Tournament between the 16 all-time great

[Mainad]

Out of curiosity though, do you consider Murray an ATG? I watch a lot of F1 and in light of the last 2 seasons many are saying Vettel isn't an ATG, yet he's vastly more achieved than Murray is in their respective sports. It's like "tiers" in that we won't always have the same definitions and barometers.

I'm certainly no fan of or expert on F1 so I guess I can only accept your comparison where Vettel is concerned. But why don't F1 fans accept Vettel as an ATG? I believe he won 4 world championships which is only 3 less than Schumacher, the title leader?

For me, I'm not so sure he is. Being a distant fourth wheel doesn't exactly scream ATG to me BUT he's been in a mighty era and has maintained an extremely high level for an extremely long time. Or in other words, I feel he's worth more than what his 3 Slams suggest on the surface.

I guess I agree with everything you said here.

 

[mike danny]

True, he is not at the Edberg level, but I dont think only the no of Slams should be a criteria for greatness. Almost every one does that, which shows the lack of knowledge of the game amongst people.
Regarding consistency, I think this is something that people need to give more importance to. I would probably pick someone who was more consistent than someone who had a higher peak but nowhere near as consistent

Me too, but if that consistency doesn't result in more titles, then that's a problem.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

For what it's worth I do believe Murray belongs at the ATG dinner table. I've been told or it has been alleged that there is official criteria that only let's Andy eat at Kentucky.

 

[Zara]

Out of curiosity though, do you consider Murray an ATG? I watch a lot of F1 and in light of the last 2 seasons many are saying Vettel isn't an ATG, yet he's vastly more achieved than Murray is in their respective sports. It's like "tiers" in that we won't always have the same definitions and barometers.

For me, I'm not so sure he is. Being a distant fourth wheel doesn't exactly scream ATG to me BUT he's been in a mighty era and has maintained an extremely high level for an extremely long time. Or in other words, I feel he's worth more than what his 3 Slams suggest on the surface.

I think we'd know more once he's done playing. There may be 2 more slams in him or so I hope.

 

[mike danny]

I think we'd know more once he's done playing. There may be 2 more slams in him or so I hope.

2 more slams may seal it.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Replace Rosewall with Thiem.

 

[Apun94]

Me too, but if that consistency doesn't result in more titles, then that's a problem.

He really is losing only to Fedalovic. No shame in that

 

[NatF]

He really is losing only to Fedalovic. No shame in that

No one else really to lose to for the last 10 years though

 

[Marco7594]

On the contrary, I know quite a bit about the history of tennis and the split between professionals and amateurs but, unlike you, I go by the official records as kept by most tennis authorities and the pro Slams are not recognised in the same way as the amateur Slams. For this same reason, I don't consider Gonzales to be in the list either. Fact remains that Perry won 8 Grand Slams and also 2 pro Slams after he turned professional. That makes 10 Slams in all if you wish to include the pros. In what universe does he not make the list of 16 all time great players? Maybe only yours?

Read the end of my initial post: I said I had hesitated between Vines and Perry. Many champions at the time considered Vines to be the best player of the 1930s with Budge. However, I have never denied you the right to prefer him Perry. On the other hand, I continue categorically to refute your argument that "If you don't accept Murray as an ATG because he only won 3 Slams then, by that same logic, you can't include Vines who also won only 3.", for the reasons recalled in my previous answer. The number of major titles constitutes a much too partial and biased indicator for the pre-Open period to be considered as a homogeneous criterion of comparison with the current period. Emerson has 12 major titles. Who would think of integrating him into this cenacle? Nobody. The reasoning is worth, symmetrically, for Pancho Gonzales, the only man in the history of tennis who ended 8 seasons at the top, and who appears in the Top 16 of all the observers of this sport. All except you.

 

[Mainad]

Read the end of my initial post: I said I had hesitated between Vines and Perry. Many champions at the time considered Vines to be the best player of the 1930s with Budge. However, I have never denied you the right to prefer him Perry. On the other hand, I continue categorically to refute your argument that "If you don't accept Murray as an ATG because he only won 3 Slams then, by that same logic, you can't include Vines who also won only 3.", for the reasons recalled in my previous answer. The number of major titles constitutes a much too partial and biased indicator for the pre-Open period to be considered as a homogeneous criterion of comparison with the current period. Emerson has 12 major titles. Who would think of integrating him into this cenacle? Nobody. The reasoning is worth, symmetrically, for Pancho Gonzales, the only man in the history of tennis to have finished 8 seasons at the top and who appears in the Top 16 of all the observers of this sport. All except you.

You still haven't explained why you have excluded a player with 10 Slams (8 amateur plus 2 pro) from your list of the 16 best when you have included the likes of Kramer with 5 Slams (3 amateur and 2 pro)? What makes you think Kramer deserves to be there over Perry???

 

[Apun94]

No one else really to lose to for the last 10 years though

Pretty solid players like Tsonga, Delpo, Berdych, Stan, Ferrer etc. Used to win more againt these guys.
Losing to Fedalovic doesnt really hurt Murray's case as a Top16

 

[Marco7594]

You still haven't explained why you have excluded a player with 10 Slams (8 amateur plus 2 pro) from your list of the 16 best when you have included the likes of Kramer with 5 Slams (3 amateur and 2 pro)? What makes you think Kramer deserves to be there over Perry???

You continue to count only the number of major titles, which leads you to exclude Gonzales from an elite to which no expert of this sport would think to dismiss him. There are many other criteria for assessing a player's domination of his time, including the number of years at the top or the sometimes despotic character of his hegemony. Kramer outrageously dominated the world of pro tournaments (before becoming the organizer of this circuit) and was the undisputed master of tennis between 1947 and 1953. I can recommend you the reading of the Encyclopedia of Tennis of Bud Collins to complete your culture of the pre-Open period. You will also discover which monster of the game was Pancho Gonzales.

 

[abmk]

You still haven't explained why you have excluded a player with 10 Slams (8 amateur plus 2 pro) from your list of the 16 best when you have included the likes of Kramer with 5 Slams (3 amateur and 2 pro)? What makes you think Kramer deserves to be there over Perry???

the fact that Kramer won the World series (most important in the world, well over any pro or amateur slam) in 47-48 vs Riggs, 50-51 vs Gonzales, 53 vs Sedgman and was #1 player in several years (Edit : 48,50,51,53 at the very least)

 

[Mainad]

You continue to count only the number of major titles, which leads you to exclude Gonzales from an elite to which no expert of this sport would think to dismiss him. There are many other criteria for assessing a player's domination of his time, including the number of years at the top or the sometimes despotic character of his hegemony. Kramer outrageously dominated the world of pro tournaments (before becoming the organizer of this circuit) and was the undisputed master of tennis between 1947 and 1953. I can recommend you the reading of the Encyclopedia of Tennis of Bud Collins to complete your culture of the pre-Open period. You will also discover which monster of the game was Pancho Gonzales.

All that is subjective and a matter of opinion, mainly your own. Results are what count and Kramer only won 2 pro Slams so how the heck could he be said to have dominated the Pro Slams at any point?

 

[NatF]

Pretty solid players like Tsonga, Delpo, Berdych, Stan, Ferrer etc. Used to win more againt these guys.
Losing to Fedalovic doesnt really hurt Murray's case as a Top16

Losing to Fedalovic as frequently as he has in majors does hurt his case IMO. Roughly counting off the top of my head he would top 16 in the OE alone - no higher than 13th I think, but he's far from it all time.

 

[abmk]

I submit you the draw of a tournament between the 16 greatest players of all time.

Do you agree with this list ? (*)
Which match would you like the most ?
Which one would be the most uncertain ?
What would your predictions be ?
Best regards.
Marc, a french passionate

Federer
McEnroe
Agassi
Tilden
Budge
Rosewall
Lendl
Djokovic

Nadal
Connors
Borg
Gonzales
Sampras
Kramer
Vines
Laver

(*) after hesitation, I preferred Ellsworth Vines to Fred Perry (ranking with the opinions of their most prestigious contemporaries, from Donald Budge to Jack Kramer). Cochet and Lacoste can, in my opinion, complete the Top 20.

those would be my top 16 as well.
After that Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Perry, Lacoste, Cochet, Hoad, Johnston,Riggs, Newcombe in no particular order. (from the Tilden era onwards)

 

[Marco7594]

All that is subjective and a matter of opinion, mainly your own. Results are what count and Kramer only won 2 pro Slams so how the heck could he be said to have dominated the Pro Slams at any point?

Here is an excellent article, spread over several links, which will allow you to better understand the pro tennis of the pre-Open era. You will need to use a translation software (as it is written in french). As a tennis passionate, you should enjoy. It starts in the Vines and Perry era and ends in 1968. You can read Kramer and Gonzales' outrageous domination over their time.

https://www.15-lovetennis.com/?p=894

https://www.15-lovetennis.com/?p=958

https://www.15-lovetennis.com/?p=974

https://www.15-lovetennis.com/?p=982

 

[Apun94]

Losing to Fedalovic as frequently as he has in majors does hurt his case IMO. Roughly counting off the top of my head he would top 16 in the OE alone - no higher than 13th I think, but he's far from it all time.

Fedalovic ALWAYS bring it, no matter which tournament. They are able to maintain that peak level for much longer periods of time than any of the players before. So, it wasnt like Fedalovic could boss Murray around with their B game. And Murray has had his share of wins, even in slams (beat Djokovic in 2 slam finals). It's not like any players ranked 13-15 all time would have had any different results against Fedalovic. These beats were wayyy too consistent, even in 500 events.
I still remember the 2012 AO semi between Murray and Djokovic. Murray almost beat 2011 Djokovic on his favourite surface. You cant honestly tell me that someone who could play at that level of tennis consistently isnt Top 16.

 

[NatF]

Fedalovic ALWAYS bring it, no matter which tournament. They are able to maintain that peak level for much longer periods of time than any of the players before. So, it wasnt like Fedalovic could boss Murray around with their B game. And Murray has had his share of wins, even in slams (beat Djokovic in 2 slam finals). It's not like any players ranked 13-15 all time would have had any different results against Fedalovic. These beats were wayyy too consistent, even in 500 events.
I still remember the 2012 AO semi between Murray and Djokovic. Murray almost beat 2011 Djokovic on his favourite surface. You cant honestly tell me that someone who could play at that level of tennis consistently isnt Top 16.

Djokovic was nowhere near 2011 levels in the 2012 SF man, really overrated match.

And yeah I do think those players ranked 13th -15th all time would do better than Murray in equal positions e.g. not forced to use their old wooden racquets etc...I like the OP's list and there's not a single player on his list that should be ranked below Murray, I also expect each and everyone of them in the same era would do better than Murray h2h with the Big 3 as well. Missing from his list are players like Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Newcombe, Perry, Riggs - all of whom should rank above Murray all time as well.

 

[Mainad]

Djokovic was nowhere near 2011 levels in the 2012 SF man, really overrated match.

Why do you think that was?

 

[NatF]

Why do you think that was?

Because he was no where near 2011 levels for pretty much all of 2012 including the AO? Murray as well played a couple of really bad sets in that SF (1st and 4th), to his credit he played very very well in the 2nd and 3rd and then rebounded nicely after losing the 4th.

I know where you were going with that question

 

[Mainad]

Because he was no where near 2011 levels for pretty much all of 2012 including the AO? Murray as well played a couple of really bad sets in that SF (1st and 4th), to his credit he played very very well in the 2nd and 3rd and then rebounded nicely after losing the 4th.

I know where you were going with that question

I only asked.

 

[NatF]

I only asked.

When you ask those sorts of questions it makes me think you wear special goggles to watch tennis, like beer goggles but you know for tennis - specifically Murray matches

 

[Mainad]

When you ask those sorts of questions it makes me think you wear special goggles to watch tennis, like beer goggles but you know for tennis - specifically Murray matches

I don't need goggles to watch tennis or to drink beer. How about you?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Because he was no where near 2011 levels for pretty much all of 2012 including the AO? Murray as well played a couple of really bad sets in that SF (1st and 4th), to his credit he played very very well in the 2nd and 3rd and then rebounded nicely after losing the 4th.

I know where you were going with that question

I do think that's when Murray started to improve mentality. The Wimbledon final was the obvious turning point though as it was the first time he didn't lose in straights in a GS final.

That belief gave him enough confidence to overcome Djokovic at the US Open which was like a rematch of their AO clash in reverse.

 

[-NN-]

I'm certainly no fan of or expert on F1 so I guess I can only accept your comparison where Vettel is concerned. But why don't F1 fans accept Vettel as an ATG? I believe he won 4 world championships which is only 3 less than Schumacher, the title leader?



I guess I agree with everything you said here.

There has always been scepticism around Vettel given that he barely won 2 of his WDChampionships over Alonso in a substantially better car. Then he got trounced by Ricciardo in 2014 and immediately hopped across to Ferrari. Now, in the last 2 years he has been seen by many to have crumbled against Lewis Hamilton and Mercedes, so his reputation is taking a further hit. As such, even though he's probably the third best driver of the era by skill, many are starting to question if he's really an all-time great even though he's top-5 for Championships won. He's won the equivalent of say, Bjorn Borg, and also has many of the "youngest ever" stats similar to Borg. Nobody ever questions if Borg is an ATG, though. F1 fans tend to know that the car is important and try to measure the successes accordingly.

 

[Apun94]

Djokovic was nowhere near 2011 levels in the 2012 SF man, really overrated match.

Djokovic carried his 2011 form into the 2012 AO. Only after AO did his level dip throughout the whole year, and he has never recovered that form ever since.
The only low point in that match was the 4th set when Murray went AWOL (Djokovic played the best tennis of his life in that set though). Otherwise that match was at a very high level throughout.

And yeah I do think those players ranked 13th -15th all time would do better than Murray in equal positions e.g. not forced to use their old wooden racquets etc...I like the OP's list and there's not a single player on his list that should be ranked below Murray, I also expect each and everyone of them in the same era would do better than Murray h2h with the Big 3 as well. Missing from his list are players like Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Newcombe, Perry, Riggs - all of whom should rank above Murray all time as well.

Murray is a top 16 player in this modern era. Cant imagine comparing players of the 30s to todays players.
You must have a really vivid imagination if you're doing that

 

[Fiero425]

Well you cannot possibly separate the Big 4.

Sure you can! Even with his wins, the competition was just too tough and he only wound up being a marginally more significant #4; sorta like a classier Gerulaitis who had to contend with Borg, Connor, & McEnroe! The "Big 3" have lapped Murray a couple times with his only advantage @ The Olympics!