Where is Murray in the "ATG" rankings? Somewhere with Courier and Kuerten? But he is not an "ATG".

#1
I'm a realist, I could fanboy and tell you Murray is the greatest thing since fried marsbars in regards of tennis but he isn't, he's not an "all time great" if he is one then do all the other 3 time slam winners classify as ATG's? Is Wawrinka an all time great?, his career has been made to look minuscule by the 3 all time greats currently playing but he accomplishments over a span of 10 years have added up to a career most would give their reproductive organ for. I know he rubs some tennis fans up the wrong way with his demeanour, his playing style, his look, even his nationality to some I remember (One called Fastgrass hated him for a reason which basically guilt by association, I blame the Royal Family) but his career has spoken for itself, he didn't fight with the fishes, he swam with the sharks and even had the sharks on the ropes but all in all settled for the scraps.

Singles Grand Slams: 11 (3 titles, 8 runner-ups),
1 Year–End Championship
ATP Masters 1000 finals

Singles: 21 (14 titles, 7 runner-ups)
Olympics: Singles: 2 (2 gold medals), Mixed Doubles: 1 (1 silver medal)
Davis Cup: 1 (1 title)
OVERALL -
Singles: 67 (45 titles, 22 runner-ups)
41 Weeks at Number 1

Now surely that is a solid career within the perspective of your average player? The Big 3 are NOT your average players so how can you compare?
 
#2
I'm not saying Andy is or isn't an ATG, but I will say you don't need to be in the Big 3 (all of them top 5 all-time at worst) to be considered an all-time great. There's plenty of middle ground between them and a Stan level player.
 

clout

Hall of Fame
#5
I put him at 14th all time in the open era rankings with Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras, Borg, Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Wilander and Laver all ahead of him.

Besides those 13 names I mentioned above, I doubt any other player in OE can claim to have had a better career than Murray.

Imo, many other 2-4x slam winners like Ashe, Wawrinka, Kodes, Smith, Hewitt, Safin, Vilas, Rafter and Bruguera all didn’t have better careers than Murray. The only ones that are actually debatable are Newcombe, Rosewall and Courier.
 
Last edited:

DSH

Professional
#8
I put him at 14th all time in the open era rankings with Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras, Borg, Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Wilander and Laver all ahead of him.

Besides those 13 names I mentioned above, I doubt any other player in OE can claim to have had a better career than Murray
with courier is almost a tie.
 
#9
I put him at 14th all time in the open era rankings with Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras, Borg, Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Wilander and Laver all ahead of him.

Besides those 13 names I mentioned above, I doubt any other player in OE can claim to have had a better career than Murray
I almost agree - I'd tend to exclude Laver from OE discussions (otherwise, we'd have to include Rosewall and Newcombe also, who should also go above Murray).

So he'd be 13th in my OE list. It is however debatable between him and Courier.
 
#10
Actually I think Murray is in the Edberg and Wilander bracket. People who only count slam wins might be surprised at that but when you look at his overall career and how often he went deep in majors (21 times in the last 4) , his two Olympic golds etc - I think he is up there.
 
#11
A solid career is wining a few 500s and coming out at the end of your playing life ahead in the dollar stakes.
Murray’s resume demands a much much better placing than solid average...
 
#13
Actually I think Murray is in the Edberg and Wilander bracket. People who only count slam wins might be surprised at that but when you look at his overall career and how often he went deep in majors (21 times in the last 4) , his two Olympic golds etc - I think he is up there.
I don’t know about Wilander but I would never put Andy anywhere near Stefan. The gap in talent is simply too huge, and Stefan trumps Andy’s results if you ask me. He won three slams twice, had the 5 GS finals, won 4 Davis Cups when it was still a huge thing, was no. 1 in doubles as well, had the Junior GS (only one ever!), plus he was a much more epic player with amazing matches (the triple bagel, the back from break in the 5th set GS wins) and a perfect gentleman.

He also looks better than Andy even now :))
 
#14
Actually I think Murray is in the Edberg and Wilander bracket. People who only count slam wins might be surprised at that but when you look at his overall career and how often he went deep in majors (21 times in the last 4) , his two Olympic golds etc - I think he is up there.
Mmm sorry to burst your bubble, but winning slams is the most important thing in tennis, so yes...the fact that both Edberg and Wilander ended up with twice as many slams as Murray multiplied by the fact, that both managed to defend their grand slam title once each it kinda puts them leagues ahead of Murray! Olympic gold in tennis means jacksh*t and you know it! There is still large gap to be filled between both swedes and that gap isn't even filled with Murray or Kuerten! Its filled with Vilas and Courier...then comes Murray and Kuerten!...
 

JMR

Professional
#15
Normally, my rule of thumb is that an all-time men's great requires at least six slam titles. Murray is an odd case because everything about his career resume screams "ATG!" (total titles, Masters titles, YEC win, gold medals, No. 1 year-end, general ranking history, number of slam finals) except his number of slam championships. If he could just have gone 6-5 instead of 3-8, there'd be no doubt! I'd probably accept even 5-6 in his case.
 

JMR

Professional
#16
Imo, many other 2-4x slam winners like Ashe, Wawrinka, Kodes, Smith, Hewitt, Safin, Vilas, Rafter and Bruguera all didn’t have better careers than Murray. The only ones that are actually debatable are Newcombe, Rosewall and Courier.
Newcombe actually won five slams in the Open Era.
 
#17
Actually I think Murray is in the Edberg and Wilander bracket. People who only count slam wins might be surprised at that but when you look at his overall career and how often he went deep in majors (21 times in the last 4) , his two Olympic golds etc - I think he is up there.
You are completely wrong. Wilander with 7 Grand Slams is obviously greater than Murray with only 3 Grand Slams. In no universe a player with 7 Grand Slams is in the same league than a player with only 3 Grand Slams.

Check it out this poll, where 70% of people voted that Wilander is greater than Murray:
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-murray-revisiting-the-classic-debate.624169/
 
Last edited:

NatF

Bionic Poster
#18

Zara

Hall of Fame
#19
I'm a realist, I could fanboy and tell you Murray is the greatest thing since fried marsbars in regards of tennis but he isn't, he's not an "all time great" if he is one then do all the other 3 time slam winners classify as ATG's? Is Wawrinka an all time great?, his career has been made to look minuscule by the 3 all time greats currently playing but he accomplishments over a span of 10 years have added up to a career most would give their reproductive organ for. I know he rubs some tennis fans up the wrong way with his demeanour, his playing style, his look, even his nationality to some I remember (One called Fastgrass hated him for a reason which basically guilt by association, I blame the Royal Family) but his career has spoken for itself, he didn't fight with the fishes, he swam with the sharks and even had the sharks on the ropes but all in all settled for the scraps.

Singles Grand Slams: 11 (3 titles, 8 runner-ups),
1 Year–End Championship
ATP Masters 1000 finals

Singles: 21 (14 titles, 7 runner-ups)
Olympics: Singles: 2 (2 gold medals), Mixed Doubles: 1 (1 silver medal)
Davis Cup: 1 (1 title)
OVERALL -
Singles: 67 (45 titles, 22 runner-ups)
41 Weeks at Number 1

Now surely that is a solid career within the perspective of your average player? The Big 3 are NOT your average players so how can you compare?
It would have been the other way around had he not had certain mental blocks against those guys - 8 titles and 3 runner-ups.

And less titles for Fed and Djok.

I approve this scenario.
 
#21
I'm a realist, I could fanboy and tell you Murray is the greatest thing since fried marsbars in regards of tennis but he isn't, he's not an "all time great" if he is one then do all the other 3 time slam winners classify as ATG's? Is Wawrinka an all time great?, his career has been made to look minuscule by the 3 all time greats currently playing but he accomplishments over a span of 10 years have added up to a career most would give their reproductive organ for. I know he rubs some tennis fans up the wrong way with his demeanour, his playing style, his look, even his nationality to some I remember (One called Fastgrass hated him for a reason which basically guilt by association, I blame the Royal Family) but his career has spoken for itself, he didn't fight with the fishes, he swam with the sharks and even had the sharks on the ropes but all in all settled for the scraps.

Singles Grand Slams: 11 (3 titles, 8 runner-ups),
1 Year–End Championship
ATP Masters 1000 finals

Singles: 21 (14 titles, 7 runner-ups)
Olympics: Singles: 2 (2 gold medals), Mixed Doubles: 1 (1 silver medal)
Davis Cup: 1 (1 title)
OVERALL -
Singles: 67 (45 titles, 22 runner-ups)
41 Weeks at Number 1

Now surely that is a solid career within the perspective of your average player? The Big 3 are NOT your average players so how can you compare?
Courier won back to back French and Australian Opens. That is an extremely hard thing to pull off. And it wasn’t any easier back then. Winning back to back majors in any era is difficult.
 
#28
I don’t know about Wilander but I would never put Andy anywhere near Stefan. The gap in talent is simply too huge, and Stefan trumps Andy’s results if you ask me. He won three slams twice, had the 5 GS finals, won 4 Davis Cups when it was still a huge thing, was no. 1 in doubles as well, had the Junior GS (only one ever!), plus he was a much more epic player with amazing matches (the triple bagel, the back from break in the 5th set GS wins) and a perfect gentleman.

He also looks better than Andy even now :))
Completely agree. And even Becker. Murray supporters point to his Olympic golds but Becker won Germany Davis Cup twice and almost single handedly. At that time Davis Cup was held in a much much higher esteem than Olympics and Becker's record in Davis Cup was phenomenal, 38-3.
Also, Sampras termed Becker has the best player he faced indoors. There's no such accolade for Murray anywhere
 
#30
Murray is not even close to Courier. Courier won 6 slams in one of the hardest eras there has ever been. Murray won just 3 in a really weak era with max 3 good opponents at any one time.
 

clout

Hall of Fame
#33
Murray is not even close to Courier. Courier won 6 slams in one of the hardest eras there has ever been. Murray won just 3 in a really weak era with max 3 good opponents at any one time.
Courier "only" won 4 slams in his career, not 6, and with all due respect to Jim, I'm not sure if he'd even win one major playing in the same era as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.
 

clout

Hall of Fame
#35
Newcombe actually won five slams in the Open Era.
True, and Rosewall won like 4 slams while being damn near 40 years old as well!!

Murray has to be the toughest player to rank in tennis history because he's clearly not an ATG with only won 3 slams, but his overall career and level of play points to him being on the doorstep of ATG territory.
 
#36
Courier "only" won 4 slams in his career, not 6, and with all due respect to Jim, I'm not sure if he'd even win one major playing in the same era as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.
Yeah I meant 4. But 4 slams in a very hard era is much better than 3 slams in a weak era still.
 
#37
This topic seems to pop up incessantly (long time lurker). His stats don't quite add up to your typical definition of ATG but given the circumstances he's right on the cusp, IMO.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
#38
I'm a realist, I could fanboy and tell you Murray is the greatest thing since fried marsbars in regards of tennis but he isn't, he's not an "all time great" if he is one then do all the other 3 time slam winners classify as ATG's? Is Wawrinka an all time great?, his career has been made to look minuscule by the 3 all time greats currently playing but he accomplishments over a span of 10 years have added up to a career most would give their reproductive organ for. I know he rubs some tennis fans up the wrong way with his demeanour, his playing style, his look, even his nationality to some I remember (One called Fastgrass hated him for a reason which basically guilt by association, I blame the Royal Family) but his career has spoken for itself, he didn't fight with the fishes, he swam with the sharks and even had the sharks on the ropes but all in all settled for the scraps.

Singles Grand Slams: 11 (3 titles, 8 runner-ups),
1 Year–End Championship
ATP Masters 1000 finals

Singles: 21 (14 titles, 7 runner-ups)
Olympics: Singles: 2 (2 gold medals), Mixed Doubles: 1 (1 silver medal)
Davis Cup: 1 (1 title)
OVERALL -
Singles: 67 (45 titles, 22 runner-ups)
41 Weeks at Number 1

Now surely that is a solid career within the perspective of your average player? The Big 3 are NOT your average players so how can you compare?
Lol...you think THAT is an AVERAGE career? Tell me how many other active players other than the Big 3 have had a career like THAT??
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
#39
This topic seems to pop up incessantly (long time lurker). His stats don't quite add up to your typical definition of ATG but given the circumstances he's right on the cusp, IMO.
These threads are constantly being set up by someone with an obvious agenda to invite detractors to knock him down (this is about the 3rd or 4th in as many weeks). . Believe me, it hasn't gone unnoticed! :rolleyes:
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
#41
Murray is not even close to Courier. Courier won 6 slams in one of the hardest eras there has ever been. Murray won just 3 in a really weak era with max 3 good opponents at any one time.
At least try and get your facts right. Courier won 4 Slams, not 6. That and his longer time at #1 give him the edge over Murray IMO but others think differently. Lol at your suggestion that Murray or anybody else have had it "easy" playing in the era of probably the 3 greatest players of all time!
 
#43
Murray is not even close to Courier. Courier won 6 slams in one of the hardest eras there has ever been. Murray won just 3 in a really weak era with max 3 good opponents at any one time.
so funny, it’s an opinion, supported by dodgy “facts” you have to wonder who on earth would employ you...?..
D Trump just might.
 
#45
You find it hard to argue, that Sampras is greater than both Lendl and Connors?? Really now?! LMAO
No, I said I find it hard to argue with the maths and how they categorise each achievement - ie 8 points for a slam, 6 for a tour finals etc, the end result can be argued forever because, like I said, it is a subjective issue.
 
#46
At least try and get your facts right. Courier won 4 Slams, not 6. That and his longer time at #1 give him the edge over Murray IMO but others think differently. Lol at your suggestion that Murray or anybody else have had it "easy" playing in the era of probably the 3 greatest players of all time!
He's had the toughest opposition in big finals anybody has ever faced. That is a statistical fact, no matter which way you decide to look at it.

Funnily enough, Murray has only ever lost one big final against a guy he was the wide favourite against that was Cilic in Cincinnati in 2016.
 
#47
No, I said I find it hard to argue with the maths and how they categorise each achievement - ie 8 points for a slam, 6 for a tour finals etc, the end result can be argued forever because, like I said, it is a subjective issue.
I use that site as well to keep my eye on the progress of my favorite players, but one just have to admit having accrued more GOAT pts. as that site suggested you can't simply rank a GOAT contending top-5 player of all-time like Sampras below someone like Connors or Lendl, who barely scratch the bottom of top-10 of open era ones with probably only Agassi and McEnroe positioned slightly lower...it just...doesn't compute, as far as greatness goes he is like two leagues ahead of both of them! LOL
 
#48
At least try and get your facts right. Courier won 4 Slams, not 6. That and his longer time at #1 give him the edge over Murray IMO but others think differently. Lol at your suggestion that Murray or anybody else have had it "easy" playing in the era of probably the 3 greatest players of all time!
Courier won, what, 9 big titles his entire career to Murray's 20?

I can't agree at all that Courier is greater than Murray. He just isn't.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
#49
Courier won, what, 9 big titles his entire career to Murray's 20?

I can't agree at all that Courier is greater than Murray. He just isn't.
I guess it depends on how much weight you give to the Slams. I've taken the view that his extra Slam title and longer time ranked at #1 combine to give him the edge but it's just my view and I don't claim it to be scientific in any way. In other respects, I can see the argument for Murray too.
 
Top