The reason Murray would never win 5 or more majors in a "weaker era"

[Meles]

Unlike the other Big 4 members, Murray is always vulnerable when it comes to playing pros he is uncomfortable contesting against. Unlike the trio of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic and more like Andy Roddick his losses to the best are not conclusive proof he would have won more. Even in his major wins he's come close to losing, sometimes multiple times to several different people. In all 3 wins.

Nice to kick a man when he's down, but you've given something for the Murray fans to chew on. Murray was developing a semblance of a solid serve game in the last few years before his elbow and now hip took him down. Serves win majors plain and simple. Peakovic sort of pulled a quickie on everyone with his remarkable 2nd serving, but big serving is just a huge thing. Nadal finally got the message in 2017 and has become a force once again. Djokoray physically falling apart and so they need to take the rest of the year off and throw in the towel on a weak 2017 showing. Pack it up if your serve is compromised.

 

[-NN-]

Nice to kick a man when he's down, but you've given something for the Murray fans to chew on. Murray was developing a semblance of a solid serve game in the last few years before his elbow and now hip took him down. Serves win majors plain and simple. Peakovic sort of pulled a quickie on everyone with his remarkable 2nd serving, but big serving is just a huge thing. Nadal finally got the message in 2017 and has become a force once again. Djokoray physically falling apart and so they need to take the rest of the year off and throw in the towel on a weak 2017 showing. Pack it up if your serve is compromised.

Don't you think it was a bit harsh to abandon the Murray ship though? He has gone on to have a tremendous career, after all.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

"Kicking Murray while he's down" sounds like a side mission in GTA

 

[Meles]

Don't you think it was a bit harsh to abandon the Murray ship though? He has gone on to have a tremendous career, after all.

Nope. The man won over 67% of his clay court serve points in 2015 and he was done to 62.0% in 2017. In hindsight really stupid that he tried to play and defend those points. Crazy to play with a bad serve. At this point both Murray and Nole may be out of WTF. Might as well pack it in for the year, save face, heal and come out swinging in 2018. They could claw their way through the rest of the year, but they'll just lessen their chances in 2018 and they aren't winning much the rest of the year with Fedal on the prowl.

 

[-NN-]

Nope. The man won over 67% of his clay court serve points in 2015 and he was done to 62.0% in 2017. In hindsight really stupid that he tried to play and defend those points. Crazy to play with a bad serve. At this point both Murray and Nole may be out of WTF. Might as well pack it in for the year, save face, heal and come out swinging in 2018. They could claw their way through the rest of the year, but they'll just lessen their chances in 2018 and they aren't winning much the rest of the year with Fedal on the prowl.

I don't mean for this year but you used to be a big Murray fan but abandoned ship despite him going on to prove himself.

 

[Meles]

"Kicking Murray while he's down" sounds like a side mission in GTA

Kickem' when they're up. Kickem' when they're down.

 

[Meles]

I don't mean for this year but you used to be a big Murray fan but abandoned ship despite him going on to prove himself.

Still like him, but it's GTFO time for him and Nole with the injuries. Just stupid.

 

[Thundergod]

Still like him, but it's GTFO time for him and Nole with the injuries. Just stupid.

They also get an excuse of not making WTF if they take the rest of the year off

 

[titoelcolombiano]

I tend to agree, Murray would be about a 3 to 6 slam winner in any era. Fedalovic have probably made him work harder than would have been the case with lessor opponents.

Enviado desde mi E6853 mediante Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 307496]

It's still possible that he might win 5 Slams in whatever you want to call this "era". Premature thread with a lot of potential to backfire in your face. And it wouldn't be the first time one of your posts about Murray backfired in your face.

With a hip injury that probably needs surgery and a ranking that's plumeting we are meant to hold off such judgements until he's retired?

And funnily enough no, I haven't been
"wrong" about Murray. I knew he'd win majors I just didn't envision his best tennis would coincide with one of the weakest periods in the last ten years.

I think it's time you learned to respect Andy Murray and everything he's achieved. You don't need to like his game or him as a person to realize that he's a great player.

It takes all of five minutes to gather you haven't watched more than 10 years of tennis.

He has my "respect", just not to the undue levels you and a few others exhiibit.

 

[Russeljones]

Am I the only one who had trouble understanding the OP?

 

[The_18th_Slam]

With a hip injury that probably needs surgery and a ranking that's plumeting we are meant to hold off such judgements until he's retired?

Yeah, I think so.

It takes all of five minutes to gather you haven't watched more than 10 years of tennis.

He has my "respect", just not to the undue levels you and a few others exhiibit.

It takes all of two minutes to gather that you're a butthurt Hewitt fanboy who can't take knowing that Murray will end up being regarded as a better player, when it's all said and done.

None of my respect for Murray is undue. It's due, considering he's a 3-time Slam champion and an 11-time Slam finalist.

 

[VexlanderPrime]

Unlike the other Big 4 members, Murray is always vulnerable when it comes to playing pros he is uncomfortable contesting against. Unlike the trio of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic and more like Andy Roddick his losses to the best are not conclusive proof he would have won more. Even in his major wins he's come close to losing, sometimes multiple times to several different people. In all 3 wins.

Fair point

All those AO finals lost to Djoker tho...

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Yeah, I think so.

Ever heard of Kuerten? Guess how many majors he won after hip injury?

It takes all of two minutes to gather that you're a butthurt Hewitt fanboy who can't take knowing that Murray will end up being regarded as a better player, when it's all said and done.

LOL. Of course he's better than Hewitt, but he isn't as good or great as Agassi which is the main claim I'm refuting.

None of my respect for Murray is undue. It's due, considering he's a 3-time Slam champion and an 11-time Slam finalist.

And you also believe he would beat anybody bar the Big 3 in the finals he lost. Even when he got whitewashed. Lol.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Fair point

All those AO finals lost to Djoker tho...

Yeah true, he would probably win one.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Ever heard of Kuerten? Guess how many majors he won after hip injury?

Murray is a way more consistent player. That said, yes, Murray may be well and truly done. But we don't know that yet.

LOL. Of course he's better than Hewitt, but he isn't as good or great as Agassi which is the main claim I'm refuting.

Who said he's better than Agassi?

And you also believe he would beat anybody bar the Big 3 in the finals he lost. Even when he got whitewashed. Lol.

I don't believe that, and I never claimed that, either. I think you're making a lot of silly assumptions on this thread.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Murray is a way more consistent player. That said, yes, Murray may be well and truly done. But we don't know that yet.

Consistency will fall off a cliff once surgery enters the picture again. Let's say he opts for it now, with his 2,200 or so ranking points for the year he's falling out of the top 10, which means meeting better players earlier and worse results overall.

Who said he's better than Agassi?

Countless people. Search for yourself.

I don't believe that, and I never claimed that, either. I think you're making a lot of silly assumptions on this thread.

As have you, assuming I'm bitter Murray passed Hewitt, which I would have freely admitted even a year ago when he won Wimbledon twice. But there's a stretch between being better than Hewitt and an ATG which is the premise I disagree with.

 

[Ganstaz003]

This I don't agree with. He would still be the most successful of that lot. Juan's peak was for like 4 months and he was still beatable at the time. Look up his H2H against Murray.

Although Andy Murray is the most consistent player of that group, the problem with him lies in the fact that his absolute peak isn't as good as the absolute peak of those others. His game revolves around neutralizing his opponent's strengths and relies on them making mistakes. Problem with that is if such opponents are firing on all cylinders and aren't making much mistakes, Andy Murray simply can't beat them! Simply put, Andy Murray lacks the 'firepower' and the match winning abilities to proactively win his matches, irrespective of circumstances.

So it'd take only one of those players with such 'firepower' to be at their absolute peak, in order to diminish any chances of Andy Murray winning a grand slam. For Andy Murray to win, he'd have to rely on every one of those players to not be at their peak, which is highly unlikely.

To further support my argument, a handicapped, one handed version of Juan Martin Del Potro who is arguably at his absolute worse forced Andy Murray to go life and death with him in the last 3 matches they played. Del Potro lost in the Olympics 2016 final in a very close match then got his revenge in the Davis cup match. All very close matches. If Andy Murray has to win by such small margins and has to go life and death against a handicapped version of Del Potro, what do you think a peak Del Potro would do?

If Andy Murray was so much better, then he should've won far more easily and decisively against a handicapped version of Del Potro. That wasn't the case however!

As far as Stanislas Wawrinka is concerned, I'd favor a peak version of Wawrinka to beat any version of Andy Murray outside Wimbledon.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Consistency will fall off a cliff once surgery enters the picture again. Let's say he opts for it now, with his 2,200 or so ranking points for the year he's falling out of the top 10, which means meeting better players earlier and worse results overall.

Or not. Federer has had a surgery and he's having his best season in years. Not that Murray will, too, but you never know.

Countless people. Search for yourself.

Like who? Name a couple.

As have you, assuming I'm bitter Murray passed Hewitt

Not an assumption. I've seen you act bitter about Murray for years.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Is there a player Murray is roughly equivalent with? Courier?

 

[ChrisRF]

From his 8 lost major finals all 8 were against ATGs (5 to Djokovic and 3 to Federer).

Do you (OP) really think he wouldn’t have won more than 2 of 8 against opponents outside the big 3?

And we are not even talking about the numerous SF losses against the big 3 (for example 2 times to Nadal at Wimbledon, 2 times to Nadal at RG, 2015 to Federer at Wimbledon, 2012 to Djokovic at AO and some more, also in QF).

Of course he would lose some of those tournaments against other opponents as well. Even if he loses a (small) majority of them, he would still be nearer to 10 majors than to 5.

 

[Gary Duane]

All I am doing is putting out an alternate theory; and produced proof to support my opinion/claim.

You can't produce proof for a hypothetical!

 

[Gary Duane]

Nice to kick a man when he's down, but you've given something for the Murray fans to chew on. Murray was developing a semblance of a solid serve game in the last few years before his elbow and now hip took him down. Serves win majors plain and simple. Peakovic sort of pulled a quickie on everyone with his remarkable 2nd serving, but big serving is just a huge thing. Nadal finally got the message in 2017 and has become a force once again. Djokoray physically falling apart and so they need to take the rest of the year off and throw in the towel on a weak 2017 showing. Pack it up if your serve is compromised.

Best example: Coria on clay.

There's a guy who at his peak had everything but a serve.

And I still claim that a noticeable weakness on 2nd serve is the worst thing to overcome in a service game.

 

[RF-18]

You think Murray is done winning slams? Jesus. He has several more years to compete. If you are not affected by the present and instead think about that things can change then I guess you are stuck here thinking his career is over.

 

[zaph]

He has been runner up 8 times in Slam finals. Are you seriously suggesting that he wouldn't have won more if he been playing weaker players than Federer or Djokovic?

Murray isn't as good as the other big four, his second serve is a liability and his first goes walkabout. However he has still managed to get to the top of the game in a very strong era and in a weaker era I could see him winning 5 slams or more. Hell he has 3 in this era.

 

[zaph]

Nope. The man won over 67% of his clay court serve points in 2015 and he was done to 62.0% in 2017. In hindsight really stupid that he tried to play and defend those points. Crazy to play with a bad serve. At this point both Murray and Nole may be out of WTF. Might as well pack it in for the year, save face, heal and come out swinging in 2018. They could claw their way through the rest of the year, but they'll just lessen their chances in 2018 and they aren't winning much the rest of the year with Fedal on the prowl.

I would agree with that, they have both looked jaded for months and now with the injuries. They need time off.

However i think Murray will be reluctant, it took him along time to get over his past injuries.

 

[NatF]

Is there a player Murray is roughly equivalent with? Courier?

Courier is probably a good shout. Tough as their careers have very different strengths. Courier was briefly dominant but burned out quickly where as Murray has mostly been consistent over a very long period of time.

I still think Hewitt with his 2 YE #1's has some rough equivalence though Murray is definitely ahead at least as of last year.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Courier is probably a good shout. Tough as their careers have very different strengths. Courier was briefly dominant but burned out quickly where as Murray has mostly been consistent over a very long period of time.

I still think Hewitt with his 2 YE #1's has some rough equivalence though Murray is definitely ahead at least as of last year.

Yeah agreed, that's why it's an interesting comparison. I could see arguments on both sides. Courier has 1 more slam and was more dominant I Feel than Murray ever was.

Cool trivia: He was actually the last guy to win AO+RG in 1 year (92) until Novak did it last year.

On the other hand, as you said, he was not nearly as consistent nor did he have as many masters/small titles/equivalents etc. Quick burnout.

Also Murray has more desireable slams probably, I generally believe a slam is a slam ...but it is probably a mark against you if you never won Wimbledon. Courier was clearly better on slower surfaces.

 

[Newcomer]

No doubt Murray is very overrated. Shanghai 2012 final proved once and for all that he is just too mentally weak for big wins.

 

[Slice'n'dice]

But even with those guys out he's still going to struggle mightily with the second tier players. I'd put him at 4 to be honest.

He could still get to 4 now, in this era. think he'd win a few more in another era.

Thought you liked Murray anyway? Don't know why you spend half your time on here telling people he's not very good.

 

[MatsPhilander]

No such thing as the Big 4

How about the Fab Five?

 

[*Sparkle*]

I think its interesting whether he should be considered part of a big 4...i mean he was consistent in making so many semis and he is the 4th best of his generation. But why draw the line there at 4 instead of 3? He is much closer to Wawrinka than to Djokovic. Im not sure what the right answer is

The "Big Four" needed four players, because they were the ones dominating the semi-final spaces of all of the big tournaments, and blocking the paths of all trying to challenge. If any player managed to best one of the Big 4 in a quarter final, they'd have to face another one in the semi-final, and probably a third one in the final. To a large extent, they were protecting the status and reputation of each other by keeping all outsiders at bay.

And the term came into effect long before Wawrinka even went top 10, and I'd argue the era of the Big Four, as defined by the mutual semi-final domination as above, had pretty much ended before Wawrinka started to get big wins. So even though individual members of the Big Four are all still playing (taking it in turns to have injury breaks), it's not a grouping that can be added to just because someone wins a few slams. Stan hasn't begun to approach the number of deep runs at slams, or Masters, so he'd still not be meeting the definition if he had managed to coincide his rise to form when the others were dominating. It's why Murray was part of the Big Four with less slams than Hewitt, or even Delpo.

 

[Meles]

No doubt Murray is very overrated. Shanghai 2012 final proved once and for all that he is just too mentally weak for big wins.

Never was a great hard court player despite all the finals. Incredible competitor, grass court player, and in 2015-16 clay was a strength and still would have been if he had his health in 2017. These were quality matches with Nadal in pretty solid form:
17/2016 SF Madrid Masters Clay Andy Murray Rafael Nadal 7-5 6-4 2.75 - 1.44
14/2016 SF Monte Carlo Masters Clay Rafael Nadal Andy Murray 2-6 6-4 6-2 1.40 - 3.00

 

[Sport]

I'm not a Murray fan but WTF. You cannot compare Murray with Roddick. Roddick is like Juan Carlos Ferrero another former World Number 1. Roddick only has one Grand Slam title. Ferrero also has a Grand Slam title (Roland Garros) plus a US Open final. Murray has 3 GS titles in the same era as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, not to mention his 2 Olympic Gold Medals in singles. Murray vs. Roddick? That's a ******** comparison. Roddick is highly overrated because he is American, but he was not better than Juan Carlos Ferrero.

 

[dh003i]

It's still possible that he might win 5 Slams in whatever you want to call this "era". Premature thread with a lot of potential to backfire in your face. And it wouldn't be the first time one of your posts about Murray backfired in your face.

I think it's time you learned to respect Andy Murray and everything he's achieved. You don't need to like his game or him as a person to realize that he's a great player.

Murray is undoubtedly a great player, he's just overshadowed by 3 top 5 ATG players. Nothing too awful about that...although Murray has been to many Major finals and I think without just some of the current big 3, he could be close to the greats of the 80s. He lost 3 Major finals to Roger Federer alone, so that would have brought him to 6.

 

[Slice'n'dice]

As an added point, though he has struggles against some of these players, he almost never loses to them in the slams during his peak years. Usually loses to one of the big 3 when he does so the idea that he'd just lose to them if they were the best players and not win any more than 3 is ludicrous to be honest.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I'm not a Murray fan but WTF. You cannot compare Murray with Roddick. Roddick is like Juan Carlos Ferrero another former World Number 1. Roddick only has one Grand Slam title. Ferrero also has a Grand Slam title (Roland Garros) plus a US Open final. Murray has 3 GS titles in the same era as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, not to mention his 2 Olympic Gold Medals in singles. Murray vs. Roddick? That's a ******** comparison. Roddick is highly overrated because he is American, but he was not better than Juan Carlos Ferrero.

Oh look, it's that moron that didn't watch tennis before 2008.

Wanna know something ********, bud? That you actually think Roddick is worse than JCF.

And put peak Roddick into today and he wins 3 majors. Hilarious you mention the Olympics too.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

As an added point, though he has struggles against some of these players, he almost never loses to them in the slams during his peak years. Usually loses to one of the big 3 when he does so the idea that he'd just lose to them if they were the best players and not win any more than 3 is ludicrous to be honest.

So he never nearly lost to Cilic at the USO, Tsonga or Verdasco at Wimbledon during his wins?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

v

 

[CentreCourt]

Murray has lost 8 slam finals all to Federer and Djokovic

Additionally he has lost 10 slam semifinals as followed:
Wimbledon 09 to an on fire Andy Roddick
Wimbledon 10 to eventual champ Rafa Nadal
Roland Garros 11 to eventual champ Rafa Nadal
Wimbledon 11 to Rafa Nadal
US Open 11 to Rafa Nadal
Australian 12 to eventual champ Novak Djokovic
Roland Garros 14 to eventual champ Rafa Nadal
Roland Garros 15 to Novak Djokovic
Wimbledon 15 to Roger Federer
Roland Garros 17 to Stan Wawrinka

So 8/10 of his semifinal losses were to the Top 3 players in modern tennis, the other 2 were both to slam winners.

It is INSANITY to believe that Andy Murray wouldn't have 2 more majors to hit 5 if Fed, Nadal and Djokovic picked up golf.

He'd be more likely to have more than 10 than 5 or less IMO

Absolutely spot on.

 

[CentreCourt]

So he never nearly lost to Cilic at the USO, Tsonga or Verdasco at Wimbledon during his wins?

Nearly lost = winning. Only someone desperately looking for confirmation of their own point would look at it otherwise.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Nearly lost = winning. Only someone desperately looking for confirmation of their own point would look at it otherwise.

Did you even read the post? It does confirm "my own point".

 

[Deleted member 716271]

I think the issue is Murray has shown questionable play in numerous big matches with pressure, especially final. Even as a Novak fan, Murray really should have managed to eke out of their FIVE Aussie clashes tbh. So it raises the question whether he might have still struggled against inferior competition in semis and finals.

 

[CentreCourt]

Did you even read the post? It does confirm "my own point".

There's data already on Murray's record against players outside Djokovic, Nadal and Federer. He's won 83% of his matches, historically, overall and would have a 72-26 (73%) record against the top 10 if Djokovic, Nadal and Federer weren't around. Drawing up fictitious losses in matches he's already won to suit your point does you no favours.

Assuming he came up against top 10 level players in their place; that means, by mathematical probability, he'd likely turn 53% of his semi-finals into Slams and likely turn 73% of his slam final losses into wins.

That puts him at a good chance of adding 10 more slams to his current total of 3. The notion that he wouldn't get to 5 is hilarious nonsense in the face of actual data.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

There's data already on Murray's record against players outside Djokovic, Nadal and Federer. He's won 83% of his matches, historically, overall and would have a 72-26 (73%) record against the top 10 if Djokovic, Nadal and Federer weren't around. Drawing up fictitious losses in matches he's already won to suit your point does you no favours.

Assuming he came up against top 10 level players in their place; that means, by mathematical probability, he'd likely turn 53% of his semi-finals into Slams and likely turn 73% of his slam final losses into wins.

That puts him at a good chance of adding 10 more slams to his current total of 3. The notion that he wouldn't get to 5 is hilarious nonsense in the face of actual data.

You're crazy if you seriously think Murray would win 13 MAJORS in any era. That is honestly insane.

 

[CentreCourt]

You're crazy if you seriously think Murray would win 13 MAJORS in any era. That is honestly insane.

Just using the actual data that's available - I don't say that, Maths does. I'm not saying he would win 13, but he'd be a lot closer to 10 in this era without Federer, Djokovic and Nadal than he would to 5 or less. To say otherwise is just stupidity of grandiose proportions when all the numbers say otherwise.

For the record, Murray has a better record against non-Big Four top 10 players than Nadal.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Just using the actual data that's available - I don't say that, Maths does. I'm not saying he would win 13, but he'd be a lot closer to 10 in this era without Federer, Djokovic and Nadal than he would to 5 or less. To say otherwise is just stupidity of grandiose proportions when all the numbers say otherwise.

For the record, Murray has a better record against non-Big Four top 10 players than Nadal.

To assume he'd win "close to 10" majors because he lost a bunch of QFs and SFs is beyond stupid in my view.

Yeah, and I'm sure David Ferrer does too. Doesn't prove he'd win a trillion majors without the Big 4.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

And your "math" makes no real distinction for chance, you just assume he will contend everywhere; even in years he fell early.

I'd say it's just you picking and choosing.. and you call me and my theory "stupid". Hilarious, preschool is starting up soon - they may need to use your algorithms to make the dunce kids feel better.

 

[CentreCourt]

To assume he'd win "close to 10" majors because he lost a bunch of QFs and SFs is beyond stupid in my view.

Yeah, and I'm sure David Ferrer does too. Doesn't prove he'd win a trillion majors without the Big 4.

Okay, I've provided hard mathematical data which proves my assertion - beyond disliking Murray and wanting to have a dig at him, what are you basing your "would never win 5 majors" assertion on?

We don't have to guess to know how he performs against the other players in tennis outside the others, the facts and figures already exist.

 

[Thundergod]

To assume he'd win "close to 10" majors because he lost a bunch of QFs and SFs is beyond stupid in my view.

Yeah, and I'm sure David Ferrer does too. Doesn't prove he'd win a trillion majors without the Big 4.

He wouldn't win 10, but who would he lose to? Berdych? Tsonga? Ferrer? Please, that's a joke. Even then, he would probably only have to win those finals matchups about 50% of the time to get to 5 and it's more likely he would be more successful than 50%.