The Media Are Lying There is no top 4 only top 3 at the moment.

A

Amelie Mauresmo

Banned
I don't care what the media says Andy Murray is NOT a part of the elite group in men's tennis. John McEnroe and the media can say Murray is a part of the top 4 but that's only in relation to his ATP ranking. In the top 10 there are many levels and Andy Murray is clearly not a part of the top group.

Yes Murray is a top ten player and he consistent but I feel he's in the same group as Soderling, Berdych, and Tsonga. Murray's in the second tier the kind of players that can perhaps come up with a big win but can't go all the way and win a major. Murray has never won a slam he's 0-3 in grand slam finals.Murray continues to LOSE to Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic when it really matters. Once again, Murray loses to one of the big three. Murray does not deserve to be considered at the top until he wins a grand slam. The commentators and reporters can make excuses for Murray but he just doesn't have the mental toughness yet to win a major. In some ways, I feel that Tsonga has a chance to win a major if he would just lose some weight and get into better shape. Murray's problems are more mental than physical. I don't think Murray really has it within in him at the moment to win a grand slam.
 
Last edited:
It's simply a fact that Murray has been more successful than Soderling, Berdych, and Tsonga. Not opinion -- fact. He's been ranked above them with the exception of relatively brief periods w/Soderling, and right now the gap between Murray and Sod is big(well over 2,000 points as big as the gap between Soderling and Fish, who is 9th). So 4 leads 5 as much as 5 leads 9. That's a significant gap, larger than a Slam title.

Then you look at the other things they have done. Career titles:

Murray: 17, 6 Masters
Soderling: 9, 1 Masters
Berdych: 5, 1 Masters
Tsonga: 5, 1 Masters

Murray has achieved more than all three of them put together, and he's the youngest. It's more of an insult to Murray to lump him in with them, than it is to the top 3 to lump them in with him.

So far this year it's been Djokovic and Nadal at the top, Federer and Murray in the second group, then Ferrer, then everyone else if you look at what they've achieved objectively.
 
Yes Murray is ranked number 4 BUT he is still BELOW the top group in men's tennis. I am talking about grand slam success and I feel he's a step below Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic. At the end of a career nobody cares about masters series titles the grand slams matter. At least Soderling and Tosnga have beaten BOTH Federer and Nadal at grand slam events. I think Del Potro is even a better player than Andy Murray he has beaten Federer and Nadal at grand slams too.
 
Yes Murray is ranked number 4 BUT he just can't beat the top 3 consistently at the slams therefore there is a big space between Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic and Andy Murray. There is clearly a gap between the top 3 and Andy Murray at the slams. Murray just doesn't have the mental toughness he is too emotional at the grand slams and he lacks the maturity to beat Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic consistently at the slams.
 
He's definitely top 4. He's done better than Fed in two of the last three Slams, too, so he's not so far from the current #3. There's a big difference with the top 2, though.
 
Those loopy warmup forehands he was hitting in the 4th set told me that unless there's a fluke draw that opens up based on upsets or injuries, he won't be winning a slam anytime soon.
He doesn't seem to have that extra gear that the today's true champions have.
 
Now you've invented a new standard that involves only Slam events, which is illogical for a number of reasons that have been discussed to death in these forums. But even on that standard, Murray is still better than those you mention.

Murray: 3 finals, 4 SF, 2 QF
Soderling: 2F, 0 SF, 4 QF
Berdych: 1 F, 1 SF, 2 QF
Tsonga: 1F, 2 SF, 2 QF

This Wimbledon is Murray's 8th Grand Slam semifinal. Again, he's the youngest, and none of the others have more than 4. It's not even close. Murray by a landslide.

Just because he's at the bottom of the Top 4 doesn't mean he isn't a member of that group. He's well above the rest of the Top 10. It's simply a fact.
 
Bryan Swartz said:
Now you've invented a new standard that involves only Slam events, which is illogical for a number of reasons that have been discussed to death in these forums. But even on that standard, Murray is still better than those you mention.

Murray: 3 finals, 4 SF, 2 QF
Soderling: 2F, 0 SF, 4 QF
Berdych: 1 F, 1 SF, 2 QF
Tsonga: 1F, 2 SF, 2 QF

This Wimbledon is Murray's 8th Grand Slam semifinal. Again, he's the youngest, and none of the others have more than 4. It's not even close. Murray by a landslide.

Just because he's at the bottom of the Top 4 doesn't mean he isn't a member of that group. He's well above the rest of the Top 10. It's simply a fact.
Click to expand...

Hes not a legit contender for slams tho..never has been,

Lets be honest...If he wasnt british who have a PR machine behind him, he would never be hyped as this..
 
I agree. I hate when they say "the big 4". There is no "big 4", there is only "big 3". Media is saying that just because British player is No4.

And, don't get me wrong, I DO think Andy is better then rest of the players below him, but he is still not in Roger, Nadal and Novak category. Andy is somewhere in between those 3, and rest of the players.
 
If you are good enough to get to a slam final, you are good enough to contend for the title. That's just a truism.

Someone not good enough to be a contender would be someone expected to lose in the quarters or earlier, not someone consistently reaching the semis with multiple finals. In a final you are just an opponent's bad day/injury/whatever away from winning. There's no 'not a contender' about that.
 
Bryan Swartz said:
How do you make 3 slam finals by not being a legitimate contender? That doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...

Andy is very good tennis player. And definitely better then players below him, if you know what I mean. But still he is NOT in the same group as Roger, Nadal, and Novak this year, because those 3 made some EXTRODINARY results. Andy didn't make any extraordinary result. He made some pretty good results, but not nearly as good what Novak, Nadal and Roger made.
 
This year his results are almost as good as Roger's actually. But I have no problem with a Top 3, that would actually be more accurate in my opinion.

My objection is to this idea of lumping him in with Berdych, Tsonga, and Soderling.
 
Bryan Swartz said:
If you are good enough to get to a slam final, you are good enough to contend for the title. That's just a truism.

Someone not good enough to be a contender would be someone expected to lose in the quarters or earlier, not someone consistently reaching the semis with multiple finals. In a final you are just an opponent's bad day/injury/whatever away from winning. There's no 'not a contender' about that.
Click to expand...

Oh he is definitly a favorite to win grand slam. He is just not part of "big 4", he is not in that group. He needs some pretty awesome results to be in that category.
 
Eh...this is really as stupid as saying there isn't a top 5 only a top 4 and the guy ranked 5th.

Or that there isn't a top 6, just the top 5 and the guy ranked 6th.

DUCY?
 
Bryan Swartz said:
This year his results are almost as good as Roger's actually. But I have no problem with a Top 3, that would actually be more accurate in my opinion.

My objection is to this idea of lumping him in with Berdych, Tsonga, and Soderling.
Click to expand...

Roger is not part of "big 3" because of results this year. It's because he is the best there ever was, and this year he had descent results. So that's what qualifies him in that group/
 
I don't think you can even say there is a top 3. How many slams has Djokovic got, like, 2? That's laughable compared to 16 and 11 (which Nadal will have from Sunday).

By those stats, Federer is 8x better than Djokovic and Nadal is 5x better. That seems about accurate and you will find out on Sunday just why Masters titles mean diddly squat on Sunday when Nadal proves that the real champions save their most special performances for Grand Slams.
 
The western media hype Murray because he is British if he was from an Eastern European or South American country he would never get this much hype. Murray is very mentally fragile he just doesn't got what it takes to win a major. The big three are miles ahead of Andy Murray.
 
sonicare said:
Makes perfect sense..He ddint win a set because of a reason... and this is against guys he matches up well against.
Click to expand...

some other reasons also

2008 US open: First career slam final : he was fatigued after playing "the match of his life" 3 1/2 hours on Saturday's second semifinal agaisnt RAFA who had won FO, Wimby ,Olympic Gold and had streak of 32 matches across all surfaces..

2010 AO : He just couldnt replicate his earlier round form winning over Nadal (retired in QTF), Isner and Cilic. Also wouldn't blame him for some nerves after losing his first slam final

2011 AO: Did have chances early on but couldn't capitalise. Novak was just too good on that day..
 
The media are lying. There are currently only the Big 2. Fed is behind Nadal and Djoko, and falling further behind. Murray cannot be considered in the same class as the previous 3. Not even close. He is talented but not GIFTED. He is the best pusher the world has ever seen along with Wozniacki. By the time USO comes along there will be Big 3, the 3rd being Delpo, not Fed, Murray or Wozniacki.
 
Murray is seperated from rest of the pack. In the past 5 years his GS achievements/consistancy and MS1000 record are unargulably well beyond any 5-30 ranked player other than Delpo.
 
There is dominant great Nadal, then there is great two - Nadal/Djokvic, then the leading three Nadal/Djokovic/Murray, and then everyone else. Fred ranked in top 4 is a joke - he's the Wozniacki of ATP piling up points from random small events no one plays or cares about and then getting a good seeding and draw in slams where he can't make it past quarters because he doesn' belong in top 10. It's actually sad.
 
Nadal and Djokovic

------big gap-------

Federer

------huge gap------




Murray



-----another huge gap-------


the rest of the top 10 and beyond


There is a big 2, not even a big 3.
 
PCXL-Fan said:
Murray is seperated from rest of the pack. In the past 5 years his GS achievements/consistancy and MS1000 record are unargulably well beyond any 5-30 ranked player other than Delpo.
Click to expand...

ummm

Delpo is ahead of murray at this point

1 > 0
 
NadalAgassi said:
Nadal and Djokovic

------big gap-------

Federer

------huge gap------




Murray



-----another huge gap-------


the rest of the top 10 and beyond


There is a big 2, not even a big 3.
Click to expand...

You are very right, except I think you confuse the Murray and Fred. Murray made Wimbledon semis against a much more dangerous grasscourter in the quarters.
 
Achilles82 said:
I agree. I hate when they say "the big 4". There is no "big 4", there is only "big 3". Media is saying that just because British player is No4.

And, don't get me wrong, I DO think Andy is better then rest of the players below him, but he is still not in Roger, Nadal and Novak category. Andy is somewhere in between those 3, and rest of the players.
Click to expand...
And that is... correct.
 
Achilles82 said:
Andy is very good tennis player. And definitely better then players below him, if you know what I mean. But still he is NOT in the same group as Roger, Nadal, and Novak this year, because those 3 made some EXTRODINARY results. Andy didn't make any extraordinary result. He made some pretty good results, but not nearly as good what Novak, Nadal and Roger made.
Click to expand...

Murray's slam results this year are better than Federer's and only Murray and Novak have made at least semis of all 3 slams this season - but don't let facts get in the way of anything.

If it's all about the slams then this year Novak is > Rafa > Murray > Roger
 
Last edited:
Bryan Swartz said:
If you are good enough to get to a slam final, you are good enough to contend for the title. That's just a truism.

Someone not good enough to be a contender would be someone expected to lose in the quarters or earlier, not someone consistently reaching the semis with multiple finals. In a final you are just an opponent's bad day/injury/whatever away from winning. There's no 'not a contender' about that.
Click to expand...

The term "legit" is obviously open to interpretation, but I agree he is a legit contender by my definition, nonetheless there is a CLEAR demarcation between Murray and the other 3 who have won slams. WINNING slams is what really counts....Just like their is a clear difference between a 1 slam winner....and a 1 time finalist....or a 5 time finalist for that matter!

The OP is right....Murray is NOT in the same tier as the other 3....
 
Datacipher said:
The term "legit" is obviously open to interpretation, but I agree he is a legit contender by my definition, nonetheless there is a CLEAR demarcation between Murray and the other 3 who have won slams. WINNING slams is what really counts....Just like their is a clear difference between a 1 slam winner....and a 1 time finalist....or a 5 time finalist for that matter!

The OP is right....Murray is NOT in the same tier as the other 3....
Click to expand...

This doesn't make any sense. If we're talking about here and now i.e. slams this season - only Rafa and Novak have a better record than Murray - they are also the only two guys to have won slams this season. Murray, with a final and 2 semis is third best in slams this seasons - that's just a fact.

If you're looking further back than this season then as well as Roger, you have to bring JCF, Roddick, Hewitt and Delpo into the equation. Are you really telling me that JCF and Lleyton Hewitt should be rated as a bigger threat than Murray in slams because of their historic records? Because that's essentially what you are saying about Roger.

If you're talking about career achievements - then all those guys I've listed would be ahead of Murray because 1 slam is > 3 slam finals. But if you're talking about slam results for this year - then Murray must be part of any group that includes Roger.
 
Last edited:
batz said:
This doesn't make any sense. If we're talking about here and now i.e. slams this season - only Rafa and Novak have a better record than Murray - they are also the only to guys to have won slams this season. Murray, with a final and 2 semis is third best in slams this seasons - that's just a fact.

If you're looking further back than this season then as well as Roger, you have to bring JCF, Roddick, Hewitt and Delpo into the equation. Are you really telling me that JCF and Lleyton Hewitt should be rated as a bigger threat than Murray in slams because of their historic records? Because that's essentially what you are saying about Roger.
Click to expand...

No certainly not, I am talking about the here and now, BUT you are correct, I am taking a historical context when I talk about winning slams. It's a BIG hurdle...it's why, when the board goes crazy over say...a Tsonga or Gonzalez make a final, and based on their form, are thought to be the favorites, I know...it's very likely not going to happen! Making that big breakthrough at a slam...it's a darn big mental hurdle...Murray hasn't made it, and that's why I seperate him from the other 3 who are playing so well right now.

There is no reason at all why those 2 factors cannot be combined...in fact, to try to separate them into an either/or scenario is unnatural, and simplistic!

Put simply: Murray's current form makes him a legit contender, but compared to proven slam winners, he's a definite notch below.

An analogy would be, a track and field/cylist/powerlifter/ (insert sport) guy who keeps beating everyone else's times in practice...but keeps coming up short when timed in competition. Ya gotta show you can come through at the real deal thing.
 
Amelie Mauresmo said:
I don't care what the media says Andy Murray is NOT a part of the elite group in men's tennis. John McEnroe and the media can say Murray is a part of the top 4 but that's only in relation to his ATP ranking. In the top 10 there are many levels and Andy Murray is clearly not a part of the top group.

Yes Murray is a top ten player and he consistent but I feel he's in the same group as Soderling, Berdych, and Tsonga. Murray's in the second tier the kind of players that can perhaps come up with a big win but can't go all the way and win a major. Murray has never won a slam he's 0-3 in grand slam finals.Murray continues to LOSE to Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic when it really matters. Once again, Murray loses to one of the big three. Murray does not deserve to be considered at the top until he wins a grand slam. The commentators and reporters can make excuses for Murray but he just doesn't have the mental toughness yet to win a major. In some ways, I feel that Tsonga has a chance to win a major if he would just lose some weight and get into better shape. Murray's problems are more mental than physical. I don't think Murray really has it within in him at the moment to win a grand slam.
Click to expand...


Oh, no... Don't be so hard on Andy...:(
 
Datacipher said:
No certainly not, I am talking about the here and now, BUT you are correct, I am taking a historical context when I talk about winning slams. It's a BIG hurdle...it's why, when the board goes crazy over say...a Tsonga or Gonzalez make a final, and based on their form, are thought to be the favorites, I know...it's very likely not going to happen! Making that big breakthrough at a slam...it's a darn big mental hurdle...Murray hasn't made it, and that's why I seperate him from the other 3 who are playing so well right now.

There is no reason at all why those 2 factors cannot be combined...in fact, to try to separate them into an either/or scenario is unnatural, and simplistic!

Put simply: Murray's current form makes him a legit contender, but compared to proven slam winners, he's a definite notch below.

An analogy would be, a track and field/cylist/powerlifter/ (insert sport) guy who keeps beating everyone else's times in practice...but keeps coming up short when timed in competition. Ya gotta show you can come through at the real deal thing.
Click to expand...

I don't have an issue with this mate -agree 100%.
 
Murray is streets ahead of Soderling, Ferrer and co.

He's sort of in no man's land at the moment in that 4th spot. The only player below him who I might consider an exception would be a fully fit and on-form Del Potro.

The rest in the top 10? Please....
 
batz said:
I don't have an issue with this mate -agree 100%.
Click to expand...

:-) I do think if Murray makes another final, we can expect to see better tennis out of him of course. Having said that, there are 2 sides to it: his experience in slam finals means it's not new, he shouldn't be overawed, nothing should be a big surprise, he should be hungrier than ever, and has had plenty of time to accept and come to terms with the idea that he should be there in that final.....on the other hand...his experience is in LOSING slam finals! Not a comforting though should he get to a pressure-filled moment in a final, or should the opponent take an early lead, or stage a comeback! That will be the interesting dynamic if he makes another final...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Andy Murray not at same elite level as Novak, Roger, Rafael
2 3
Replies
135
Views
18K
Fedex
Fedex
N
  • Poll Poll
Nadal is having his Federer 35 yo 2017 moment, but let not forget a certain 34yo member of the big 4 approaching 35yo soon....
Replies
8
Views
308
Azure
Azure
FedererDropShot
  • Poll Poll
Andy is out of the top 10...
2
Replies
60
Views
5K
*Sparkle*
S
J
Undoubtedly the top 4 players in the world!
Replies
35
Views
3K
JAY1
J
M
Random Andy Murray Achievements at 2013 Australian Open
Replies
3
Views
1K
kishnabe
kishnabe
Back
Top