Where does Murray rank in open era?

[Mainad]

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

Murray was ranked #1, Wawrinka was ranked #3. Sorry to tell you that, mate.

 

[Boom-Boom]

Murray was ranked #1, Wawrinka was ranked #3. Sorry to tell you that, mate.

Stan the Man has a 0.75 winning percentage in Slam Finals. Beat Djoker twice and ... Nadal.

MuryGoat has a 0.27 winning percentage in Slam finals . Beat Djoker twice and ... Raonic.

 

[justinjay]

Stan the Man has a 0.75 winning percentage in Slam Finals. Beat Djoker twice and ... Nadal.

MuryGoat has a 0.27 winning percentage in Slam finals . Beat Djoker twice and ... Raonic.

That is kind of a Lendl like debate. Is it better to reach more finals and lose them vs not reach them at all.

Even if you gave Stan slightly more credit for slam wins, Murray so far trumps him in other areas- WTF title, Olympics Golds (2 singles vs 1 doubles), Masters (something like 10 to 2), reaching #1, it would still be impossible to make a case for Stan unless he were to win more slams and Murray doesnt.

 

[Boom-Boom]

That is kind of a Lendl like debate. Is it better to reach more finals and lose them vs not reach them at all.

Even if you gave Stan slightly more credit for slam wins, Murray so far trumps him in other areas- WTF title, Olympics Golds (2 singles vs 1 doubles), Masters (something like 10 to 2), reaching #1, it would still be impossible to make a case for Stan unless he were to win more slams and Murray doesnt.

was just teasing @Mainad

what am saying is they are both roughly in the same category, well behind Wilander/Becker/Edberg

 

[Mainad]

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

To be honest, I find speculation about what Peak Player A would or would not have done against Peak Player B in Year C in Scenario D at Event E to be utterly pointless so I shall refrain from wasting both of our time by trying to pursue it any further.

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.

See my reply above and let's agree to extend fantasy Slam runs with fantasy speculation on how he would have performed in fantasy match-ups.

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...

You were doing so well there until you threw in the 2011 AO. Detractors of Murray are always eager to throw that one in for some reason. It certainly wasn't one of his finest performances but it wasn't especially bad compared to the losing score in some other Slam finals. Djokovic 2.0 had suddenly appeared out of nowhere that year and Murray was his first notable victim taking him and subsequently every other player by surprise (Murray had won their last 2 matches but hadn't played him for over a year). In any event, I fully agree he was unlikely to win Slams by playing like he did in that match but why are we citing that particular match anyway?

 

[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!

Forgot to respond seriously. I was referring to his road at 2013 Wimbledon and I do think that Janowicz played a horrible game when he got broken, his shot selection was very poor and it was obvious that the pressure was getting under his skin. Murray was in trouble, at least that's how I see it.

Didn't understand your claim that "people like you always think it was on the opponent's racquet...". Show me some examples of that before throwing accusations.

 

[Mainad]

was just teasing @Mainad

what am saying is they are both roughly in the same category, well behind Wilander/Becker/Edberg

On the other hand, Murray made the final of all 4 Slams unlike Wilander and Becker, won the WTF unlike Wilander and achieved the YE#1 unlike Becker. None of that puts him in their class but it closes the gap with them a lot more considerably than is the case between them and Wawrinka.

 

[Mainad]

Forgot to respond seriously. I was referring to his road at 2013 Wimbledon and I do think that Janowicz played a horrible game when he got broken, his shot selection was very poor and it was obvious that the pressure was getting under his skin. Murray was in trouble, at least that's how I see it.

Didn't understand your claim that "people like you always think it was on the opponent's racquet...". Show me some examples of that before throwing accusations.

This is a case in point. You cannot seem to give credit to Murray for upping his level, playing better and forcing errors out of Janowicz (Janowicz got so rattled when this happened that he demanded that the roof be closed because he said it was getting too dark and that the surface was getting too slippery). For you its all about how well or how poorly Janowicz decided to play, nothing about what Murray did. There are always 2 players in a match!

 

[justinjay]

On the other hand, Murray made the final of all 4 Slams unlike Wilander and Becker, won the WTF unlike Wilander and achieved the YE#1 unlike Becker. None of that puts him in their class but it closes the gap with them a lot more considerably than is the case between them and Wawrinka.

I personally credit Becker as the real #1 of 1989 though. He swept the Player of the Year awards over computer YE#1 Lendl- Tennis Magazine, Tennis Magazine (France), ATP, ITF, Bud Collins, everyone picked Becker and nobody picked Lendl, for me that overrules the official ranking which is often flawed in tennis anyway. Plus it is clear Becker had the greater year (vs Lendl) anyway.

It is the same as I credit Kvitova as the real #1 of 2011 and not Wozniacki, since Kvitova swept every Player of the Year award. For me Woz is nothing but a paper #1 for 2011,I always consider Kvitova the real best player of that year and not the Woz.

 

[Deleted member 512391]

This is a case in point. You cannot seem to give credit to Murray for upping his level, playing better and forcing errors out of Janowicz (Janowicz got so rattled when this happened that he demanded that the roof be closed because he said it was getting too dark and that the surface was getting too slippery). For you its all about how well or how poorly Janowicz decided to play, nothing about what Murray did. There are always 2 players in a match!

I will give him credits when he deserves it, just like I praised his victory against Wawrinka at 2016 Roland Garros, that was a masterclass.
Wimbledon 2013 SF, he got lucky to play a headcase and even that wasn't enough for him to win comfortably. On the contrary, he had him on the ropes, but squandered the lead. You're just being extremely defensive, but that's your problem.

 

[metsman]

Sjeng Schalken would like a word with you.

schalken is a better grasscourter than verdasco. Also the dynamics of the match were totally different. Verdasco had to choke to blow a 2 set lead, Hewitt won the first 2 comfortably, blew match points and numerous chances in the third, and then recovered to win in the 5th. Also Hewitt's SF performance was miles better. Similar overall to Murray's 16 win, better than 2013.

 

[Mainad]

I will give him credits when he deserves it, just like I praised his victory against Wawrinka at 2016 Roland Garros, that was a masterclass.
Wimbledon 2013 SF, he got lucky to play a headcase and even that wasn't enough for him to win comfortably. On the contrary, he had him on the ropes, but squandered the lead. You're just being extremely defensive, but that's your problem.

If you think he did nothing whatever to win that match against Janowicz then I'm sorry. That's your problem.

 

[Boom-Boom]

On the other hand, Murray made the final of all 4 Slams unlike Wilander and Becker, won the WTF unlike Wilander and achieved the YE#1 unlike Becker. None of that puts him in their class but it closes the gap with them a lot more considerably than is the case between them and Wawrinka.

of course

 

[Mainad]

of course

So I think it is misleading just to link Murray and Wawrinka as being exactly the same distance from Wilander and co.

 

[NatF]

To be honest, I find speculation about what Peak Player A would or would not have done against Peak Player B in Year C in Scenario D at Event E to be utterly pointless so I shall refrain from wasting both of our time by trying to pursue it any further.

Fair enough, it's fun but pointless I agree.

You were doing so well there until you threw in the 2011 AO. Detractors of Murray are always eager to throw that one in for some reason. It certainly wasn't one of his finest performances but it wasn't especially bad compared to the losing score in some other Slam finals. Djokovic 2.0 had suddenly appeared out of nowhere that year and Murray was his first notable victim taking him and subsequently every other player by surprise (Murray had won their last 2 matches but hadn't played him for over a year). In any event, I fully agree he was unlikely to win Slams by playing like he did in that match but why are we citing that particular match anyway?

Don't patronise me man, you're lucky I gave you the response I did considering the amount you moaned at me

If you want me to explain why I cited that match we'd have to talk hypotheticals again. My point was that Murray has made 11 slam finals, lets assume he does the same wherever you drop him, out of those 11 slam finals I'd argue the USO 2008, AO 2010, AO 2011 and AO 2016 were all subpar for a variety of reasons - which would be unlikely to produce wins against most slam winners. That leaves 7 slam finals where Murray was decent/good to great - I don't think Murray is going to convert 6/7 of those finals in any era without getting insanely lucky with draws. That's not a knock on Murray, only the best players of all time convert slam finals like that. For a lot of ATG players going roughly 50/50 is good going.

 

[Boom-Boom]

So I think it is misleading just to link Murray and Wawrinka as being exactly the same distance from Wilander and co.

even before talking about Becker and co, Courier is here

 

[metsman]

Fair enough, it's fun but pointless I agree.



Don't patronise me man, you're lucky I gave you the response I did considering the amount you moaned at me

If you want me to explain why I cited that match we'd have to talk hypotheticals again. My point was that Murray has made 11 slam finals, lets assume he does the same wherever you drop him, out of those 11 slam finals I'd argue the USO 2008, AO 2010, AO 2011 and AO 2016 were all subpar for a variety of reasons - which would be unlikely to produce wins against most slam winners. That leaves 7 slam finals where Murray was decent/good to great - I don't think Murray is going to convert 6/7 of those finals in any era without getting insanely lucky with draws. That's not a knock on Murray, only the best players of all time convert slam finals like that. For a lot of ATG players going roughly 50/50 is good going.

RG 16 was subpar as well. Also calling AO 13/15 is generous, playing well in 2 sets is not the standard for a decent slam performance at least by the standards we are comparing Murray to.

 

[Mainad]

even before talking about Becker and co, Courier is here

What about him?

 

[Boom-Boom]

What about him?

he’s clearly above Murray/Wawrinka

 

[Mainad]

he’s clearly above Murray/Wawrinka

Already commented on this one.

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).

 

[NatF]

RG 16 was subpar as well. Also calling AO 13/15 is generous, playing well in 2 sets is not the standard for a decent slam performance at least by the standards we are comparing Murray to.

Yeah you're right forgot about FO 2016.

So that's 5 poor finals, I'd call the AO 2013/2015 decent wouldn't go much further - wouldn't cut it against ATG competition, Wimbledon 2012, USO 2012, Wimbledon 2013 and Wimbledon 2016 were good but probably 50/50 or so matches against in form opponents.

 

[Mainad]

Yeah you're right forgot about FO 2016.

So that's 5 poor finals, I'd call the AO 2013/2015 decent wouldn't go much further - wouldn't cut it against ATG competition, Wimbledon 2012, USO 2012, Wimbledon 2013 and Wimbledon 2016 were good but probably 50/50 or so matches against in form opponents.

 

[NatF]

Really don't see what you could disagree with

 

[Mainad]

Really don't see what you could disagree with

Forget it, just forget it!

 

[CentreCourt]

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.

I'm not talking about age, or even the draws they had to get there, despite the attempts otherwise to paint it that way.

I'm talking about trading final for final, regardless of age. I chose Agassi because there's a similar number of slam finals there.

The quality of player Agassi played in a lot of his finals was not even close to the level Murray has faced. It isn't even that close.

 

[buscemi]

I'm not talking about age, or even the draws they had to get there, despite the attempts otherwise to paint it that way.

I'm talking about trading final for final, regardless of age. I chose Agassi because there's a similar number of slam finals there.

The quality of player Agassi played in a lot of his finals was not even close to the level Murray has faced. It isn't even that close.

Your post said to "put Murray in the tournament IN PLACE of the winner. How many of the finals does he convert by comparison to his current figure." That's exactly what I did.

Could you explain what you mean by "regardless of age" in your hypothetical? For instance, one question is whether Murray beats Clement in an Australian Open final. Well, 2006 Murray does not. 2011 Murray very likely does. 2016 Murray very likely does not. That doesn't really get us very far. The fairest way to do things would seem to be to assume that Murray is the same age as Agassi when he played Clement in the Australian final.

 

[CentreCourt]

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.

US Open 2008 - Wawrinka, Del Potro, Nadal, Federer
AO 2010 - Isner, Nadal, Cilic, Federer
AO 2011 - Ferrer, Djokovic (not great, but again playing a top 5 all-time great in the final)
Wim 2012 - Davydenko, Karlovic, Baghdatis, Cilic, Ferrer, Tsonga, Federer. That's tough, on grass.


We can go on and on. Ultimately, none of it is entirely relevant to my point. I am comparing, directly, the quality in the finals as a comparison to conversion of finals to slams. It would be complete fiction to suggest Murray would not have converted most of the slams Agassi did.

 

[CentreCourt]

Your post said to "put Murray in the tournament IN PLACE of the winner. How many of the finals does he convert by comparison to his current figure." That's exactly what I did.

Could you explain what you mean by "regardless of age" in your hypothetical? For instance, one question is whether Murray beats Clement in an Australian Open final. Well, 2006 Murray does not. 2011 Murray very likely does. 2016 Murray very likely does not. That doesn't really get us very far. The fairest way to do things would seem to be to assume that Murray is the same age as Agassi when he played Clement in the Australian final.

Yes, how many of the finals - the assumption is built into the question.

If you're determined to be a pedant in your quest to reduce Murray to the level of guys like Stich, Clement and Todd Martin; there's roughly an 8 year span between Agassi's AO finals and a 6 year span between Murray's. Let's even assume we can't decide the 2003 final because Murray was injured this year. Look at it that way if you must.

I was not, however, factoring anything like that in. I was taking the Murray which made his respective finals and placing them in the finals which Agassi made - that simple - and asking the question about how many of them would he convert. Only an idiot would suggest he had it easier in his finals than Agassi did in his.

 

[buscemi]

Only an idiot would suggest he had it easier in his finals than Agassi did in his.

I agree and don't think anyone would suggest this. But what started this whole sub-thread was the question of whether Murray's high number of Major finals suggest that he would have won more Majors if he played in another era. The way to test this question, as I've done, is to have Murray born in the same year as another player from an earlier era, like Wilander or Agassi. That's exactly what I did. And, respectfully, I'm not reducing Murray to the level of guys like Stich, Clement and Todd Martin. When I first ran the hypothetical with the Wilander birth year, I had Murray winning about 3 Majors, just like he did with his current birth year.

 

[JackGates]

Consistency wise very high. But all of his 3 slam wins are without beating Fedal, so that drags him down a bit in greatness. I would say he is with Hewitt and Safin.

 

[Sunny014]

Talking of where Murray stands in the all time ratings :

Top 12 according to me :

(Grand Slams + WTF wins + Years ended as Rank 1 + Alternate Tour Finals wins )

01. Federer (20+6+5+0) = 31
02. Djokovic (18+5+6+0) = 29
03. Sampras (14+5+6+2) = 27
04. Nadal (20+0+5+0) = 25
05. McEnroe (7+3+4+5) = 19
06. Lendl (8+5+4+2) = 19
07. Borg (11+2+2+1) = 16
08. Connors (8+1+5+2) = 16
09. Becker (6+3+0+2) = 11
10. Agassi (8+1+1+0) = 10
11. Edberg (6+1+2+0) = 09
12. Wilander (7+0+1) = 08

So Murray definitely is not in the top 12.

Additionally you could rate these 8 guys ahead of Murray as well.

Rod Laver
John Newcombe
Ken rosewall
Vilas
Courier
Kodes
Arthur Ashe
Gustavo Kuerten

So he is out of the top 20.

Additionally you could rate Safin, Bruguera, Rafter and Wawrinka as 4 guys with higher peaks than Murray.

So that leaves him at 25 realistically, in any case he is out of the top 20.

 

[Deleted member 780630]

Barely inside top 20 probably. People who rate him above Courier or even Hewitt are delusional.

 

[Third Serve]

Barely inside top 20 probably. People who rate him above Courier or even Hewitt are delusional.

eh, what?

 

[Deleted member 780630]

eh, what?

Vultured all three of his slams and only got to #1 when all the Big 3 were injured/declined. Pretty obvious to me.

 

[Sunny014]

Vultured all three of his slams and only got to #1 when all the Big 3 were injured/declined. Pretty obvious to me.

I think Hewitt, Murray and Wawrinka all vultured their wins.

Only Safin had the game to beat the Big 3 in the last 20 years, everybody else is a vulture, believe it or not.

 

[Deleted member 780630]

I think Hewitt, Murray and Wawrinka all vultured their wins.

Only Safin had the game to beat the Big 3 in the last 20 years, everybody else is a vulture, believe it or not.

Nah, Hewitt and Wawrinka are legit. Hewitt had a weak WB win but his USO was better than anything Murray did as were his two YECs. He also did it at 20/21, which is pretty remarkable. Agreed Safin is better than all of them though.

 

[Third Serve]

My personal view is that the following are clearly better players (in the Open Era):

Federer
Nadal
Djokovic
Sampras
Borg
Lendl
Connors
McEnroe
Agassi
Laver (even if we restrict Laver to his Open Era achievements, he still comes out as better)
Becker
Edberg
Wilander
Newcombe (same Open Era rule factors in)

That's fourteen people clearly ahead of him. The following are debatably better than him (I personally don't think so, but some have made reasonable arguments):

Courier
Rosewall (again, only his Open Era achievements and level of play factor in)
Vilas?

There are also a few people just a little bit under him:

Safin
Kuerten
Wawrinka
Hewitt
Ashe
etc.

For me, he comes in at about 15th all-time in the Open Era, but you could bring him about as low as 18 within reason.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

My personal view is that the following are clearly better players (in the Open Era):

Federer
Nadal
Djokovic
Sampras
Borg
Lendl
Connors
McEnroe
Agassi
Laver (even if we restrict Laver to his Open Era achievements, he still comes out as better)
Becker
Edberg
Wilander
Newcombe (same Open Era rule factors in)

That's thirteen people clearly ahead of him. The following are debatably better than him (I personally don't think so, but some have made reasonable arguments):

Courier
Rosewall (again, only his Open Era achievements and level of play factor in)
Vilas?

There are also a few people just a little bit under him:

Safin
Kuerten
Wawrinka
Hewitt
Ashe
etc.

For me, he comes in at about 14th all-time in the Open Era, but you could bring him about as low as 17 within reason.

You've got fourteen names there ho.
Yep, mury is 13th among pure OE players and 15th including partial OE careers of Laver and Newcombe. Perhaps level with Rosewall's OE-only career. Other guys are clearly less accomplished even if some of them reached higher specific peaks. Courier is a better slam player but Murray's non-slam portfolio is much bigger.

 

[Third Serve]

You've got fourteen names there ho.
Yep, mury is 13th among pure OE players and 15th including partial OE careers of Laver and Newcombe. Perhaps level with Rosewall's OE-only career. Other guys are clearly less accomplished even if some of them reached higher specific peaks. Courier is a better slam player but Murray's non-slam portfolio is much bigger.

Added Newcombe way after I wrote everything else, then forgot to edit accordingly. Oops.

 

[NoleIsBoat]

Top 10

 

[Sunny014]

Top 10

LOL

 

[daggerman]

Additionally you could rate these 8 guys ahead of Murray as well.

Rod Laver
John Newcombe
Ken rosewall
Vilas
Courier
Kodes
Arthur Ashe
Gustavo Kuerten

IMO there's no case for Kuerten > Murray. Below is their best 8-year stretch at slams. Keep in mind that Murray also has 4 QF+ appearances outside of this stretch (including a Final), while Kuerten won a total of one match at a slam outside of his best 8-year span.

Murray

Kuerten

 

[Sunny014]

IMO there's no case for Kuerten > Murray. Below is their best 8-year stretch at slams. Keep in mind that Murray also has 4 QF+ appearances outside of this stretch (including a Final), while Kuerten won a total of one match at a slam outside of his best 8-year span.

Murray

Kuerten

Yes but at least Gustavo Kuerten is a legit 3 time clay champ who if not for injuries might have been a 4 or 5 time French open champ.

At least he was imposing on 1 surface which matters, Murray wasn't imposing anywhere, his best turf is Grass and even if I ignore Federer then the best grass courter from Murray's gen is Novak.

Murray has been the Beta/Gamma in his own generation on all turfs, thats too bad.

 

[daggerman]

Yes but at least Gustavo Kuerten is a legit 3 time clay champ who if not for injuries might have been a 4 or 5 time French open champ.

At least he was imposing on 1 surface which matters, Murray wasn't imposing anywhere, his best turf is Grass and even if I ignore Federer then the best grass courter from Murray's gen is Novak.

Murray has been the Beta/Gamma in his own generation on all turfs, thats too bad.

I get your point, but I think those are mitigating factors that aren't nearly enough to overcome the gap in their overall accomplishments.

 

[Jonesy]

As he played against arguably the 3 greatest players of all time, all his achievements must at least be doubled. So, top 10-15 is a must.

 

[Sunny014]

As he played against arguably the 3 greatest players of all time, all his achievements must at least be doubled. So, top 10-15 is a must.

No, it doesn't work that way. If you can beat the Alpha then you won't lost to the Beta after that, and if you face another alpha then your chance of beating him also is very high.

In Tennis terms if you level is good enough to beat Djokovic today in the semis then in the final you will win against Roger/Rafa too who as on today are weaker players. Sameway if in the 00s if you could have beaten Federer in the semis (like Safin & Novak did) then definitely you will win the finals too, doesn't matter if Nadal/Roddick were sititng in the finals, when Potro beat Nadal (guy who had beaten Federer earlier that year to win his 1st HC Slam) in the semis of the 09 USO then he did have a chance of beating Federer in the finals and won, didn't he ? After Wawrinka beat Novak at the AO didn't he kick Nadal's arse in the final?

After beating a superior player you won't lose to someone who similar or below plus if you meet a similar player in the final then you will have a chance to win or you will win, thats the way things happen normally.

Now how many times in Sir Andy's career finals that he has actually beaten the top guy in the semis and then went on to the lose the finals?

Lets check his finals 1 by 1.

08 USO Final - Andy reached the final beating Nadal who had never reached a HC Final ever, so the top guy Federer obliterated him in the final.
10 AO Final - Andy reached the final getting a fluke win over Nadal who injured his knee, naturally Fed trounced him in the final.
11 AO Final - Andy avoided Federer and beat Ferrer, had he faced Roger then he would have lost the semis itself, but if his level was so good then he would have beaten Federer and had a good chance in the final too. ... So this defeat again is because of he lacking the level of the champion.
12 W Final - Andy avoided Novak in the semis, it was Federer who took out Novak so naturally Federer would bulldoze Andy in the final.
12 USO Final - Again Andy avoided the big 3 till the semis but he won vs Novak in the final courtesy Fedal being absent in the semis. .... Vultured his 1st slam win
13 AO Final - He vultured a win vs an injured Federer in "5 long sets" but in the final the hunter Novak took him down, naturally.
13 W Final - He faced nobodies (clay courters) in the Qf and Semi, luckily Federer had a bad time or else Murray would never have even went past Federer in the semis to beat Novak ..... So Murray vultured this 2nd slam as well.
15 AO Final - He faced jokers in the Qfs and Semis, so naturally his real test in the final vs Novak and he got trounced.
16 AO Final - Again Murray avoided Federer and faced mugs before the finals, in the final he was trounced again.
16 FO Final - Beat Wawrinka, so this can be commendable but again exposed in the final.
16 W Final - Murray never faced the big 3 and was lucky they were eliminated early, so he vultured his 3rd Slam.


Conclusion : Sir Andy never really had the level to beat the Big 3 at their peak in the semis, if he beat a big 3 (who was at his peak) in the semis then he would not have to struggle vs the other guy he would face in the finals.

Sir Andy never had the level to beat the Grass champ Roger at wimbledon, he never had the level to beat the AO champ Novak at the AO, he never had the level to even stretch Nadal on clay (beating is a far thing, he could never even stretch him), Andy's level on HCs was never good enough to beat a fit Federer who was 6 yrs older to him. .... LOL.

You want to double Andy's wins ? What for ? Double vulturing wins ??/

Instead why not Double Wawrink's performance who actually beat Novak to win the AO, beat the defending champ Novak in the finals to win the USO (also defeated former champ Martin Del Potro en route), beat Novak to win the FO in 2015 (after Novak had beaten Rafa.....So definetly Novak's level was pretty high, right ???)

Double Wawrinka's tally if you want instead of this Murray the vulture

@Turing was right, Murray is the biggest vulture. His fans dream of he winning more slams in other eras, lol, as if the champ in those eras like Pete/Roger are sitting there to handover slams ???? ....haha

 

[-snake-]

There are also a few people just a little bit under him:

Safin
Kuerten
Wawrinka
Hewitt
Ashe
etc.

For me, he comes in at about 15th all-time in the Open Era, but you could bring him about as low as 18 within reason.

None of those guys are under him. Murry is just Hewitt with an extra vultured major, nothing more, nothing less. Only the weirdos on this board have multiple orgasms with SFs streaks and all that crap. 99% of the time he had to go through non ATGs to reach the later stages of the slams. When he actually took out one top 3, he got beaten/destroyed in the next round more often than not.

 

[Sunny014]

^^^ This is why I say that if Andy was in other decades his slam count would be lesser or at best the same.

You put him in the 00s with Fed gen and he would have to go past Federer to win slams, good luck doing that, he cannot beat a 6 yrs older Federer, vs Peak Fed he would be like 20-3 in H2H similar to Roddick-Hewitt and co

He won't be beating Peak Safin either, vs Roddick/Hewitt on HCs those matches would be close 5 setters, vs Safin he definitely loses badly in 3-4 sets. On grass apart from Fed he would be up against peak Roddick in 03-05 period, would lose there as well....

He would probably lose to Agassi too on HCs in the mid 00s.

You put him in 90s and Sampras would obliterate him, Agassi would be a big challenge at his peak at the AOs

So ??? Where are those extra slams ??

What did you learn today ? You cannot win slams without having the level to beat the top dog, Safin had it, Wawrinka also luckily had it vs Novak due to some matchup advantage or whatever .....Murray needed to vulture, he is already lucky to win 3 slams.

 

[daggerman]

None of those guys are under him. Murry is just Hewitt with an extra vultured major, nothing more, nothing less. Only the weirdos on this board have multiple orgasms with SFs streaks and all that crap. 99% of the time he had to go through non ATGs to reach the later stages of the slams. When he actually took out one top 3, he got beaten/destroyed in the next round more often than not.

Consistently beating non-ATGs is much, much better than consistently losing to non-ATGs.

 

[Sudacafan]

Murray is a top topic.
Too many threads about him.
I wonder... why so much insecurity about Andy?
Just saying.