Poll : Murray - ATG player or not ?

Murray - ATG ?


  • Total voters
    94

D.Nalby12

G.O.A.T.
Since @Lew II often (conveniently) claims ATG status for Murray and spins stats around it - I wanted to make public opinion clear about Murray's standing.
Do you consider him ATG player ? Simple yes or no question. Vote in poll.
 

mehdimike

Semi-Pro
No way!! He has got just 1 over 80% win rate in slams - Wimbledon(85%). It's ok to be bad at 1 or even 2 slams but at three?!
 

Milanez82

Professional
He was unlucky to play in the Era of 3 greatest players in the history of tennis and still has amazing achievements
 

RS

G.O.A.T.
Other issue is other 1-4 major players have had comparable or better playing levels at slams sometimes.
 

Swingmaster

Hall of Fame
Of course. He’s one of the greats in the greatest era. If he were the fourth greatest in the worst era, I would say no. Stan and Thiem already should probably be considered ATGs. Imagine Thiem vs Tim Henman.
 

StrongRule

G.O.A.T.
He was unlucky to play in the Era of 3 greatest players in the history of tennis and still has amazing achievements
The big 3 also played against each other, but for some reason they have more than 3 slams. Murray being unlucky is BS. He just played very, very bad in most of his slam finals.
 

Swingmaster

Hall of Fame
The big 3 also played against each other, but for some reason they have more than 3 slams. Murray being unlucky is BS. He just played very, very bad in most of his slam finals.
Come on. At least admit that’s it’s unfortunate for him to have to go up against the three best players of all time. He could’ve played better in those finals, but he was also playing against the three best players of all time. No one is saying he’s better than them, but to be able to hang with those guys for the most part, not too shabby.
 

TimHenmanATG

Hall of Fame
I'm sorry to labour the point, but if Andy is not an ATG, then where does that leave the Big 3?

It's pretty preposterous that it's even disputed that a guy who has won 3 Grand Slam titles, 2 Olympic Golds, 14 ATP Masters titles, and reached 11 GS finals, is somehow not an ATG.
 

zipplock

Hall of Fame
He was unlucky to play in the Era of 3 greatest players in the history of tennis and still has amazing achievements
You're basically saying he would have been better if the players of his time were worse. That's hilarious. Them being worse doesn't make him better.
 

StrongRule

G.O.A.T.
I'm sorry to labour the point, but if Andy is not an ATG, then where does that leave the Big 3?

It's pretty preposterous that it's even disputed that a guy who has won 3 Grand Slam titles, 2 Olympic Golds, 14 ATP Masters titles, and reached 11 GS finals, is somehow not an ATG.
And lost 8 of them, LOL. Nobody can be an ATG with just 3 slam titles, and I don't care how many lost finals he has.
 
If he miracously finds a way to win another slam he should be awarded ATG status. Definitely a unique set of circumstances which is why the question is often asked. Murray has his own tier imo.
 

TimHenmanATG

Hall of Fame
And lost 8 of them, LOL. Nobody can be an ATG with just 3 slam titles, and I don't care how many lost finals he has.
But if you're holding up his contemporaries as ATGs, then can you see why Andy's purported "failings" don't shine a positive light on the other members of the Big 4?
 

StrongRule

G.O.A.T.
But if you're holding up his contemporaries as ATGs, then can you see why Andy's purported "failings" don't shine a positive light on the other members of the Big 4?
Not sure what is your point. You are trying to compare Murray to the big 3? Dude, you need to multiply his slam count by 7 (!!!) for him to surpass them.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Come on. At least admit that’s it’s unfortunate for him to have to go up against the three best players of all time. He could’ve played better in those finals, but he was also playing against the three best players of all time. No one is saying he’s better than them, but to be able to hang with those guys for the most part, not too shabby.
Your standards for ATG are clearly not that high.
 

StrongRule

G.O.A.T.
There were so many threads about this that normal fans are already tired of voting, so they don't show up. As a result, Djokovic fanboys finally won the poll. :-D :-D :-D :-D
 

Milanez82

Professional
You're basically saying he would have been better if the players of his time were worse. That's hilarious. Them being worse doesn't make him better.
No he is a great player
But when you have Federer Nadal Djokovic standing in the way, there is not much left to win, yet he still was the best player for a season, won some slams, olympic gold, bunch of masters
The guy even won a tournament on metallic hip
 

TimHenmanATG

Hall of Fame
Not sure what is your point. You are trying to compare Murray to the big 3? Dude, you need to multiply his slam count by 7 (!!!) for him to surpass them.
My point is that if Murray isn't an ATG, then shouldn't that challenge Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic fans to re-appraise their views of the status of the Big 3?

If an "also-ran" regularly schooled his contemporaries, then shouldn't that call into question how you perceive those aforementioned contemporaries?
 

BackhandDTL

Hall of Fame
No but he’s a great player.

If he sustained that 2012-13 level longer without injury he would probably achieved ATG status.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
No he is a great player
But when you have Federer Nadal Djokovic standing in the way, there is not much left to win, yet he still was the best player for a season, won some slams, olympic gold, bunch of masters
The guy even won a tournament on metallic hip
He finished a season at the top because the Big 3 all collapsed.
 

BackhandDTL

Hall of Fame
Fed fans will say no, cause they have to prove that Murray wasn't 'stronk competition'. Biased, it shall be, like any other poll
Murray wasn’t ATG quality post 2013. Played mediocre tennis in GS finals. Folded like a cheap suit in AO 2015. AO 2016 was joke quality from Murray.
 
Last edited:

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Fed fans will say no, cause they have to prove that Murray wasn't 'stronk competition'. Biased, it shall be, like any other poll
Djokovic fans will say yes just to bolster his competition even more. The conclusion remains the same.

And besides, Murray was part of Fed's competition too, so if anything they should join the Djoko fanbase in hyping him up.
 

Tennis_Freak99

Hall of Fame
Djokovic fans will say yes just to bolster his competition even more. The conclusion remains the same.

And besides, Murray was part of Fed's competition too, so if anything they should join the Djoko fanbase in hyping him up.
Isn't he part of 'old Fed' competition'? This is the same Fed who is 'old' to be a weak competion for Djokodal himself!

There are no 'guidlines' for who is an ATG. I firmly believe he is, you believe he is not. It should be left to personal choice
 

Rafa4LifeEver

Hall of Fame
Since @Lew II often (conveniently) claims ATG status for Murray and spins stats around it - I wanted to make public opinion clear about Murray's standing.
Do you consider him ATG player ? Simple yes or no question. Vote in poll.
Sir, he is my countryman, but I'd still refrain from Calling him an ATG. He is in tier of his own.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Isn't he part of 'old Fed' competition'? This is the same Fed who is 'old' to be a weak competion for Djokodal himself!

There are no 'guidlines' for who is an ATG. I firmly believe he is, you believe he is not. It should be left to personal choice
He was Fed's competition in 2008-2012 when Fed wasn't too old. Fed won 3 slam finals against him.

If anything Fed fans should hype him up too.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Isn't he part of 'old Fed' competition'? This is the same Fed who is 'old' to be a weak competion for Djokodal himself!

There are no 'guidlines' for who is an ATG. I firmly believe he is, you believe he is not. It should be left to personal choice
I don't believe he is because of Wawrinka. It shows Murray's struggles to win more than 3 slams is overstated.
 

Tennis_Freak99

Hall of Fame
I don't believe he is because of Wawrinka. It shows Murray's struggles to win more than 3 slams is overstated.
That's because you come from the belief system that slams are the 'be all and end all' of the sport Tennis. I don't agree with that. Murray has won almost every big title there, reached #1 and YE#1 and so on. Wawrinka only matches him in slams

That's where we will disagree and it's fine. I don't agree to the fact that slams are everything
 
Last edited:

StrongRule

G.O.A.T.
That's because you come from the belief system that slams are the 'be all and end all' of the sport Tennis. I don't agree with that. Murray has won almost every big title there, reached #1 and YE#1 and so on. Wawrinka only matches him slams

That's where we will disagree and it's fine. I don't agree to the fact that slams are everything
So you think Vilas was the greatest claycourt player until 2017 when Nadal surpassed him in clay titles? The guy had just 1 RG.
 

Thetouch

Professional
There is no definition of an ATG unless you have to be a top 10 all time great, then obviously Murray is not.

20 years ago Becker, Edberg and Wilander would have definitely been called ATGs though, so aren't they anymore? Nobody can define what an ATG is. Even being No. 1 in the world doesn't mean much because Rios and Muster have been No. 1 yet combined they only have 1 slam.
 
Top