Where does Murray rank in open era?

Where does Murray rank in open era?

  • top 10

    Votes: 8 11.0%

  • between top 10-15

    Votes: 23 31.5%

  • between top 15-20

    Votes: 29 39.7%

  • below top 20

    Votes: 13 17.8%
  • Total voters
    73
clout

clout

Hall of Fame
Where do you guys think Andy Murray ranks among open era greats?
His resume includes:
3 slams (2 Wimbledon's and a US Open)
11 Slam Finals (reached at least 1 slam final at all 4 majors)
14 Masters Titles
1 Tour Finals
20 "big titles"
41 weeks at number one
1 year end number one
2 Olympic gold medals
45 overall titles
656-186 overall record (78%)
188-43 record at majors (81%)
101 wins vs top 10 players
296 wins vs any players that's been in the top 10 at any point
1 Davis Cup Title
30 Quarterfinals or better showings at majors
8 seasons finishing in the top 4 rankings
Having to play against 3 GOAT candidates who all have 12+ slams; with 2 of them being the top 2 GS holders, all in the same era

In terms of open era ranking, he's unquestionably wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy behind players like Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras, Borg, Lendl, Mac, Connors and Agassi, but after this group of legends, I think Murray would have a decent claim at any of the following placements.

Overall, if I had to pick Muzzah's open era ranking, I'd have to say he'd rank somewhere between the top 10 and 15 if the Scot were to retire at this very moment mostly due to his consistency and the era he had to play in
 
Last edited:
Open era includes all players since 1968. Those before 1987 didn't have a chance to vie for the Olympics, therefore Olympics cannot be used as a criterion.
 
Honestly I dont usually figuring out where women or men with between 2-5 slams rank, since there are just too many people to sift through. I prefer to rank him amongst the people he is fairly close. In that I would rank him as follows:

1. Courier- I believe he deserves the nod on Murray for defending 2 different slam titles, and having a longer time at #1, and just generally being a more imposing and stronger #1.

2. Murray

3. Kuerten- I debated between him and Hewitt. Hewitt is much more versatile as a surface threat, but I went with Kuerten since he has a legacy at Roland Garros that Hewitt doesnt come close to at any venue.

4. Hewitt

5. Vilas- IMO only 1 of his 4 slams is even fully legit, that being his U.S Open win 77. The 2 Australian Opens were a joke, and the 77 French was a severely depleted field. I still regard him as more than a 1 slam winner, but not like a 4 slam winner either. He might have deserved to reach #1 at some point in 75 or 77. Off of clay, he is roasted by all but Kuerten, but Kuerten is far and away better on clay itself. I have seen some who rank him over Murray which IMO is a joke. The guy was barely getting games off Borg in many of their matches (both on and off clay) which speak to the limitations of his abilities.

6. Wawrinka- I rank him behind Vilas and Hewitt, since his achievements outside the slams are seriously lacking. He is really a slams only player for the most part.
 
Tennisanity said:
Open era includes all players since 1968. Those before 1987 didn't have a chance to vie for the Olympics, therefore Olympics cannot be used as a criterion.
Click to expand...
Yes, Olympics can be used as a criterion. Tennis evolves as a sport. That's like claiming that because Laver played 3 out of 4 Majors on grass, he can't be compared to modern players. It is a difficult comparison, but not impossible.
 
I rate the Olympics about on par with a WTF. So I do agree Murray's 2 Olympic Golds are huge. I guess achievements wise he probably should rank over Courier, even with 1 less slam, I just think Courier at his best was better and more intimidating to his peers. And winning 2 different slam titles, and 4 slams in less than 2 years, is something I hold in high regard.
 
justinjay said:
I rate the Olympics about on par with a WTF. So I do agree Murray's 2 Olympic Golds are huge. I guess achievements wise he probably should rank over Courier, even with 1 less slam, I just think Courier at his best was better and more intimidating to his peers. And winning 2 different slam titles, and 4 slams in less than 2 years, is something I hold in high regard.
Click to expand...

Courier and Murray are a difficult one. I tend to give the edge to Courier because of the extra Slam and extra weeks at #1 although I think Murray's portfolio of titles is more widespread and impressive than that of Courier (who never won a YEC for instance).
 
Sport said:
Yes, Olympics can be used as a criterion. Tennis evolves as a sport. That's like claiming that because Laver played 3 out of 4 Majors on grass, he can't be compared to modern players. It is a difficult comparison, but not impossible.
Click to expand...

No, you cannot if you consider all open era players.
 
In addition to the nine you mentioned, he's definitely behind Edberg, Becker, and Wilander. Assuming we're including Laver and Newcombe, who each won 5 Majors in the Open Era, he's behind them as well. That leaves us with Courier, Ashe, Vilas, and Kuerten, who could be seen as lower or higher. So, somewhere between 15-19. [Edit: Forgot Rosewall. If we're including him (4 Open Era Majors), then Murray is between 16-20].
 
Off the top of my head.

Laver, rosewall, borg, connors, jmac, lendl, becker, edberg, sampras, agassi, courier, nadal, fed, djok.

Im sure i missed a few from the 70's but its close.

Shaolin said:
14th exactly
Click to expand...

Any on my list to move him up?
 
buscemi said:
In addition to the nine you mentioned, he's definitely behind Edberg, Becker, and Wilander. Assuming we're including Laver and Newcombe, who each won 5 Majors in the Open Era, he's behind them as well. That leaves us with Courier, Ashe, Vilas, and Kuerten, who could be seen as lower or higher. So, somewhere between 15-19. [Edit: Forgot Rosewall. If we're including him (4 Open Era Majors), then Murray is between 16-20].
Click to expand...
Yea I agree. I think that's a fair and accurate range for his ranking.
The consensual Open Era rankings seem to be:
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Sampras
4. Djokovic
5. Borg
6-9. Lendl, Connors, Agassi & Mac in no particular order
10-13. Laver, Becker, Edberg and Wilander in no particular order
14-15. Newcombe and Rosewall in any order

So yeah you're pretty spot on as that'll leave Murray somewhere between the late teens/early 20's.
 
Mainad said:
Courier and Murray are a difficult one. I tend to give the edge to Courier because of the extra Slam and extra weeks at #1 although I think Murray's portfolio of titles is more widespread and impressive than that of Courier (who never won a YEC for instance).
Click to expand...

My feeling is Murray probably had the slightly better overall career, but Courier is probably the slightly greater player. Something like that. They are quite close on all fronts though.

Courier was probably the one hurt the most by Sampras and his rise, even more than Agassi in some ways. Especialy since Sampras was just a horrible match up for him, he was literally useless against an in form Sampras just due to the match up.
 
justinjay said:
My feeling is Murray probably had the slightly better overall career, but Courier is probably the slightly greater player. Something like that. They are quite close on all fronts though.

Courier was probably the one hurt the most by Sampras and his rise, even more than Agassi in some ways. Especialy since Sampras was just a horrible match up for him, he was literally useless against an in form Sampras just due to the match up.
Click to expand...

Courier is 4-16 against Sampras in the H2H and also 1-6 vs Becker and 0-4 against Lendl, that's a lowly 5-26 vs 3 of his major rivals ( he was surprisingly good against his old stablemate from Bolletieri's Academy, Andre Agassi though, leading their H2H 7-5). Whilst Murray does not currently own the H2H against any of his major Slam winning rivals except Wawrinka, he has notched up double digit victories against all of them except Nadal against whom he still won more matches than Courier managed against any of his main rivals. For this reason I am not convinced that Courier was greater against his field than Murray has been against his.
 
Mainad said:
Courier is 4-16 against Sampras in the H2H and also 1-6 vs Becker and 0-4 against Lendl, that's a lowly 5-26 vs 3 of his major rivals ( he was surprisingly good against his old stablemate from Bolletieri's Academy, Andre Agassi though, leading their H2H 7-5). Whilst Murray does not currently own the H2H against any of his major Slam winning rivals except Wawrinka, he has notched up double digit victories against all of them except Nadal against whom he still won more matches than Courier managed against any of his main rivals. For this reason I am not convinced that Courier was greater against his field than Murray has been against his.
Click to expand...

Hmm good point. In addition to Agassi though, his head to head vs Edberg (probably his biggest rival at his peak in 91-93) is very good though. And I am not sure if Lendl really qualified as much of a contemporary match up.
 
justinjay said:
Hmm good point. In addition to Agassi though, his head to head vs Edberg (probably his biggest rival at his peak in 91-93) is very good though. And I am not sure if Lendl really qualified as much of a contemporary match up.
Click to expand...

I guess Courier came in right at the tale end of Lendl's career. He won his 1st Slam, 1991 RG, in the same year Lendl made his last Slam final, 1991 AO. Given that was the case, Courier still did not win any of their 4 meetings which took place between 1989=91, the last 2 occurring when Courier had started to win Slams.
 
Mainad said:
I guess Courier came in right at the tale end of Lendl's career. He won his 1st Slam, 1991 RG, in the same year Lendl made his last Slam final, 1991 AO. Given that was the case, Courier still did not win any of their 4 meetings which took place between 1989=91, the last 2 occurring when Courier had started to win Slams.
Click to expand...

He probably did, between Lendl and Sampras's reigns, but he still had a lot of tough competition in winning his 4 slams, prime/peak Edberg, Becker near his best, Agassi strong, Sampras up and coming, Lendl still a contender, Ivanisevic and Stich bigtime threats particularly on faster courts, Chang a real threat on clay and hard, McEnroe and Connors still around, and a lot of tough competition on clay where he won 2 French Opens and very nearly a 3rd straight with Bruguera, Muster, a slew of Spaniards, Chang, Agassi, etc..
 
Mainad said:
Courier is 4-16 against Sampras in the H2H and also 1-6 vs Becker and 0-4 against Lendl, that's a lowly 5-26 vs 3 of his major rivals ( he was surprisingly good against his old stablemate from Bolletieri's Academy, Andre Agassi though, leading their H2H 7-5). Whilst Murray does not currently own the H2H against any of his major Slam winning rivals except Wawrinka, he has notched up double digit victories against all of them except Nadal against whom he still won more matches than Courier managed against any of his main rivals. For this reason I am not convinced that Courier was greater against his field than Murray has been against his.
Click to expand...
Wow, Courier's h2h record against some of his peers are a bit shockingly poor. Although, Murray's record against fellow multi-time slam champions at majors is a bit iffy as well.

Murray at majors is:
2-7 vs Nadal
2-8 vs Djokovic
1-5 vs Federer
2-3 vs Wawrinka
 
justinjay said:
Honestly I dont usually figuring out where women or men with between 2-5 slams rank, since there are just too many people to sift through. I prefer to rank him amongst the people he is fairly close. In that I would rank him as follows:

1. Courier- I believe he deserves the nod on Murray for defending 2 different slam titles, and having a longer time at #1, and just generally being a more imposing and stronger #1.

2. Murray

3. Kuerten- I debated between him and Hewitt. Hewitt is much more versatile as a surface threat, but I went with Kuerten since he has a legacy at Roland Garros that Hewitt doesnt come close to at any venue.

4. Hewitt

5. Vilas- IMO only 1 of his 4 slams is even fully legit, that being his U.S Open win 77. The 2 Australian Opens were a joke, and the 77 French was a severely depleted field. I still regard him as more than a 1 slam winner, but not like a 4 slam winner either. He might have deserved to reach #1 at some point in 75 or 77. Off of clay, he is roasted by all but Kuerten, but Kuerten is far and away better on clay itself. I have seen some who rank him over Murray which IMO is a joke. The guy was barely getting games off Borg in many of their matches (both on and off clay) which speak to the limitations of his abilities.

6. Wawrinka- I rank him behind Vilas and Hewitt, since his achievements outside the slams are seriously lacking. He is really a slams only player for the most part.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't put Courier over Murray in a million years.
 
justinjay said:
I rate the Olympics about on par with a WTF. So I do agree Murray's 2 Olympic Golds are huge. I guess achievements wise he probably should rank over Courier, even with 1 less slam, I just think Courier at his best was better and more intimidating to his peers. And winning 2 different slam titles, and 4 slams in less than 2 years, is something I hold in high regard.
Click to expand...
Murray end of 2016 was pretty impressive. Murray's serve game is hugely suspect and Courier had a clay serve game and stats before its time. Did Courier dominate the main tour or was it just the slam run really?
 
Mainad said:
I guess Courier came in right at the tale end of Lendl's career. He won his 1st Slam, 1991 RG, in the same year Lendl made his last Slam final, 1991 AO. Given that was the case, Courier still did not win any of their 4 meetings which took place between 1989=91, the last 2 occurring when Courier had started to win Slams.
Click to expand...
I've always been a bit suspicious of all the American success at RG; just screams weak era on clay. Wilander and Lendl had gotten long in the tooth on clay and just a vacuum.
 
justinjay said:
He probably did, between Lendl and Sampras's reigns, but he still had a lot of tough competition in winning his 4 slams, prime/peak Edberg, Becker near his best, Agassi strong, Sampras up and coming, Lendl still a contender, Ivanisevic and Stich bigtime threats particularly on faster courts, Chang a real threat on clay and hard, McEnroe and Connors still around, and a lot of tough competition on clay where he won 2 French Opens and very nearly a 3rd straight with Bruguera, Muster, a slew of Spaniards, Chang, Agassi, etc..
Click to expand...
Muster got his knees bashed up in the parking lot about the time of the American run at RG come to think of it.:rolleyes:
 
clout said:
Yea I agree. I think that's a fair and accurate range for his ranking.
The consensual Open Era rankings seem to be:
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Sampras
4. Djokovic
5. Borg
6-9. Lendl, Connors, Agassi & Mac in no particular order
10-13. Laver, Becker, Edberg and Wilander in no particular order
14-15. Newcombe and Rosewall in any order

So yeah you're pretty spot on as that'll leave Murray somewhere between the late teens/early 20's.
Click to expand...
Open era is kind of a crazy list because if we're talking peak then we have Laver's pro slam and he's near the top.

Depending on the context I'd put Murray at 14 ahead of Newcombe and Rosewall for level combined with achievements. The highest any sane person could put Murray is 10 perusing your list. Overall I think he was a better player than Becker, Edberg, and Wilander and I'm pretty sure his overall achievements would bear that out. Those three were far, far from a dominant force on tour and the Auz Open victories don't carry as much weight as the other slams at that time save Becker's 1996 title. With all of Murray's slam finals and semis plus a much greater Masters haul you really could make case for him being at 10.
 
Right behind Wilander.

>>> Newcombe, Courier, Vilas, etc.

(not considering Laver and Rosewall who are pre-Open era players)
 
Meles said:
Open era is kind of a crazy list because if we're talking peak then we have Laver's pro slam and he's near the top.

Depending on the context I'd put Murray at 14 ahead of Newcombe and Rosewall for level combined with achievements. The highest any sane person could put Murray is 10 perusing your list. Overall I think he was a better player than Becker, Edberg, and Wilander and I'm pretty sure his overall achievements would bear that out. Those three were far, far from a dominant force on tour and the Auz Open victories don't carry as much weight as the other slams at that time save Becker's 1996 title. With all of Murray's slam finals and semis plus a much greater Masters haul you really could make case for him being at 10.
Click to expand...
I personally wouldn't put Murray ahead of anyone between 10-13 on the "consensual" open era list as Becker, Edberg and Wilander all have at least double the slams of Murray, while Laver had 5 + the calendar slam. I think 14 is highest I'll put Andy tbh.
 
clout said:
Wow, Courier's h2h record against some of his peers are a bit shockingly poor. Although, Murray's record against fellow multi-time slam champions at majors is a bit iffy as well.

Murray at majors is:
2-7 vs Nadal
2-8 vs Djokovic
1-5 vs Federer
2-3 vs Wawrinka
Click to expand...

The first 3 merely reflects the fact that they are better players. The Slam H2H with Wawrinka is a bit anomalous considering that Murray leads their overall H2H.
 
Top 20 or so, Laver and Rosewall won enough to be ranked above Murray for OE achievements - Newcombe didn't IMO. Murray should be ranked over Courier as well I think, Courier had a decent patch where he was truly the best in the world but he burnt out so quick and Murray was a consistent force across the tour for a long time.

  1. Federer
  2. Nadal
  3. Sampras
  4. Borg
  5. Djokovic
  6. Lendl
  7. Connors
  8. McEnroe
  9. Agassi
  10. Becker
  11. Edberg
  12. Wilander
  13. Laver
  14. Rosewall
  15. Murray
  16. Courier
  17. Newcombe
  18. Hewitt
  19. Kuerten
  20. Vilas
Something like that. I'd say 18-20 are debatable IMO.

Edit: I was quite torn with Newcombe, at his best in the OE I think he's up there with Becker and the wonky tour structure at the time makes it tough. He's definitely got arguments to go above Murray.
 
Last edited:
Omnipotent god at his best and GOAT tennis player at his worst.
 
paranoidandroid said:
Omnipotent god at his best and GOAT tennis player at his worst.
Click to expand...


124 mph :eek:

cJlBUVL.gif
 
Mainad said:
Courier is 4-16 against Sampras in the H2H and also 1-6 vs Becker and 0-4 against Lendl, that's a lowly 5-26 vs 3 of his major rivals ( he was surprisingly good against his old stablemate from Bolletieri's Academy, Andre Agassi though, leading their H2H 7-5). Whilst Murray does not currently own the H2H against any of his major Slam winning rivals except Wawrinka, he has notched up double digit victories against all of them except Nadal against whom he still won more matches than Courier managed against any of his main rivals. For this reason I am not convinced that Courier was greater against his field than Murray has been against his.
Click to expand...

Edberg Courier was a far greater rivalry that Becker Courier or even Lendl Courier. They played 6 matches in Grand Slams with Courier leading 4-2 while overall Courier led 6-4. Courier again led Agassi in Grand Slams 4-2. So you can say that Courier performed very fairly against his rivals at Grand Slams (never player Becker there).

Also if you look at it, since 2013 (after winning his first GS in 2012), Murray is 7-24 against Roger/Rafa/Nole. This is the period when he won 2 more slams, an OG and finished YE#1. So another way to look at numbers.
 
NatF said:
Top 20 or so, Laver and Rosewall won enough to be ranked above Murray for OE achievements - Newcombe didn't IMO. Murray should be ranked over Courier as well I think, Courier had a decent patch where he was truly the best in the world but he burnt out so quick and Murray was a consistent force across the tour for a long time.

  1. Federer
  2. Nadal
  3. Sampras
  4. Borg
  5. Djokovic
  6. Lendl
  7. Connors
  8. McEnroe
  9. Agassi
  10. Becker
  11. Edberg
  12. Wilander
  13. Laver
  14. Rosewall
  15. Murray
  16. Courier
  17. Newcombe
  18. Hewitt
  19. Kuerten
  20. Vilas
Something like that. I'd say 18-20 are debatable IMO.

Edit: I was quite torn with Newcombe, at his best in the OE I think he's up there with Becker and the wonky tour structure at the time makes it tough. He's definitely got arguments to go above Murray.
Click to expand...

Where do you place Ashe?
 
buscemi said:
Where do you place Ashe?
Click to expand...

Outside the top 20 - 1975 Wimbledon win was glorious but the 1970 AO wasn't a major IMO, Ashe was maybe the rightful YE #1 in 1975 with his Dallas win as well IMO. I'd put Ashe in a group with guys like Stan Smith, Roddick, Safin, Chang, Wawrinka etc...also completely forgot Nastase who might be #21. It gets less clear around 20-25 IMO.
 
Tennisanity said:
No, you cannot if you consider all open era players.
Click to expand...

I probably rank Murray lower than most, but this is just flawed logic, my friend.

Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, we can't make an Open Era list at all
 
NatF said:
Outside the top 20 - 1975 Wimbledon win was glorious but the 1970 AO wasn't a major IMO, Ashe was maybe the rightful YE #1 in 1975 with his Dallas win as well IMO. I'd put Ashe in a group with guys like Stan Smith, Roddick, Safin, Chang, Wawrinka etc...also completely forgot Nastase who might be #21. It gets less clear around 20-25 IMO.
Click to expand...

Good point about Nastase. He had only 2 Majors, but he had 4 WTFs when it was the 4th Major (and didn't play the the Australian outside of 1981), was #1 in 1973, and was arguably #1 in 1972. I think I'd actually put him in the top 20. I'd say he has the equivalent of 4-6 Majors in the modern game.
 
Wander said:
Murray ranks probably exactly 15th at best in the Open era. 20th at worst.
Click to expand...

I could make an argument for him being lower than 20. 17 players in the Open Era had 4+ Majors, so they clearly have a case for being better than Murray. Kuerten and Ashe had 3 Majors each and have an argument for being better. Nastase had only 2 Majors but won 4 WTF when it was the 4th Major (and only played the Australian Open in 1981). That's 20 players who have a case for being better Open Era players than Murray. I don't think I would put him at #21, but I'd have to think about it some more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

clout
  • Poll Poll
Where does Federer rank on clay in open era?
2 3 4
Replies
189
Views
14K
Matchpras
Matchpras
Lozo1016
  • Poll Poll
After Alcaraz's 1st Wimbledon Title, Where Do You Rank Him In The Open Era?
Replies
18
Views
1K
Drob
Drob
Pheasant
  • Poll Poll
Great 1-slam winner in the Open Era
2 3
Replies
115
Views
7K
mental midget
M
ghostofMecir
  • Poll Poll
Rank Federer All-Time based only on results from the age of 30+
Replies
16
Views
2K
SinjinCooper
S
T
Open Era Leaders
Replies
9
Views
870
Benf15harp
Benf15harp
Back
Top