What is the category below ATG? And who is in it?

[Deleted member 307496]

Nadal's record against past-prime Federer is pretty poor too, no? Did i miss when he beat him this year? Maybe i missed it...

...he beat him in 2014 tho, right?

Murray has a 1-5 record against Federer in majors OVERALL. He has beaten him once more than Roddick did his entire career - and the form Fed showed when Murray beat him Roddick probably could have too.

I may honestly post all their slam meetings. Absolutely hilarious logic.

 

[mike danny]

Lol at this low-level analysis.

You're penalizing Nadal for being successful at RG.

Think about it this way -- if Nadal only won 5 titles at RG instead of 10, his resume would STILL make him an all-time great, and you wouldn't be calling him a 1 surface specialist.

Look at who I was responding to before calling me out. My response was in accordance to her nonsense.

 

[buscemi]

Yes. For the simple fact that Murray had to compete with Federer/Nadal/Djokovic for the majority of his titles. Altho i think Murray's achievements beat Courier flat-out anyways. The other two there is more to consider for sure but it is my personal view that he is better than those 3.

There's definitely an argument for Murray over Courier on achievements, just like there is the argument for Courier (an additional Major and an addition 17 weeks at #1). And I think the same goes for quality of competition. That 1990-1995 period when Courier was at his best was just brutal in terms of competition.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Masters titles didn't have the same prevalence they did today as I know that's the only metric where Murray beats Courier "flat-out".

I guess Murray is a better player than Sampras too because he has more Masters. Keep 'em coming Terenigma.

 

[buscemi]

Possibly only Courier because of his extra Slam and greater number of weeks at #1. Not so the other 2.

I could see a case for Murray, but I could also see a case for any of the other three:

-Courier has the extra Major and extra weeks at #1;
-Nastase has one less Major, but he had 4 WTF titles at a time when WTF was much more important than the Australian (which Nastase didn't play until 1981);
-Ashe had the same number of Majors, more titles, and huge success in Davis Cup​

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I could see a case for Murray, but I could also see a case for any of the other three:

-Courier has the extra Major and extra weeks at #1;
-Nastase has one less Major, but he had 4 WTF titles at a time when WTF was much more important than the Australian (which Nastase didn't play until 1981);
-Ashe had the same number of Majors, more titles, and huge success in Davis Cup​

Courier has had a 2 slam year and a period of dominance over a rather competitive field. Murray has never achieved that, even when he's taken advantage of lul periods in the game.

Murray's best year is not as good as Courier's best year everything considered.

 

[Terenigma]

Murray has a 1-5 record against Federer in majors OVERALL. He has beaten him once more than Roddick did his entire career - and the form Fed showed when Murray beat him Roddick probably could have too.
I may honestly post all their slam meetings. Absolutely hilarious logic.

My original comment was putting Murray in the ATG catagory. I'm not here to compare how he did to the greatest player to every play tennis. Federer is a freak, he can beat pretty much anyone at any time somehow. Federer and Nadal were better than Murray in slams? Ofcourse they were, they are better players but that doesn't mean he's not an ATG. Murray beat Federer plenty of times in non-slams and had the H2H lead for a long time too.

You just seem to be derailing my point to moan about Murray. You think many of the 2nd tier players people are naming would do any better against Federer when not even Nadal (Who everyone claims dominates that match-up) could beat him this year?

 

[mike danny]

I am sick and tired of people comparing Murray to the likes of Wawrinka and some other players. Murray is an ATG. He's been #1. He's won 45 titles. 3 Slams. 2 Olympic singles gold medals. He's the reason GB won the DC and he's been a consistent member of the top 10 (Top 4) players for almost 10 years. Federer/Nadal/Djokovic are better, noone is debating that but just because Murray is not as great as them, people are putting him on the level of Hewitt/Courier and Wawrinka?! GTFO

Murray is an ATG and if you wanna keep saying he's not then at worst he is the gate-keeper to ATG. He's better than every player mentioned in this so called "2nd tier" and for the love of god, stop putting him in a comparison to Wawrinka. They are not even close to being equal.

Murray is not an ATG, not with just 3 slams. I know who he has had to deal with, but the truth is he hasn't played great in most of the major finals that he has lost to really give him a pass. You would have a point if he actually played well in most of those slam finals, but he didn't and that's why he only has 3 slams. If he gets to 5 slams, then we'll talk.

Wimb 2012 is actually the only slam final which he lost where Murray actually played well. The only other slam match where he played well was the 2012 AO SF, which wasn't a final and unfortunately not even the de-facto final like 2013 RG SF.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

My original comment was putting Murray in the ATG catagory. I'm not here to compare how he did to the greatest player to every play tennis. Federer is a freak, he can beat pretty much anyone at any time somehow. Federer and Nadal were better than Murray in slams? Ofcourse they were, they are better players but that doesn't mean he's not an ATG. Murray beat Federer plenty of times in non-slams and had the H2H lead for a long time too.

You just seem to be derailing my point to moan about Murray. You think many of the 2nd tier players people are naming would do any better against Federer when not even Nadal (Who everyone claims dominates that match-up) could beat him this year?

I'm arguing with you because acting like Murray is "so much" better than Courier is/was is insane. Has Murray ever even had a 2 slam year? How could he? He only has 3 slams to his name.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Nalbandian beat Fed in plenty of non-slams too. Is he an ATG?

 

[Mainad]

But he wouldn't be even close to Federer without his clay dominance. He would barely scrap by the Becker/Edberg tier without it.

Well, that's 1 way of looking at it (using Fed as the yardstick of course). But even in the unlikely event he had never won a Slam on clay he would still have 3 Slams each on the other 2 surfaces so, whilst clearly not in Fed's category (which some people still maintain anyway) he still matches Becker and Edberg for ATG status. Without any of his titles on his favourite surface ie. hardcourt, Djokovic would only have 4 Slams (3 on grass, 1 on clay) so would be even less of an ATG than Nadal without clay Slams.

 

[True Fanerer]

Murray has a 1-5 record against Federer in majors OVERALL. He has beaten him once more than Roddick did his entire career - and the form Fed showed when Murray beat him Roddick probably could have too.

I may honestly post all their slam meetings. Absolutely hilarious logic.

Using your metric:

Courier 2-6 in majors vs Sampras (including a FO loss to him which was Pete's worst surface and Courier's best surface).

Also, Courier was 4-16 overall vs Sampras which is a lot worse than Federer/Murray's h2h.

Just Sayin'

 

[Terenigma]

I'm arguing with you because acting like Murray is "so much" better than Courier is/was is insane. Has Murray ever even had a 2 slam year? How could he? He only has 3 slams to his name.

Because his career IS better unless you're one of these people who thinks Slams are the only events that matter.

Nalbandian beat Fed in plenty of non-slams too. Is he an ATG?

No because he has 11 titles. Murray has 4 times the titles, slams, Olympic golds.

If you wanna think Murray is not an ATG then fine, think that but in terms of what he's achieved. He deserves to be one and i feel he's only overlooked because he peaked with 3 of the greatest players who might of ever played the game.

 

[mike danny]

Well, that's 1 way of looking at it (using Fed as the yardstick of course). But even in the unlikely event he had never won a Slam on clay he would still have 3 Slams each on the other 2 surfaces so, whilst clearly not in Fed's category (which some people still maintain anyway) he still matches Becker and Edberg for ATG status. Without any of his titles on his favourite surface ie. hardcourt, Djokovic would only have 4 Slams (3 on grass, 1 on clay) so would be even less of an ATG than Nadal without clay Slams.

Anyway, my post was just in accordance to clayqueen's ridiculous drivel, who can't accept Fed is greater than Nadal as things currently stand.

 

[Deleted member 748597]

Djokovic losing his motivation is what made Murray number one, lol. And Djokovic defending so many points in the beginning of 2017 is what allowed Murray to spend so many weeks at number one while playing like crap.

When all is said and done, Courier is actually above Murray.

 

[Mainad]

Murray is not an ATG, not with just 3 slams. I know who he has had to deal with, but the truth is he hasn't played great in most of the major finals that he has lost to really give him a pass. You would have a point if he actually played well in most of those slam finals, but he didn't and that's why he only has 3 slams. If he gets to 5 slams, then we'll talk.

Wimb 2012 is actually the only slam final which he lost where Murray actually played well. The only other slam match where he played well was the 2012 AO SF, which wasn't a final and unfortunately not even the de-facto final like 2013 RG SF.

He played well for the first 2 sets in both the 2013 and 2015 AO finals (both breakers which he split with Djokovic) but faded in the last 2. Still better than some players' losing Slam finals.

 

[abmk]

I am sick and tired of people comparing Murray to the likes of Wawrinka and some other players. Murray is an ATG. He's been #1. He's won 45 titles. 3 Slams. 2 Olympic singles gold medals. He's the reason GB won the DC and he's been a consistent member of the top 10 (Top 4) players for almost 10 years. Federer/Nadal/Djokovic are better, noone is debating that but just because Murray is not as great as them, people are putting him on the level of Hewitt/Courier and Wawrinka?! GTFO

Murray is an ATG and if you wanna keep saying he's not then at worst he is the gate-keeper to ATG. He's better than every player mentioned in this so called "2nd tier" and for the love of god, stop putting him in a comparison to Wawrinka. They are not even close to being equal.

Murray is a better player than Stan, but the gap b/w him and Stan is quite a bit lesser than the gap b/w Murray and the big 3.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Because his career IS better unless you're one of these people who thinks Slams are the only events that matter.

No his career is not better. I ask again, how many times has Murray had a 2 slam year? And don't give me the BS excuse of Murray "competing with the greatest of all time". And it's not that "slams are the only events that matter" but Murray has not shown the kind of dominance over the stacked field Courier did.

And when Murray made it to No. 1 his biggest rival was a mentally spent and injured Djokovic who went on to lose to Querrey, Wawrinka, Agut and Cilic.

No because he has 11 titles. Murray has 4 times the titles, slams, Olympic golds.

If you wanna think Murray is not an ATG then fine, think that but in terms of what he's achieved. He deserves to be one and i feel he's only overlooked because he peaked with 3 of the greatest players who might of ever played the game.

In terms of what he's achieved he does not deserve to be an ATG. For the record Olympic Gold only awarded points once (750 which puts it barely above 500 level) -- and it has a long line of winners like meth taking Agassi and Paes. Lol.

Honestly how many of those 45 titles are 250s? Just curious.

And finally I am sick and tired of people trying to lump Murray in with players like Becker or McEnroe. It's not even close.

Let me guess, you're going to look at their Masters won - not their dominance over the field.

 

[mike danny]

He played well for the first 2 sets in both the 2013 and 2015 AO finals (both breakers which he split with Djokovic) but faded in the last 2. Still better than some players' losing Slam finals.

See, that's why Murray only has 3 slams. Playing well for just 2 sets isn't going to get you to ATG status. You just proved my point.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Using your metric:

Courier 2-6 in majors vs Sampras (including a FO loss to him which was Pete's worst surface and Courier's best surface).

Also, Courier was 4-16 overall vs Sampras which is a lot worse than Federer/Murray's h2h.

Just Sayin'

Murray has greater longevity than Courier who spent half his career as a journeyman.

And that FO loss came in 1996 or something - years after Courier was last relevant.

 

[Mainad]

See, that's why Murray only has 3 slams. Playing well for just 2 sets isn't going to get you to ATG status. You just proved my point.

Yes, but you denied him the status partly because you said he was poor in losing finals. I think that view is exaggerated. Even in his straight sets defeat by Federer at 2010 AO he was getting better in each set (final set was a close tie-break which he barely lost).

In his other 3 straight sets defeats, 2008 USO was his maiden final and he was understandably nervous and wasn't well rested after his 2 day semi against Nadal; 2011 AO he was overwhelmed by the sudden appearance of Djokovic Mark 2 (as was everybody else for much of that year) while in 2016 he was distracted by the imminent birth of his 1st child (said had an open plane ticket and was ready to rush to the airport the moment he got the call).

 

[True Fanerer]

Murray has greater longevity than Courier who spent half his career as a journeyman.

And that FO loss came in 1996 or something - years after Courier was last relevant.

He was so irrelevant that he was up 2 sets to nill before losing in 5. So irrelevant that he beat Pete on clay the following year.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

He was so irrelevant that he was up 2 sets to nill before losing in 5. So irrelevant that he beat Pete on clay the following year.

What was he ranked? Like 50?

Courier was irrelevant after about 1995 and beating Sampras on clay doesn't show for much.

Courier at his peak was a more terrifying player to face than Murray. Look at his record against the top dogs besides Sampras who he had an obvious matchup disadvantage against.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Yes, but you denied him the status partly because you said he was poor in losing finals. I think that view is exaggerated. Even in his straight sets defeat by Federer at 2010 AO he was getting better in each set (final set was a close tie-break which he barely lost).

In his other 3 straight sets defeats, 2008 USO was his maiden final and he was understandably nervous and wasn't well rested after his 2 day semi against Nadal; 2011 AO he was overwhelmed by the sudden appearance of Djokovic Mark 2 (as was everybody else for much of that year) while in 2016 he was distracted by the imminent birth of his 1st child (said had an open plane ticket and was ready to rush to the airport the moment he got the call).

In this post Mainad makes 50,000 excuses for Murray.

 

[True Fanerer]

What was he ranked? Like 50?

Courier was irrelevant after about 1995 and beating Sampras on clay doesn't show for much.

Courier at his peak was a more terrifying player to face than Murray. Look at his record against the top dogs besides Sampras who he had an obvious matchup disadvantage against.

OK.
1-6 vs Becker
1-5 vs Kafelnikov
12-12 vs Chang

I give him credit vs Agassi. He had Agassi's number. That too was obviously a match up problem

 

[Deleted member 307496]

OK.
1-6 vs Becker
1-5 vs Kafelnikov
12-12 vs Chang

I give him credit vs Agassi. He had Agassi's number. That too was obviously a match up problem

Be objective and post the ones I'm referring to.

Guess Becker wasn't that great because he had a bad record against Agassi.

Laughing at including Kafelnikov who was from an entirely different generation and went against Courier when he was a shell of himself.

Seriously after that I'm out for the night. Just lol.

 

[buscemi]

OK.
1-6 vs Becker
1-5 vs Kafelnikov
12-12 vs Chang

I give him credit vs Agassi. He had Agassi's number. That too was obviously a match up problem

Other Courier H2Hs against Major winners:

7-5 against Agassi
6-4 against Edberg
7-5 against Muster
8-3 against Ivanisevic
3-0 against Connors
2-1 against McEnroe
2-1 against Moya
5-2 against Bruguera
7-1 against Krajicek
1-0 against Kuerten
1-1 against Safin
2-2 against Costa
5-7 against Stich​

 

[abmk]

Yes, but you denied him the status partly because you said he was poor in losing finals. I think that view is exaggerated. Even in his straight sets defeat by Federer at 2010 AO he was getting better in each set (final set was a close tie-break which he barely lost).

In his other 3 straight sets defeats, 2008 USO was his maiden final and he was understandably nervous and wasn't well rested after his 2 day semi against Nadal; 2011 AO he was overwhelmed by the sudden appearance of Djokovic Mark 2 (as was everybody else for much of that year) while in 2016 he was distracted by the imminent birth of his 1st child (said had an open plane ticket and was ready to rush to the airport the moment he got the call).

so many excuses for Murray.

even tougher facing Roddick/Hewitt arguably, if you look at it closely:

Out of 5 grand slam finals, Roddick played great in 3 of his grand slam finals (USO 03, Wim 04, Wim 09 ) , played good in one of them (USO 06) and below par in another (wim 05). So basically, 4/5 were good or better.

Out of 11 grand slam finals, Murray played great in 4 grand slam finals ( Wim 12, USO 12, Wim 13, Wim 16), good in 2 of them (AO 13, AO 15) and decent/slightly below par in 3 of them (AO 10, AO 16, RG 16), below par in 2 of them (USO 08, AO 11). So basically, only 6/11 were good or better.

Out of 4 grand slam finals, Hewitt played great in 2 of them (USO 01, Wim 02), good in one of them (AO 05) and below par in one of them(USO 04). So, basically 3/4 were good or better.

Murray is better in slam SFs than in finals, on the whole I think.

--
and tbh, I may be under-rating Hewitt's AO 05 final performance a tad. It was best among the just good ones, I think.
he was flawless in the 1st set, dipped in the 2nd set, played well in the 3rd set and was up 4-2. then safin turned on complete god mode and was unplayable for the rest of the match.
Those 1.5 sets from Safin were frightening. Hewitt was playing some good tennis, but to no avail.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Other Courier H2Hs against Major winners:

7-5 against Agassi
6-4 against Edberg
7-5 against Muster
8-3 against Ivanisevic
3-0 against Connors
2-1 against McEnroe
2-1 against Moya
5-2 against Bruguera
7-1 against Krajicek
1-0 against Kuerten
1-1 against Safin
2-2 against Costa
5-7 against Stich​

Thank you.

 

[abmk]

OK.
1-6 vs Becker
1-5 vs Kafelnikov
12-12 vs Chang

I give him credit vs Agassi. He had Agassi's number. That too was obviously a match up problem

3 of those 6 matches vs Kafelnikov were from 96 grand slam cup onwards when Courier was truly well past it. Near irrelevant.

See Buscemi's post , #127.

 

[True Fanerer]

Other Courier H2Hs against Major winners:

7-5 against Agassi
6-4 against Edberg
7-5 against Muster
8-3 against Ivanisevic
3-0 against Connors
2-1 against McEnroe
2-1 against Moya
5-2 against Bruguera
7-1 against Krajicek
1-0 against Kuerten
1-1 against Safin
2-2 against Costa
5-7 against Stich​

I'm sure Murray's would look like that if he had 15 or so major winners in his era. The fact is that he hasn't.

 

[mike danny]

Yes, but you denied him the status partly because you said he was poor in losing finals. I think that view is exaggerated. Even in his straight sets defeat by Federer at 2010 AO he was getting better in each set (final set was a close tie-break which he barely lost).

In his other 3 straight sets defeats, 2008 USO was his maiden final and he was understandably nervous and wasn't well rested after his 2 day semi against Nadal; 2011 AO he was overwhelmed by the sudden appearance of Djokovic Mark 2 (as was everybody else for much of that year) while in 2016 he was distracted by the imminent birth of his 1st child (said had an open plane ticket and was ready to rush to the airport the moment he got the call).

Whatever reasons Murray had, he still played poorly in most of them. So it doesn't change what I said.

Murray has had a great career, the best 3 slam winner and the best since Courier IMO. But it stops there. Elevating him to ATG status is pushing it.

 

[metsman]

Using your metric:

Courier 2-6 in majors vs Sampras (including a FO loss to him which was Pete's worst surface and Courier's best surface).

Also, Courier was 4-16 overall vs Sampras which is a lot worse than Federer/Murray's h2h.

Just Sayin'

Courier faced Sampras at his absolute peak, 5 times at majors, while Courier himself was on the downswing. Murray had the benefit of all his meetings being against post-peak Federer, and plenty of meetings with post-prime Federer and still couldn't do anything in big events besides where Federer was compromised. Also, in 3 of the 4 losses to Sampras from 93-95, Courier gave a very good accounting of himself, which Murray has only done against Federer once, and Murray never faced Federer at his peak. 94 RG win is more impressive than 2013 AO, considering 94 was Pete's absolute peak and he was decent on clay that year. Courier did better against peak Sampras at majors while not being at his very best than Murray has done against an older Federer while mostly being in his own prime.

 

[metsman]

He was so irrelevant that he was up 2 sets to nill before losing in 5. So irrelevant that he beat Pete on clay the following year.

Stop, you're giving all Fed fans a bad name (if you are one). Beating Sampras on clay post 96 is irrelevant. Courier was way past his best by 1996. Peak Courier wins the 96 French without breaking a sweat.

 

[True Fanerer]

With all due respect that goes both ways. Murray beat Federer early in his career and at one time led the h2h before Federer turned it around. I don't see why Courier gets all the excuses while Murray is not allowed to have one. Its been argued (not by you) that Murray has had better longetivy than Courier lalalala. As a federer fan, I would like to think that longevity is also a major component in measuring one's greatness.

 

[Mainad]

Whatever reasons Murray had, he still played poorly in most of them. So it doesn't change what I said.

I disagree and don't think you can use that as any kind of yardstick for deciding whether he is ATG or not. In other words, its down to the Slam count or nothing if Slams are what you prefer to use as the only yardstick.

 

[True Fanerer]

Stop, you're giving all Fed fans a bad name (if you are one). Beating Sampras on clay post 96 is irrelevant. Courier was way past his best by 1996. Peak Courier wins the 96 French without breaking a sweat.

How am I giving Fedfan's a bad name by stating facts? Saying that Courier is better than Murray is just absolute jibberish. Plus its jibberish for you to question my stance as a fan just because I disagree.

 

[mike danny]

I disagree and don't think you can use that as any kind of yardstick for deciding whether he is ATG or not. In other words, its down to the Slam count or nothing if Slams are what you prefer to use as the only yardstick.

In my opinion, Murray needs at least 5 slams for those other metrics to come into play.

 

[tennisaddict]

Let us answer first if Stan and Courier are ATG. if they are, then so is Murray. Otherwise not.

 

[Gary Duane]

I didn't know there was such a thing as WTF fan boys.

We're in the WTF period right now, which is between the WTF event and when tennis gets restarted!

 

[buscemi]

How am I giving Fedfan's a bad name by stating facts? Saying that Courier is better than Murray is just absolute jibberish. Plus its jibberish for you to question my stance as a fan just because I disagree.

Absolute jibberish? He has an extra Major and 17 extra weeks at #1. Plus, he played in a highly competitive era. I have no problem with people making the argument that Murray is greater than Courier, but there's definitely a legitimate argument for Courier.

 

[clayqueen]

Actually, Rafa started winning slams at 19, while roger at nearly 22. It's Rafa who has had several years to catch up to Roger.

Twisted logic. Rafa was a child prodigy and Federer was a late starter.

 

[True Fanerer]

Absolute jibberish? He has an extra Major and 17 extra weeks at #1. Plus, he played in a highly competitive era. I have no problem with people making the argument that Murray is greater than Courier, but there's definitely a legitimate argument for Courier.

Courier was a great player obviously. I have no problem with your opinion because we are all entitled to one. We are also entitled to one without having our fan base questioned wouldn't you agree?

 

[True Fanerer]

I can't disagree with a fedfan and be one at the same time when the argument at hand has nothing to do with Federer?

 

[buscemi]

Courier was a great player obviously. I have no problem with your opinion because we are all entitled to one. We are also entitled to one without having our fan base questioned wouldn't you agree?

Sure. I would have the same problem with someone saying that the argument that Murray is greater than Courier is absolute gibberish.

 

[Mainad]

Let us answer first if Stan and Courier are ATG. if they are, then so is Murray. Otherwise not.

Courier yes, but not so clear cut for Stan. All the other 3 or 4 time Slam winners have also done other things and/or been ranked #1.

 

[tennisaddict]

Courier yes, but not so clear cut for Stan. All the other 3 or 4 time Slam winners have also done other things and/or been ranked #1.

If Stan is not clear cut, same goes with Murray. Stan's path to those titles makes up for deficiencies we are going to find - OG, lesser masters, WTF, No 1 to name a few. He is clearly below Murray considering diversity of achievements but the quality of titles he has won makes up for that.

 

[Spencer Gore]

Murray and Courier are both greats. Just not "all-time greats".

 

[mike danny]

Twisted logic. Rafa was a child prodigy and Federer was a late starter.

Nadal started winning slams 3 years before Fed. So had time to catch up.

 

[uscwang]

Hall of famer