Where does Murray rank in open era?

[NatF]

I know why you like to add 2007 over 2008 but we are not going there today. LOL.

Murray really likes faster surfaces and he would played a lot more quick points in another era with those surfaces. He may have burned out slower rather than quicker. I don't think Wilander would do better in this era than Murray. I think the big 3 would make mincemeat out of him. I do think his IQ is pretty high but that can only get you so far when they can outmatch you in almost every other aspect of the game. Wilander didn't even have a great record against the top players of his won era to be honest.

Fair enough.

I didn't say over 2008 - I said with but sure lol.

Murray would probably be a S&V player in earlier era's and without poly his second serve would be dirt

Putting Murray in Wilander's era where would he really get his opportunities? Murray's got a poor record at the USO since 2012 and only has three good runs there in total, at Wimbledon he's very consistent but the competition would be truly fierce, at the French he has a total of two good years on clay...I think 6 slams is very generous in Wilander's era. His best form needs to line up with the weaker draws.

In 97-02 he'd have a good shot at winning several slams if his peak arrived at the beginning but even then he's only a slight favourite at best against most of the slam winners in that period IMO. He didn't mature as an AO challenger straight away to take advantage of 98-99, most probably gets 2002 depending on who he draws. I don't see him beating Sampras at Wimbledon, I think winning in 2001 would be very tough as well - of course 2002 is a good possibility but Hewitt was no joke that year. I don't give him much of a shot at the FO tbh. As I said re. the USO he's got three good runs there but Rafter/Agassi/Safin/Hewitt/Sampras could all beat him. So again 6 slams is very generous unless things work out perfectly for him...

 

[NoleFam]

Ok so even if we put him into the 97-02 period, he'd have chances at 98/99/02 AO, 02 RG, 01/02 Wimby, 97/98 USO. Not reasonable to expect him to win all, especially given his track record at the USO post 2012 and given his back injury that split up his prime, so it is probably 5 slams max. Even here he isn't really winning 6+, and guys like Hewitt/Roddick could win 3+ slams in this period as well. Murray's consistency separates him from those guys, his peak level does not. Consistency usually doesn't win you slams unless you are in a weak time period like that one, so we can't give Murray multiple extra slams for that.

Ok fair enough. I could see 5 in that time frame.

 

[CentreCourt]

It depends how you look at it. He's top 10 in terms of grand slam finals and, factoring in he is up against 3 of the 5 best of all time, he's probably had it tougher in those finals than some of the guys who have converted more of those into wins.

He is top 15 all time in terms of titles overall, so depending on how you rate things, he's in that area somewhere.

 

[abmk]

I didn't say over 2008 - I said with but sure lol.

Murray would probably be a S&V player in earlier era's and without poly his second serve would be dirt

Putting Murray in Wilander's era where would he really get his opportunities? Murray's got a poor record at the USO since 2012 and only has three good runs there in total, at Wimbledon he's very consistent but the competition would be truly fierce, at the French he has a total of two good years on clay...I think 6 slams is very generous in Wilander's era. His best form needs to line up with the weaker draws.

In 97-02 he'd have a good shot at winning several slams if his peak arrived at the beginning but even then he's only a slight favourite at best against most of the slam winners in that period IMO. He didn't mature as an AO challenger straight away to take advantage of 98-99, most probably gets 2002 depending on who he draws. I don't see him beating Sampras at Wimbledon, I think winning in 2001 would be very tough as well - of course 2002 is a good possibility but Hewitt was no joke that year. I don't give him much of a shot at the FO tbh. As I said re. the USO he's got three good runs there but Rafter/Agassi/Safin/Hewitt/Sampras could all beat him. So again 6 slams is very generous unless things work out perfectly for him...

there's no way Murray gets to 6 slams in Wilander's era, LOL !

 

[NoleFam]

I didn't say over 2008 - I said with but sure lol.

Murray would probably be a S&V player in earlier era's and without poly his second serve would be dirt

Putting Murray in Wilander's era where would he really get his opportunities? Murray's got a poor record at the USO since 2012 and only has three good runs there in total, at Wimbledon he's very consistent but the competition would be truly fierce, at the French he has a total of two good years on clay...I think 6 slams is very generous in Wilander's era. His best form needs to line up with the weaker draws.

In 97-02 he'd have a good shot at winning several slams if his peak arrived at the beginning but even then he's only a slight favourite at best against most of the slam winners in that period IMO. He didn't mature as an AO challenger straight away to take advantage of 98-99, most probably gets 2002 depending on who he draws. I don't see him beating Sampras at Wimbledon, I think winning in 2001 would be very tough as well - of course 2002 is a good possibility but Hewitt was no joke that year. I don't give him much of a shot at the FO tbh. As I said re. the USO he's got three good runs there but Rafter/Agassi/Safin/Hewitt/Sampras could all beat him. So again 6 slams is very generous unless things work out perfectly for him...

Wilander's era was really tough but Wilander got rather fortunate in his draws. Only in 3 of his Slam wins did he have to beat an ATG in the final to win them, which was Lendl. Murray would need luck like that but imo it is a more favorable scenario than the one he got.

He's not beating Sampras at Wimbledon but in the other ones he will have his chances and especially 2002 Wimbledon, the USO years when Rafter won them, 2002 French, etc. I could definitely see him taking advantage of a weaker field and winning 5 in that time frame, maybe even 6.

 

[NoleFam]

So, under this scenario, we have Murray's potential Major winning years shift to 1982-2000? That might actually work out worse for him.

LOL. No not what I'm saying. Line up Murray's peak with Wilander's peak, regardless of age. What Wilander was doing at 19 Murray was not doing and what Murray was doing at 28/29 Wilander was not doing. It wouldn't make sense to say they have to be the exact same age.

 

[buscemi]

LOL. No not what I'm saying. Line up Murray's peak with Wilander's peak, regardless of age. What Wilander was doing at 19 Murray was not doing and what Murray was doing at 28/29 Wilander was not doing. It wouldn't make sense to say they have to be the exact same age.

Okay, so what age is Murray in 1982 under this scenario?

 

[CentreCourt]

I didn't say over 2008 - I said with but sure lol.

Murray would probably be a S&V player in earlier era's and without poly his second serve would be dirt

Putting Murray in Wilander's era where would he really get his opportunities? Murray's got a poor record at the USO since 2012 and only has three good runs there in total, at Wimbledon he's very consistent but the competition would be truly fierce, at the French he has a total of two good years on clay...I think 6 slams is very generous in Wilander's era. His best form needs to line up with the weaker draws.

In 97-02 he'd have a good shot at winning several slams if his peak arrived at the beginning but even then he's only a slight favourite at best against most of the slam winners in that period IMO. He didn't mature as an AO challenger straight away to take advantage of 98-99, most probably gets 2002 depending on who he draws. I don't see him beating Sampras at Wimbledon, I think winning in 2001 would be very tough as well - of course 2002 is a good possibility but Hewitt was no joke that year. I don't give him much of a shot at the FO tbh. As I said re. the USO he's got three good runs there but Rafter/Agassi/Safin/Hewitt/Sampras could all beat him. So again 6 slams is very generous unless things work out perfectly for him...

You could also look at it another way though; put Murray in the tournament IN PLACE of the winner. How many of the finals does he convert by comparison to his current figure? Take that winner and transplant them into Murray's finals, how many do they convert?

Agassi, for instance, won 4 AOs. Even if we discount Sampras in his first, is anyone going to tell me that Agassi winning three AOs against Kafelnikov, Clement and Schuttler is not something Murray would also have achieved?

Compare that to who Murray has played in 5 finals - Djokovic and Federer.

Agassi also has a FO against Medvedev. I mean, come on.

He has two USO won against Stich and Martin.

And he has a Wimbledon won against Ivanesivic.

There's not a single win there which Murray isn't likely to win, maybe other than Sampras.

 

[NoleFam]

Okay, so what age is Murray in 1982 under this scenario?

Probably around 23.

 

[buscemi]

You could also look at it another way though; put Murray in the tournament IN PLACE of the winner. How many of the finals does he convert by comparison to his current figure? Take that winner and transplant them into Murray's finals, how many do they convert?

Agassi, for instance, won 4 AOs. Even if we discount Sampras in his first, is anyone going to tell me that Agassi winning three AOs against Kafelnikov, Clement and Schuttler is not something Murray would also have achieved?

Compare that to who Murray has played in 5 finals - Djokovic and Federer.

Agassi also has a FO against Medvedev. I mean, come on.

He has two USO won against Stich and Martin.

And he has a Wimbledon won against Ivanesivic.

There's not a single win there which Murray isn't likely to win, maybe other than Sampras.

Agassi won those Australian Opens at ages 29, 30, and 32. Murray was 29 at the 2017 Australian Open when he lost to Mischa Zverev in the 4th round. He was out with injury at the 2018 Australian Open. We'll see how he plays at the 2020 Australian Open at age 32.

 

[abmk]

You could also look at it another way though; put Murray in the tournament IN PLACE of the winner. How many of the finals does he convert by comparison to his current figure? Take that winner and transplant them into Murray's finals, how many do they convert?

Agassi, for instance, won 4 AOs. Even if we discount Sampras in his first, is anyone going to tell me that Agassi winning three AOs against Kafelnikov, Clement and Schuttler is not something Murray would also have achieved?

Compare that to who Murray has played in 5 finals - Djokovic and Federer.

Agassi also has a FO against Medvedev. I mean, come on.

He has two USO won against Stich and Martin.

And he has a Wimbledon won against Ivanesivic.

There's not a single win there which Murray isn't likely to win, maybe other than Sampras.

lot of ignorance in this post.

1. Agassi played and beat Sampras in AO 2000 semi. Murray would probably lose to that Sampras.
Murray isn't a lock vs Rafter of AO 01 either.
AO 03 draw was very very easy for Agassi, so Murray definitely takes that if he has the same draw.However if draw is reshuffled with the dangerous guys in the other half - Roddick, El Ayanoui, Hewitt, nalbandian, federer, bets are off.

2. the Medvedev part is brought up by those ignorant about the 90s. Medvedev was a highly talented CCer, whose peak level was atleast Murray's level on clay. He won 4 CC masters. Also beat Kuerten on the way to making the RG 99 final.
Agassi also beat defending champion Moya in the QF of that RG.
don't see Murray winning that.

3. Agassi beat Becker&Ivanisevic in Wim 92. Nowhere near easy.

4. USO 94 - Agassi beat in row -- Ferreria,Chang,Muster, Martin, Stich. That's a tough draw.

 

[metsman]

You could also look at it another way though; put Murray in the tournament IN PLACE of the winner. How many of the finals does he convert by comparison to his current figure? Take that winner and transplant them into Murray's finals, how many do they convert?

Agassi, for instance, won 4 AOs. Even if we discount Sampras in his first, is anyone going to tell me that Agassi winning three AOs against Kafelnikov, Clement and Schuttler is not something Murray would also have achieved?

Compare that to who Murray has played in 5 finals - Djokovic and Federer.

Agassi also has a FO against Medvedev. I mean, come on.

He has two USO won against Stich and Martin.

And he has a Wimbledon won against Ivanesivic.

There's not a single win there which Murray isn't likely to win, maybe other than Sampras.

yeah, no chance Murray loses to the likes of Anderson, M. Zverev, Nishikori, Ferrer in majors in his prime.

Also, Agassi had slams taken away by Sampras/Fed a few times too. Believe it or not, Murray isn't the only player in history to play ATGs in slams a lot, and most of the other guys put up better performances in losses to boot.

 

[NatF]

there's no way Murray gets to 6 slams in Wilander's era, LOL !

That's what I was saying lol.

Wilander's era was really tough but Wilander got rather fortunate in his draws. Only in 3 of his Slam wins did he have to beat an ATG in the final to win them, which was Lendl. Murray would need luck like that but imo it is a more favorable scenario than the one he got.

He's not beating Sampras at Wimbledon but in the other ones he will have his chances and especially 2002 Wimbledon, the USO years when Rafter won them, 2002 French, etc. I could definitely see him taking advantage of a weaker field and winning 5 in that time frame, maybe even 6.

In the slams Murray won his opponents weren't playing like ATG's, not like he was totally unlucky. Murray probably wins a few AO's in that era but don't see him getting another 3 from anywhere.

Hewitt can definitely beat Murray at Wimbledon, Rafter was in great form at the USO (especially in the 1998 final), backing Murray at the French is risky there's only one possible year he'd might be favoured to win it. You're underselling those players badly. Honestly this Murray overrating is getting silly now.

Let's put him in 1997 and call that his 2008 and assume he can maintain the same sort of consistency;

1997: The only slam he contends for is the USO but his finals performance in 2008 was way worse than Rafter's in 1997. Probably 0 slams.
1998: In 2009 Murray was very good on the main tour but didn't really connect in the slams. No chance at the FO, Wimbledon or USO. Went out to a GOAT'ing Verdasco at the AO so probably can get a deeper run maybe but definitely not considering him the favourite here. Probably 0 slams.
1999: This corresponds to 2010, Murray has a good shot at the AO - Kafelnikov would definitely be tough for Murray considering he didn't play his best in the final, but will give Murray the benefit of a doubt. He doesn't have a shot at the rest of the majors though. Probably 1 slam.
2000: This would be Murray's 2011, crap AO final that year so doesn't beat Agassi, doesn't beat Kuerten at the FO, doesn't beat Sampras at Wimbledon and doesn't beat Safin at the USO. Probably remains on 1 slam.
2001: Being arguably Murray's best year in terms of slam form (2012) Murray has a shot at 3/4 majors. Don't think his shot is strong at Wimbledon though. He's at best 50/50 against Agassi and Hewitt in the finals IMO but getting there would be tricky as well with Rafter and Sampras depending on which half he ends in. I'll combine this with 2002.
2002: Murray's 2013, contends at 2/4 slams this year for 5/8 across 2001-2002. I definitely don't think he gets Wimbledon in 2001. So that's 4/8 that Murray has a legit shot at. Converting all 4 would be a big ask of him, even 3 is quite generous but if he grabs 3 he ends on 4 slams total.

Once 2003/2004 hit I don't see Murray sneaking in any slam victories - that's whether he takes a year off due to his back or not.

Things would obviously be very different but it's plainly obvious to me that Murray's barely put enough good runs together to get 6 majors in any era unless things line up for him perfectly. You could add his AO 2015 and 2016 Wimbledon as strong campaigns but most era's have ATG's guarding Wimbledon and his level at the AO in 2015 isn't a lock against most winners since the AO become a proper major.

 

[metsman]

lot of ignorance in this post.

1. Agassi played and beat Sampras in AO 2000 semi. Murray would probably lose to that Sampras.
Murray isn't a lock vs Rafter of AO 01 either.
AO 03 draw was very very easy for Agassi, so Murray definitely takes that if he has the same draw.However if draw is reshuffled with the dangerous guys in the other half - Roddick, El Ayanoui, Hewitt, nalbandian, federer, bets are off.

2. the Medvedev part is brought up by those ignorant about the 90s. Medvedev was a highly talented CCer, whose peak level was atleast Murray's level on clay. He won 4 CC masters. Also beat Kuerten on the way to making the RG 99 final.
Agassi also beat defending champion Moya in the QF of that RG.
don't see Murray winning that.

3. Agassi beat Becker&Ivanisevic in Wim 92. Nowhere near easy.

4. USO 94 - Agassi beat in row -- Ferreria,Chang,Muster, Martin, Stich. That's a tough draw.

Also hilarious to give Murray hypothetical USO given he has 1 championship caliber year there.

 

[metsman]

Can we talk about Murray's good fortune? He peaked in an era where the best players of the era were inconsistent on his best conditions and as a result got to sneak in 3 Wimbys/USOs. In what other eras would that many Wimby/USO be up for grabs?

 

[abmk]

Wilander's era was really tough but Wilander got rather fortunate in his draws. Only in 3 of his Slam wins did he have to beat an ATG in the final to win them, which was Lendl. Murray would need luck like that but imo it is a more favorable scenario than the one he got.

He's not beating Sampras at Wimbledon but in the other ones he will have his chances and especially 2002 Wimbledon, the USO years when Rafter won them, 2002 French, etc. I could definitely see him taking advantage of a weaker field and winning 5 in that time frame, maybe even 6.

rather fortunate ?
yeah, right.
Wilander had an easy draw in AO 84 and to a lesser extent RG 88.
Murray had one such draw in WIm 16. .

Vilas in 82 RG may not have been an ATG, but he was an excellent CCer and that draw for Wilander was beyond brutal with Lendl, Clerc, Gerulatis and Vilas.
Also beat Edberg+Cash in 5 setters in AO 88 ...another tough draw.

So the the part about 3 slam finals with ATGs isn't really that relevant.

 

[metsman]

rather fortunate ?
yeah, right.
Wilander had an easy draw in AO 84 and to a lesser extent RG 88.
Murray had one such draw in WIm 16.

Vilas in 82 RG may not have been an ATG, but he was an excellent CCer and that draw for Wilander was beyond brutal with Lendl, Clerc, Gerulatis and Vilas.
Also beat Edberg+Cash in 5 setters in AO 88 ...another tough draw.

So the the part about 3 slam finals with ATGs isn't really that relevant.

2013 Wimby is absolutely an easy draw as well. His toughest opponent was freakin Verdasco on grass who he almost lost to, or maybe it was absolute headcase Janowicz?

 

[abmk]

2013 Wimby is absolutely an easy draw as well. His toughest opponent was freakin Verdasco on grass who he almost lost to, or maybe it was absolute headcase Janowicz?

yeah, he got lucky with Zombievic in the final. But to be fair, I think he'd still be slight favorite vs Djokovic even otherwise.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

2013 Wimby is absolutely an easy draw as well. His toughest opponent was freakin Verdasco on grass who he almost lost to, or maybe it was absolute headcase Janowicz?

He had to beat Fiasco from two sets down

 

[NatF]

You could also look at it another way though; put Murray in the tournament IN PLACE of the winner. How many of the finals does he convert by comparison to his current figure? Take that winner and transplant them into Murray's finals, how many do they convert?

Agassi, for instance, won 4 AOs. Even if we discount Sampras in his first, is anyone going to tell me that Agassi winning three AOs against Kafelnikov, Clement and Schuttler is not something Murray would also have achieved?

Compare that to who Murray has played in 5 finals - Djokovic and Federer.

Agassi also has a FO against Medvedev. I mean, come on.

He has two USO won against Stich and Martin.

And he has a Wimbledon won against Ivanesivic.

There's not a single win there which Murray isn't likely to win, maybe other than Sampras.

lol at NoleFam liking this post...wikipedia level post man.

- Murray would have to be playing well at the AO well into his 30's to do what Agassi did there
- Murray has like two good years at the FO where he'd be a contender max, no guarantee he beats Medvedev who was actually a good clay courter - especially with gut strings etc...
- Murray bricked the bed in his first USO final and Stich was a dangerous and talented player, might win one of them but not both
- Murray would have to beat Becker, McEnroe and then Ivanisevic to win on the fast grass at Wimbledon in 1992, if you think that's easy when Murray was going 5 sets with Verdasco and Tsonga in his wins then I don't know what to tell you...

rather fortunate ?
yeah, right.
Wilander had an easy draw in AO 84 and to a lesser extent RG 88.
Murray had one such draw in WIm 16. .

Vilas in 82 RG may not have been an ATG, but he was an excellent CCer and that draw for Wilander was beyond brutal with Lendl, Clerc, Gerulatis and Vilas.
Also beat Edberg+Cash in 5 setters in AO 88 ...another tough draw.

So the the part about 3 slam finals with ATGs isn't really that relevant.

Considering how Djok played the final 2013 Wim was easy too.

 

[metsman]

yeah, he got lucky with Zombievic in the final. But to be fair, I think he'd still be slight favorite vs Djokovic even otherwise.

we'll never know.

Let's also not forget Cilic's spectacular 2012 USO choke as well. Murray has had his fair share of fortunate matches as well but here we are giving him hypothetical slams because he bent over vs Djokovic and Federer in slam finals a bunch of times.

 

[metsman]

He had to beat Fiasco from two sets down

on grass!

 

[NatF]

we'll never know.

Let's also not forget Cilic's spectacular 2012 USO choke as well. Murray has had his fair share of fortunate matches as well but here we are giving him hypothetical slams because he bent over vs Djokovic and Federer in slam finals a bunch of times.

That choke is why I despise Cilic, never seen such muggery before.

Murray winning 6 majors would require him to play at least 3 good sets of tennis which he's only done in 4 of his 11 slam finals...

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

on grass!

To be fair Murray might have had back pains (which forced him to skip RG and troubled him later in the year as well) during his Wimbledon run, which would be a give him some marks for his title win.

 

[Deleted member 512391]

He had to beat Fiasco from two sets down

Janowicz also had him on the ropes in the 2013 Wimbledon SF, was a break up in the third set and got broken by playing some horrible shots - completely unnecessary drop shots, etc. Cannot even imagine how he would've even reached the final against a decent opponent in his draw.

 

[NoleFam]

That's what I was saying lol.



In the slams Murray won his opponents weren't playing like ATG's, not like he was totally unlucky. Murray probably wins a few AO's in that era but don't see him getting another 3 from anywhere.

Hewitt can definitely beat Murray at Wimbledon, Rafter was in great form at the USO (especially in the 1998 final), backing Murray at the French is risky there's only one possible year he'd might be favoured to win it. You're underselling those players badly. Honestly this Murray overrating is getting silly now.

Let's put him in 1997 and call that his 2008 and assume he can maintain the same sort of consistency;

1997: The only slam he contends for is the USO but his finals performance in 2008 was way worse than Rafter's in 1997. Probably 0 slams.
1998: In 2009 Murray was very good on the main tour but didn't really connect in the slams. No chance at the FO, Wimbledon or USO. Went out to a GOAT'ing Verdasco at the AO so probably can get a deeper run maybe but definitely not considering him the favourite here. Probably 0 slams.
1999: This corresponds to 2010, Murray has a good shot at the AO - Kafelnikov would definitely be tough for Murray considering he didn't play his best in the final, but will give Murray the benefit of a doubt. He doesn't have a shot at the rest of the majors though. Probably 1 slam.
2000: This would be Murray's 2011, crap AO final that year so doesn't beat Agassi, doesn't beat Kuerten at the FO, doesn't beat Sampras at Wimbledon and doesn't beat Safin at the USO. Probably remains on 1 slam.
2001: Being arguably Murray's best year in terms of slam form (2012) Murray has a shot at 3/4 majors. Don't think his shot is strong at Wimbledon though. He's at best 50/50 against Agassi and Hewitt in the finals IMO but getting there would be tricky as well with Rafter and Sampras depending on which half he ends in. I'll combine this with 2002.
2002: Murray's 2013, contends at 2/4 slams this year for 5/8 across 2001-2002. I definitely don't think he gets Wimbledon in 2001. So that's 4/8 that Murray has a legit shot at. Converting all 4 would be a big ask of him, even 3 is quite generous but if he grabs 3 he ends on 4 slams total.

Once 2003/2004 hit I don't see Murray sneaking in any slam victories - that's whether he takes a year off due to his back or not.

Things would obviously be very different but it's plainly obvious to me that Murray's barely put enough good runs together to get 6 majors in any era unless things line up for him perfectly. You could add his AO 2015 and 2016 Wimbledon as strong campaigns but most era's have ATG's guarding Wimbledon and his level at the AO in 2015 isn't a lock against most winners since the AO become a proper major.

Well if you're counting his years in 2008-2011 among the window where he would have opportunities then he has no chance of reaching even 5 Slams. I'm saying after he hit his peak. Let's be honest here. There was a lot of chances in the late 90s and early 2000s as far as the Slam level because the field was rather inconsistent. I mean in a year like 1998, Sampras finished #1 with 1 Slam and no other big tournament and a 61-17 record. That wouldn't even have gotten him in the top 3 in Murray's era. I watched those two USOs Rafter won and not to take anything away from his victories but I don't remember the level of play being insanely high in those years.

The reason I play devil's advocate and the spoiler for Murray is because I don't think he gets enough credit. 11 Slam finals, many Masters wins, 2 Olympics golds, career percentage on par with the greats, top 10 and top 5 wins on par with the greats, weeks at #1, etc. He is consistent enough with a high enough level that in my opinion he would take taken advantage of a lesser field and ended his career with more Slams. The late 90's and early 2000s would be an opportunity that would have favored him in my view. Not everyone agrees on this but thats' what I believe.

 

[NatF]

Well if you're counting his years in 2008-2011 among the window where he would have opportunities then he has no chance of reaching even 5 Slams. I'm saying after he hit his peak. Let's be honest here. There was a lot of chances in the late 90s and early 2000s as far as the Slam level because the field was rather inconsistent. I mean in a year like 1998, Sampras finished #1 with 1 Slam and no other big tournament and a 61-17 record. That wouldn't even have gotten him in the top 3 in Murray's era. I watched those two USOs Rafter won and not to take anything away from his victories but I don't remember the level of play being insanely high in those years.

The reason I play devil's advocate and the spoiler for Murray is because I don't think he gets enough credit. 11 Slam finals, many Masters wins, 2 Olympics golds, career percentage on par with the greats, top 10 and top 5 wins on par with the greats, weeks at #1, etc. He is consistent enough with a high enough level that in my opinion he would take taken advantage of a lesser field and ended his career with more Slams. The late 90's and early 2000s would be an opportunity that would have favored him in my view. Not everyone agrees on this but thats' what I believe.

http://www.tennisabstract.com/charting/19980913-M-US_Open-F-Patrick_Rafter-Mark_Philippoussis.html

http://www.tennisabstract.com/charting/19970907-M-US_Open-F-Patrick_Rafter-Greg_Rusedski.html

Against S&V'ers so errors are bound to be a bit lower but still those 1998 stats are super.

I could just count 12-13 and 15-16 but you'd still have to be very generous to give him 5-6 majors. He gets a lot of credit from some posters and not a lot from others. Peak level wise he's a 3 slam champ IMO, consistency wise more like a 6 time slam but some of that is the era IMO. I don't think he's more than a 4 slam calibre player regardless of what a little good fortune might bring him in other era's - if he won more than 4 he'd probably be overachieving. I could easily say a guy like Roddick has put in as many good slam final performances (arguably better ones) as Murray and he's just got the one to show for it but you don't see me claiming he'd be a 4 time slam winner in other era's because I know better

 

[NatF]

Janowicz also had him on the ropes in the 2013 Wimbledon SF, was a break up in the third set and got broken by playing some horrible shots - completely unnecessary drop shots, etc. Cannot even imagine how he would've even reached the final against a decent opponent in his draw.

Yeah the 2002 Wimbledon often gets knocked but at least Hewitt properly rolled over his draw even if it was slightly weaker considering Nalbandian was even worse than Djokovic in the final.

 

[NoleFam]

lol at NoleFam liking this post...wikipedia level post man.

- Murray would have to be playing well at the AO well into his 30's to do what Agassi did there
- Murray has like two good years at the FO where he'd be a contender max, no guarantee he beats Medvedev who was actually a good clay courter - especially with gut strings etc...
- Murray bricked the bed in his first USO final and Stich was a dangerous and talented player, might win one of them but not both
- Murray would have to beat Becker, McEnroe and then Ivanisevic to win on the fast grass at Wimbledon in 1992, if you think that's easy when Murray was going 5 sets with Verdasco and Tsonga in his wins then I don't know what to tell you...



Considering how Djok played the final 2013 Wim was easy too.

Is there a problem with me liking this? Some of it is right. He's right about Agassi's 2001 and 2003 AO draws. Murray would love to have one of them in place of the ones he got when he got to the final. He's also right about that 1999 RG draw. Moya was the defending champion but he was pretty inconsistent at RG throughout his career. Only got to one SF in his career which is when he won so there is some overrating going on here. Murray would love that draw over going though Wawrinka and Djokovic back to back in 2016. Also Murray would love that 1999 USO draw. Now the part about Wimbledon is incorrect. That was a brutal draw for Agassi and one of the toughest ever really. You guys need to stop ganging up on random posters who may say something you disagree with like it's a frat house or something. LOL. That guy just stated his opinion, whether it was wrong or not, so no need to go overboard like that.

Murray beat Djokovic fair and square. No excuses. I have to leave so we will pick up this discussion at a later time.

 

[NoleFam]

http://www.tennisabstract.com/charting/19980913-M-US_Open-F-Patrick_Rafter-Mark_Philippoussis.html

http://www.tennisabstract.com/charting/19970907-M-US_Open-F-Patrick_Rafter-Greg_Rusedski.html

Against S&V'ers so errors are bound to be a bit lower but still those 1998 stats are super.

I could just count 12-13 and 15-16 but you'd still have to be very generous to give him 5-6 majors. He gets a lot of credit from some posters and not a lot from others. Peak level wise he's a 3 slam champ IMO, consistency wise more like a 6 time slam but some of that is the era IMO. I don't think he's more than a 4 slam calibre player regardless of what a little good fortune might bring him in other era's - if he won more than 4 he'd probably be overachieving. I could easily say a guy like Roddick has put in as many good slam final performances (arguably better ones) as Murray and he's just got the one to show for it but you don't see me claiming he'd be a 4 time slam winner in other era's because I know better

Yea because Roddick got to 5 Slam finals in total in his career and considering he has only 6 top 10 wins in the majors in his entire career, even Tsonga and other lessors have more I think, it would be insane to make the claim that he deserves 4 Slams. LOL. You guys just sell Murray short on here. I have to leave now.

 

[Deleted member 512391]

That choke is why I despise Cilic, never seen such muggery before.

Murray winning 6 majors would require him to play at least 3 good sets of tennis which he's only done in 4 of his 11 slam finals...

Lol, completely forgot about that one, it was disgusting and in the league of 2008 Hamburg final choking.

 

[TennisLBC]

Greatest British Tennis Player in the Open Era! His tennis into the HOF is booked! Plus to play in this era with Fed, Nadal, Novak and Da Man is saying something.

 

[NatF]

Is there a problem with me liking this? Some of it is right. He's right about Agassi's 2001 and 2003 AO draws. Murray would love to have one of them in place of the ones he got when he got to the final. He's also right about that 1999 RG draw. Moya was the defending champion but he was pretty inconsistent at RG throughout his career. Only got to one SF in his career which is when he won so there is some overrating going on here. Murray would love that draw over going though Wawrinka and Djokovic back to back in 2016. Also Murray would love that 1999 USO draw. Now the part about Wimbledon is incorrect. That was a brutal draw for Agassi and one of the toughest ever really. You guys need to stop ganging up on random posters who may say something you disagree with like it's a frat house or something. LOL. That guy just stated his opinion, whether it was wrong or not, so no need to go overboard like that.

Murray beat Djokovic fair and square. No excuses. I have to leave so we will pick up this discussion at a later time.

There was a lot there to disagree with man, I expect more from you

If it was just him it would be ok but there's been like 5 posts in a row from you as well - it gets too much for me But yes should have been a bit nicer appologies @CentreCourt

The problem with all this stuff is that in his own era Murray has a finite number of good runs at the slams and the chances of them lining up perfectly with weaker draws in other era's is small - especially on clay and at the USO where he has only a couple of good runs at each.

Yea because Roddick got to 5 Slam finals in total in his career and considering he has only 6 top 10 wins in the majors in his entire career, even Santoro and other lessors have more I think, it would be insane to make the claim that he deserves 4 Slams. LOL. You guys just sell Murray short on here. I have to leave now.

Top 10 wins is so arbitary You get another eye roll for that Lew jr. Are Roddick's 4 wins against the #11 ranked player so much worse? The quality of the win isn't solely determined by ranking. Is beating Ancic, Grosjean and Johansson at Wimbledon in 04-05 worse than beating Berdych, Tsonga and Ferrer? Not from where I'm sitting looking at the matches.

 

[Mainad]

Murray winning 6 majors would require him to play at least 3 good sets of tennis which he's only done in 4 of his 11 slam finals...

If he had been able to play 3 sets of good tennis in more of his 11 Slam finals he would have had more Slam titles. If he could have faced opponents like Berdych or Baghdatis or Tsonga or Anderson more often I feel fairly confident he would have made it to 6 by now.

 

[NatF]

If he had been able to play 3 sets of good tennis in more of his 11 Slam finals he would have had more Slam titles. If he could have faced opponents like Berdych or Baghdatis or Tsonga or Anderson more often I feel fairly confident he would have made it to 6 by now.

Would he have got through Federer to make it to Tsonga? Or even Davydenko to make it to Baghdatis? I'm not so sure.

Murray has 3 slam titles and an incredible career by most standards, be happy. Sure if you could pick and choose the easy draws at the opportune time for Murray he'd have more slams, but that's the same with many players and we only see these sorts of discussions for Murray

 

[Mainad]

Janowicz also had him on the ropes in the 2013 Wimbledon SF, was a break up in the third set and got broken by playing some horrible shots - completely unnecessary drop shots, etc. Cannot even imagine how he would've even reached the final against a decent opponent in his draw.

Yeah, that match was ALL on Janowicz's racquet. Funny how in every single match Murray has won or lost people like you ALWAYS think it was on the opponent's racquet and that Murray could not possibly have won if any opponent you care to mention just happened to have started playing badly for some mysterious reason not yet fully explained!

 

[buscemi]

Probably around 23.

Okay, so Murray won his Majors at age 25 (2012 U.S. Open), 26 (2013 Wimbledon), and 29 (2016 Wimbledon).

Under your scenario,

-he's 25 at the 1984 U.S. Open. No way he beats Cash, Lendl, and Super Mac in the final.

-he's 26 at Wimbledon 1985. Has to beat Živojinović/Günthardt/Gerulaitis/Järryd/Becker/Curren. Possible, but not probable that he takes the title.

-he's 29 at Wimbledon 1988. Has to beat Živojinović/Mečíř/Edberg/Becker. No way.​

So, Murray loses 2 or all 3 of his Majors. Does he even finish with 3 Majors in this scenario? I don't see many chances to pick up Majors.

 

[buscemi]

Yeah the 2002 Wimbledon often gets knocked but at least Hewitt properly rolled over his draw even if it was slightly weaker considering Nalbandian was even worse than Djokovic in the final.

Sjeng Schalken would like a word with you.

 

[Deleted member 512391]

Yeah, that match was ALL on Janowicz's racquet. Funny how in every single match Murray has won or lost people like you ALWAYS think it was on the opponent's racquet and that Murray could not possibly have won if any opponent you care to mention just happened to have started playing badly for some mysterious reason not yet fully explained!

Mainad, you're crossing the line, I will be forced to summon Buckethead to bring balance to the Force.

 

[NatF]

Sjeng Schalken would like a word with you.

Only two sets his lost and he was up two sets to one as opposed to down two sets to one. Not quite the same...

 

[Mainad]

Would he have got through Federer to make it to Tsonga? Or even Davydenko to make it to Baghdatis? I'm not so sure.

Davydenko almost certainly but we will never know.

Murray has 3 slam titles and an incredible career by most standards, be happy.

Oh, I'm happy believe me but I confess I would be even happier if certain posters didn't keep insisting he won his titles only by luck or by the fact that Opponents A and B just decided not to be in good enough form to give him a game on that particular day! I just wish certain OTHER posters could be as happy for him instead of trying to pick his achievements to bits!

Sure if you could pick and choose the easy draws at the opportune time for Murray he'd have more slams, but that's the same with many players and we only see these sorts of discussions for Murray

So here we go again. Murray can only win when he has an easy draw or his ATG finalist opponent happens to be having an off day. What we really need to see is discussions like these about players you and others actually like instead of reserving them for those players you don't happen to care for, chiefly Murray.

 

[buscemi]

Only two sets his lost and he was up two sets to one as opposed to down two sets to one. Not quite the same...

True, but if I remember correctly, Schalken was twice up a break in the fifth set and even had a break point at 5-5 in that set. Sure, the rest of that Wimbledon was a breeze for Hewitt, but that match was a slugfest (that admittedly easily could have been over in straight sets).

 

[Mainad]

Mainad, you're crossing the line, I will be forced to summon Buckethead to bring balance to the Force.

Buckethead is now in a padded cell in a remote loony bin somewhere banging his head against the quilted walls and repeatedly screaming, "He got DESTROYED, he got DESTROYED I tell ya!" 90s Clay is nearby screaming, "He's a MUG!They're all ****ing MUGS I tell ya!"

 

[Deleted member 512391]

Buckethead is now in a padded cell in a remote loony bin somewhere banging his head against the quilted walls and repeatedly screaming, "He got DESTROYED, he got DESTROYED I tell ya!" 90s Clay is nearby screaming, "He's a MUG!They're all ****ing MUGS I tell ya!"

LOL

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

If he had been able to play 3 sets of good tennis in more of his 11 Slam finals he would have had more Slam titles. If he could have faced opponents like Berdych or Baghdatis or Tsonga or Anderson more often I feel fairly confident he would have made it to 6 by now.

 

[Boom-Boom]

Murray = Wawrinka

 

[Mainad]

Murray = Wawrinka

Except for all his other big titles and #1 ranking.

 

[Boom-Boom]

Except for all his other big titles and #1 ranking.

Wawrinka won three different Slams, Murray only two. Sorry to tell you that, mate.

 

[NatF]

Davydenko almost certainly but we will never know.

Davydenko took Fed to 4 tight sets, so almost a certainty is nonsense.

Oh, I'm happy believe me but I confess I would be even happier if certain posters didn't keep insisting he won his titles only by luck or by the fact that Opponents A and B just decided not to be in good enough form to give him a game on that particular day! I just wish certain OTHER posters could be as happy for him instead of trying to pick his achievements to bits!

I think you've misunderstood what's happening here as usual I rated Murray above every other three time winner and also Courier, what I'm not doing is ranking him based on fantasy slam wins.

So here we go again. Murray can only win when he has an easy draw or his ATG finalist opponent happens to be having an off day. What we really need to see is discussions like these about players you and others actually like instead of reserving them for those players you don't happen to care for, chiefly Murray.

You're so defensive when it comes to Murray. That's not what I said at all, I'm responding to posters saying he'd win 6+ slams in other era's - those posters named easy draws they think he'd walk through, my point was that we can do that for many players and that timing doesn't always work out. Besides that if you think Murray could win slams with AO 2011 finals performances without the opponent being easy I have a bridge to sell you...

True, but if I remember correctly, Schalken was twice up a break in the fifth set and even had a break point at 5-5 in that set. Sure, the rest of that Wimbledon was a breeze for Hewitt, but that match was a slugfest (that admittedly easily could have been over in straight sets).

It was a tough match no doubt. I forgot about the tightness of the 5th set.

 

[Mainad]

That would almost certainly not have happened in the final of Wimbledon (or at any other Slam final).