ATGs either according to your measuring stick?
 
The Guru said:
Sure... but who cares if the uninformed masses forget about Murray and underrate him. Doesn't make him any less great. Doesn't mean we should not call him an ATG really is. I guess my question is why do you care what morons will say 20 years from now? Why not know the truth for yourself? Why give a rats ass about public opinion? Just because the majority of people believe something doesn't make it right. Just seems like a weird way to think about it.
Click to expand...
Idk, why should you care what I think either? I'm just some stranger on the internet. Yet here you are trying to convince me of MuryGOAT.

None of this crap really matters.
 
MeatTornado said:
Should be. But that's not the way the world works. It doesn't matter if you know in your heart of hearts than Andy Murray is one of the 10 best tennis players of all time. In 20 years time, he won't be remembered as such. You don't have to like it, just have to accept it.
Click to expand...

Oh many of us can remember players from 20 years ago who accomplished much less than Murray so I doubt that will ever come to pass.
 
Mainad said:
Oh many of us can remember players from 20 years ago who accomplished much less than Murray so I doubt that will ever come to pass.
Click to expand...
Yeah, we do. TTW nerds. And every British tennis fan who was alive in 2012-13 will remember him as a hero forever.

But Joe Schmoe average sports fan in a couple decades won't.
 
MeatTornado said:
Yeah, we do. TTW nerds. And every British tennis fan who was alive in 2012-13 will remember him as a hero forever.

But Joe Schmoe average sports fan in a couple decades won't.
Click to expand...

Yes but who cares about Joe Schmoe? Unless he's a tennis fan he's unlikely even to recall who Federer was.
 
Martin J said:
Never agreed with the notion that Andy would've been more successful in previous eras because there wouldn't be Fedalovic on his way to the titles.
He wasn't good enough (way too defensive mindset when it matters the most) to deal with the ATG guys more often than not.

There is a guy like Ivan Lendl who never, literally never, had a break when it comes to "easy draws" as he had to compete against ATGs during his entire career (as a young player, during his prime/peak, and after), first against Borg and Connors, then came McEnroe, then Boris, Wilander, Edberg, bunch of grass specialists during 80s, Agassi, Sampras...and he still managed to win eight Majors.
Click to expand...

Lendl definitely had the toughest comp in OE, probably ever. 1986 was his only respite and even then he faced Becker on grass and indoors. Otherwise, Lendl's draws were filled with prime ATGs and lesser great talents such as Gerulaitis and Cash.
 
MeatTornado said:
Idk, why should you care what I think either? I'm just some stranger on the internet. Yet here you are trying to convince me of MuryGOAT.

None of this crap really matters.
Click to expand...
I don't. I just enjoy debating about tennis online. That's why I'm here. Presumably you do too.

This debate has gotten really weird haha
 
The Guru said:
I don't. I just enjoy debating about tennis online. That's why I'm here. Presumably you do too.

This debate has gotten really weird haha
Click to expand...
I'm willing to keep going until we both have an existential crisis about the meaning of life itself.

a88.jpg
 
I do think Murray should be considered an ATG despite his shortcomings in the most important metric--slam titles, but that Elo rating putting him above Sampras for instance is one good reason why I think it doesn't quite work for tennis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JennyS
The h2h of 6+ Slam winners against each other
Replies
6
Views
2K
JennyS
JennyS
M
Do you put Andy Murray at same tier as Edberg/Wilander/Becker?
3 4 5
Replies
202
Views
6K
Mustard
Mustard
Phoenix1983
H2H records of the Open Era greats
Replies
11
Views
2K
tacou
tacou
D
Slam finals and semifinals between ATGs
3 4 5
Replies
224
Views
6K
King No1e
King No1e
Lew II
Slam matches played with ATGs (two categories)
Replies
15
Views
716
Third Serve
Third Serve
Back
Top