While I don’t necessarily disagree with you here, the comparison with team sports is moot, as there are guys like Horry having more titles than Barkley for example which is an extreme case you will never get in individual sports. On another note: even if not GOAT in my book, Russ should very much be a legitimate candidate.
Pete on grass is better prime to prime than Boris and would win majority of matches, but 9-1 over ten matches is way too much. Becker is still an ATG on grass, Nadal is 8-2 against Djokovic at RG and the difference between them there is way bigger (ofc one can say Nadal was not prime in the two losses but neither was Djokovic in several of his). I think 7-3 for Pete is the most realistic outcome in 10 Wimbledon matches. On carpet/indoors it is even closer. Becker is 7-6 on carpet against Pete and also beat him twice in 96 while their third match was as close as it can get. I can easily see them going 5-5 if they play ten times both in their primes. Playing on the biggest stage, Pete will eventually come out as the winner more often than not, but they are as close as it can get.
Federer lost to a redlining DelPo, Djokovic has several losses to a redlining Wawrinka, Pete lost against a GOATING Krajicek and even the next to unbeatable Nadal lost to Sod. It is not unusual for some players to play way above their normal level in individual matches/tournaments and to upset even the best of the best. Has happened to every GOAT candidate. Stich in 91 beat Courier, Edberg and Boris in succession playing some of the finest grass court tennis of all time (imho the second best performance of a non-ATG after Krajicek 96). No shame for Becker in losing that one.
Who did he lose those slam finals too? Were they fairly good players?
which players apart from Becker and Edberg?
Becker is also better at YEC/WCT/GSC and at the Davis Cup, meaning at the most important tournaments after slams during that time. I agree it is really close between them but I would give Boris the edge.
If he was an all-time great he would have overcome them in the finals more.
I don't think several losses to one opponent was redlining. Stan had his number in BO5 slams. Winning 3 out of 5 sets is hard to do several times against the same person, especially Djokovic's level. Stan plays that way against everyone and was at his peak for a few years as opposed to one tournament or half a season. Sod was solid for a few years until injury took him out.
Stich was a guy who could redline in individual matches or tournaments but was also really inconsistent partly because he was a head case and had several interests besides tennis (played piano, was planning to study medicine, spoke several languages). Incredibly talented (think he started tennis pretty late at nine or something), but unbearable character. Anywho, good that we can agree that there was no shame for Becker in losing to him in 91.
Good thread.
Stich was on a heater! He defeated Edberg in the SF who never lost his serve! Living out in California, the match was on at 8 AM! Almost missed it all getting up late!
Stan has 3 wins in major finals over Djokovic. Which proves that this stat doesn't make Murray an ATG.
"If he was an all-time great he would have overcome them in the finals more." Why? He could simply have been the 4th best player. Which is what many people thought for a long time. His achievements were far above any other player outside of the big 3. Forinstance if you compare him to Wawrinka, another 3 slam winner, he accumulated something like 3 x the ATP points because other his other achievements. (Compare their masters 1000 record for instance - 1 vs 14).
Djokovic is #1 on Wimbledon! Who did Sampras beat? No one on top Wimb list!
It's not just that he lost, but he lost comofrtably the vast majority of the times with even the closest matches (Wimb 2012 and AO 2013) not being that close. Never pushed a single one of those losing efforts to 5.
I know, but shouldn't Murray's much better record be reflected in his slam count too? Stan winning as many slams as Murray in this era points to Murray not being good enough if he doesn't even have the most slams after the Big 3.
Yep, he did achieve a lot outside of the slams. It's unfortunate. However, being the 4th best in an era didn't get Courier an honorable mention.
But Stan getting to 3 slams in the same era as Murray tells me Murray could've done better, but he didn't.
Murray achieved more than Courier in terms of 14 Masters 1000's (14 vs 5). He won 2 Olympic Golds vs zero, He won the season end finals vs zero for Courier. Murray was making slam finals over the period from 2010 to 2016 (7 seasons) Courier 1991-1993 (3 seasons). Yes one less Slam title but Slam aren't the only game in town.
I don’t think my narrative is complicated.
Murray should have won at least one of those AO Finals vs Novak (5) or Federer (1)!
Murray choked the third set of the 2010 Australian Open final.
Murray choked the third set of the 2010 Australian Open final.
If he had won it, he might have taken Federer to five sets and would have been more confident the next time they met in a GS final.
Murray was a slow learner and hence his losing 3-8 record in Major tournament definitions.
Murray choked the third set of the 2010 Australian Open final.
If he had won it, he might have taken Federer to five sets and would have been more confident the next time they met in a GS final.
Murray was a slow learner and hence his losing 3-8 record in Major tournament definitions.
Murray had chances to beat Federer at Wimbledon 2012, to defeat Djokovic in the 2013 and 2015 Australian finals but he didn't know how to take advantage of the momentum when he had them at his mercy.
He is not top ten OE on any surface. Would also never have got to No.1 ranking if not for injury/slump of the big three.
Yea. Becker’s teenager Wimbledon titles would likely be blocked by Fed, but he would make up for it later.
You're right that Djokovic isn't a better player than Federer. Especially on grass.
You can lay your thoughts on my peak Djokovic vs peak Murray in grass thread.
I feel that 2015 Djokovic is narrowly ahead of 2008 Nadal.
For most tennis fans and casual ones, slams are all that counts because mainstream sports media covers it. They have no idea of dc or 500 series events.
err ......
yep.. corrected.
