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

[Red Rick]

Can we introduce the term Contemporary Great?

 

[Mainad]

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.

That would be true if all that you consider is the Slam count and nothing else. But some of us take other things into consideration as well eg. other important titles and the #1 ranking. Unlike Murray and Courier who have the same number or 1 more Slam title, Stan has only 1 other big title outside the Slams and has never been ranked higher than #3.

 

[tennisaddict]

That would be true if all that you consider is the Slam count and nothing else. But some of us take other things into consideration as well eg. other important titles and the #1 ranking. Unlike Murray and Courier who have the same number or 1 more Slam title, Stan has only 1 other big title outside the Slams and has never been ranked higher than #3.

Do you realize you are fitting your ATG category based on what Murray has accomplished ?

On one hand you want to maintain Murray is part of big 4 in spite of vast difference in achievements , yet you try to magnify the minuscule delta between Stan and Andy

Take the big picture outlook. Is Stan closer to Andy than Andy to Becker, Edberg , etc .. Absolutely!

 

[Mainad]

Do you realize you are fitting your ATG category based on what Murray has accomplished ?

On one hand you want to maintain Murray is part of big 4 in spite of vast difference in achievements , yet you try to magnify the minuscule delta between Stan and Andy

Take the big picture outlook. Is Stan closer to Andy than Andy to Becker, Edberg , etc .. Absolutely!

No, I'm taking OTHER achievements into account and not just the Slam count like you do. Outside of his 3 Slams, Stan has accomplished nothing of note except for 1 Masters title won shortly after his 1st Slam. Murray has 14 of these titles (by far the most of any player apart from the Big 3 and Agassi), a WTF title, multiple OSGMs (which no other player has accomplished) and has held the #1 ranking. These clearly separate him from Stan and only if Stan ends up winning more Slam titles than Murray can this be re-evaluated.

If it's ALL about the Slams and nothing else, then Murray and Stan are indeed equal. If the WHOLE of the tour is taken into account and not just 4 tournaments a year, then there is a clear division between them.

Clearly, if anyone is not looking at the bigger picture, it's you, not me!

 

[tennisaddict]

No, I'm taking OTHER achievements into account and not just the Slam count like you do. Outside of his 3 Slams, Stan has accomplished nothing of note except for 1 Masters title won shortly after his 1st Slam. Murray has 14 of these titles (by far the most of any player apart from the Big 3 and Agassi), a WTF title, multiple OSGMs (which no other player has accomplished) and has held the #1 ranking. These clearly separate him from Stan and only if Stan ends up winning more Slam titles than Murray can this be re-evaluated.

If it's ALL about the Slams and nothing else, then Murray and Stan are indeed equal. If the WHOLE of the tour is taken into account and not just 4 tournaments a year, then there is a clear division between them.

Clearly, if anyone is not looking at the bigger picture, it's you, not me!

It seems to me that you are trying too hard to fit the criterion for ATG based on what Murray has accomplished .

Swap Andy and Stan and I am sure you would have said anyone with 3 or more majors deserve to be called ATG

It is not the slam count that Stan has. Each one of his runs is worth multi fold than others

 

[Mainad]

It seems to me that you are trying too hard to fit the criterion for ATG based on what Murray has accomplished

So you keep saying but everything he has accomplished is what the ATG most values ie. Slams, WTF and Masters plus the #1 ranking.

Swap Andy and Stan and I am sure you would have said anyone with 3 or more majors deserve to be called ATG

No, I wouldn't. When Murray was still on 2 Slams I placed him behind Hewitt because the latter had held the #1 ranking and won multiple WTFs.

It is not the slam count that Stan has. Each one of his runs is worth multi fold than others

We can only evaluate objectively on hard facts ie. Slams won, other big titles won and ranking. Everything else is subjective and a matter for debate.

 

[Djokovic2011]

People put him in that category because of his absolute crap record against a past-prime Federer in majors.

Oh come on Saby, you know fine well this is pure nonsense. I doubt anyone who doesn't consider Murray an ATG even takes his record against Federer into account, it's most likely because he "only" has three majors to his name rather than six which seems to be the prerequisitive according to most posters on this forum. And is Murray's record against a past prime Federer really that bad anyway? He beat him at the 2013 AO, lost to him a year later in only his second tournament after coming back from surgery(and still managed to win a set) and lost to him at Wimbledon the next year in what was one of Roger's very finest performances there irrespective of his age at the time. As usual I think you're being way too harsh on Andy here.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Oh come on Saby, you know fine well this is pure nonsense. I doubt anyone who doesn't consider Murray an ATG even takes his record against Federer into account, it's most likely because he "only" has three majors to his name rather than six which seems to be the prerequisitive according to most posters on this forum. And is Murray's record against a past prime Federer really that bad anyway? He beat him at the 2013 AO, lost to him a year later in only his second tournament after coming back from surgery(and still managed to win a set) and lost to him at Wimbledon the next year in what was one of Roger's very finest performances there irrespective of his age at the time. As usual I think you're being way too harsh on Andy here.

What about the other 3 meetings?

People say Murray was unlucky to play Nadal, Djokovic and Federer but wasn't Roddick also? Why can't he be an ATG too?

You don't need to stick up for Murray mate. Novak's 2015 level stands on its own even if his competition was a bit subpar with Murray as his biggest rival.

 

[Djokovic2011]

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.

Murray's 2016 season far outranks Courier's best year when taking all tournaments into consideration.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

And that 2015 Wimbledon SF is hugely overrated. Novak beat him in 4 in the final.

Murray just isn't good enough to deal with him when an ATG would have more than once by now (which is all Safin did too).

 

[Djokovic2011]

What about the other 3 meetings?

People say Murray was unlucky to play Nadal, Djokovic and Federer but wasn't Roddick also? Why can't he be an ATG too?

You don't need to stick up for Murray mate. Novak's 2015 level stands on its own even if his competition was a bit subpar with Murray as his biggest rival.

What other 3 meetings? You don't seriously think Federer's prime ended in 2007 do you? And as is often the case I wasn't even thinking about Djokovic when responding to your post but if I believe a player is being treated unfairly then you'd better believe I'll speak up and defend him.

 

[tennisaddict]

We can only evaluate objectively on hard facts ie. Slams won, other big titles won and ranking. Everything else is subjective and a matter for debate.

Not all runs are the same. Nadal's USO runs for example are like 250's for the most part. Novak's AO runs is the polar opposite.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Murray's 2016 season far outranks Courier's best year when taking all tournaments into consideration.

We aren't going to compare Masters again are we?

Courier was more dominant and had bigger rivals. Novak was injured and lost to Agut, Cilic, Wawrinka, etc.

 

[Djokovic2011]

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.

You can't take out the predominant surface Mainad!

 

[Deleted member 307496]

What other 3 meetings? You don't seriously think Federer's prime ended in 2007 do you? And as is often the case I wasn't even thinking about Djokovic when responding to your post but if I believe a player is being treated unfairly then you'd better believe I'll speak up and defend him.

No. But he was dominantly beaten by Novak in 2008.

Murray got absolutely creamed in that USO final and again at the AO.

 

[Djokovic2011]

We aren't going to compare Masters again are we?

Courier was more dominant and had bigger rivals. Novak was injured and lost to Agut, Cilic, Wawrinka, etc.

When comparing two player's best seasons I believe one should take everything into consideration, not just the majors.

 

[Djokovic2011]

No. But he was dominantly beaten by Novak in 2008.

Murray got absolutely creamed in that USO final and again at the AO.

He was his daddy in best of 3 at the time though, which surely has to count for something.

 

[Jackuar]

Lol, this is EXACTLY the problem I have with WTF fanboys. You're actually treating WTF as *more important* than a major here, because you consider it a must-win title while the 4 majors are not.

Which part of my post exactly says that wtf is *more important* than slam?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

When comparing two player's best seasons I believe one should take everything into consideration, not just the majors.

Masters didn't have the same importance they do today as I have already expressed countless times.

If they did I bet Courier does better than he did and somewhat closer to Murray.

Let's talk about his stronger field too.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

He was his daddy in best of 3 at the time though, which surely has to count for something.

Lleyton lead Federer for a period outside majors too. Did it matter when they met in slams?

 

[Djokovic2011]

Masters didn't have the same importance they do today as I have already expressed countless times.

If they did I bet Courier does better than he did and somewhat closer to Murray.

Let's talk about his stronger field too.

That's as maybe but we can only go off what actually happened and when all's said and done, Murray's 2016 > Courier's 1992.
As for the competition, we could probably be here all day and night discussing that so it's best not to go there.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Lleyton lead Federer for a period outside majors too. Did it matter when they met in slams?

Lleyton lead a pre-prime Federer, Murray always had to play the much better version.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Lleyton lead a pre-prime Federer, Murray always had to play the much better version.

Federer really wasn't that much better in MS tournaments until recently and now he doesn't lose to Murray anywhere.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

That's as maybe but we can only go off what actually happened and when all's said and done, Murray's 2016 > Courier's 1992.
As for the competition, we could probably be here all day and night discussing that so it's best not to go there.

Courier won 2 majors to Murray's one and would definitely have won more Masters had they been as important as they would be today.

In my opinion and the opinion of many others Courier had stronger competition too.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Courier won 2 majors to Murray's one and would definitely have won more Masters had they been as important as they would be today.

In my opinion and the opinion of many others Courier had stronger competition too.

Even if we agree Courier was more dominant, Murray had far greater consistency and longevity and you know what Meat Loaf said about two out of three.

 

[metsman]

Lleyton lead Federer for a period outside majors too. Did it matter when they met in slams?

Hewitt's biggest wins over Fed in Davis Cup and Masters Cup were more impressive than Murray's too. And they both have 1 in each.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

Which part of my post exactly says that wtf is *more important* than slam?

Uh, the part where you require someone to win the WTF to be an all-time great, whereas you do not require someone to win all 4 majors to be an ATG. You essentially prefer someone who wins 3/4 majors and a WTF to someone with the Career Grand Slam, which makes no sense to me.

Additionally, merely including the WTF as a must-win event treats it the same way as a major.

 

[NatF]

Hewitt's biggest wins over Fed in Davis Cup and Masters Cup were more impressive than Murray's too. And they both have 1 in each.

For sure, those are underrated wins for Lleyton. Murray's best wins over Federer are probably Shanghai in 2010 and maybe Madrid in 2008 which was pretty good - this going by Federer's level.

 

[killerboi2]

For sure, those are underrated wins for Lleyton. Murray's best wins over Federer are probably Shanghai in 2010 and maybe Madrid in 2008 which was pretty good - this going by Federer's level.

What about when he destroyed Fed in 2012 Olympics?

 

[Deleted member 748597]

What about when he destroyed Fed in 2012 Olympics?

With that amazing win, Sir Murray achieved immortality.

 

[NatF]

What about when he destroyed Fed in 2012 Olympics?

I'm talking about matches where Federer played well that was one of the worst grass matches I've seen from Federer...Federer was -7 in terms of winners and errors. Not sure I've ever seen stats like that from Fed on grass. Murray was basically at the same level as the Wimbledon final.

 

[killerboi2]

I'm talking about matches where Federer played well that was one of the worst grass matches I've seen from Federer...Federer was -7 in terms of winners and errors. Not sure I've ever seen stats like that from Fed on grass. Murray was basically at the same level as the Wimbledon final.

Fed getting destroyed in a grass final is still pretty impressive though. Of course one of his worst match would just happen to be against prime Murray lmao.

 

[NatF]

Fed getting destroyed in a grass final is still pretty impressive though. Of course one of his worst match would just happen to be against prime Murray lmao.

Did you watch the match? lol. Federer was just bad, fair play to Murray he brought his A-game.

 

[metsman]

For sure, those are underrated wins for Lleyton. Murray's best wins over Federer are probably Shanghai in 2010 and maybe Madrid in 2008 which was pretty good - this going by Federer's level.

Federer's level was garbage in Shanghai 2010(-19 differential in two sets per tennisabstract, and terrible play on big points), Murray's was very good though. Fed's level was pretty good in 08 Madrid so that was a great win. Also Toronto 2010 maybe. Can't think of too many others where Federer wasn't simply below par in.

But he hasn't even gotten close to beating Federer in slams/WTF besides when Federer has had physical issues. 3 sets won in 9 total matches.

 

[NatF]

Federer's level was garbage in Shanghai 2010(-19 differential in two sets per tennisabstract, and terrible play on big points), Murray's was very good though. Fed's level was pretty good in 08 Madrid so that was a great win. Also Toronto 2010 maybe.

But he hasn't even gotten close to beating Federer in slams/WTF besides when Federer has had physical issues. 3 sets won in 9 total matches.

Federer came into the Shanghai match looking pretty good but yeah is level was poor in the match itself.

 

[metsman]

Federer came into the Shanghai match looking pretty good but yeah is level was poor in the match itself.

He was tremendous against Djokovic but came up flat against Murray. It was pretty weird but not too unusual for that time period.

 

[NatF]

He was tremendous against Djokovic but came up flat against Murray. It was pretty weird but not too unusual for that time period.

Yeah Federer was a mess for much of 2010...

 

[Jackuar]

Uh, the part where you require someone to win the WTF to be an all-time great, whereas you do not require someone to win all 4 majors to be an ATG. You essentially prefer someone who wins 3/4 majors and a WTF to someone with the Career Grand Slam, which makes no sense to me.

Additionally, merely including the WTF as a must-win event treats it the same way as a major.

If I have to include all 4 that would mean an exclusion of many worthy contenders. 3 out of 4 is the bare minimum expectation. And wtf deserves its place in my opinion. Obviously it's not equal to slam, I'm not saying it is. But it's a worthy title.

 

[abmk]

He was tremendous against Djokovic but came up flat against Murray. It was pretty weird but not too unusual for that time period.

he played great vs Soderling as well.
So I was surprised by what happened in the final vs Murray.