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

#51
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

I'm not sure - it really depends, like I say, on what you look at. Doing it at slams, if that's all you're interested in, sure it's Sampras - by a distance.

Does Connors winning 45 more titles than Sampras, or Lendl winning 30 more than him count for nothing in considering greatness? I certainly don't think it does.

Factor in that there's not much of a difference between all three of them in terms of weeks at no. 1 and you can see it's probably just down to choice.
 
#52
Besides the obvious ones ahead of him it really comes down to where you rank Courier. If we're looking at BEST player, it's Courier. His 3 year window for that era was ludicrous and quite honestly wasn't really touched until Big 3.

Murray has the better career rather unquestionably. The WTF, the more Slam finals, semifinals and Masters.

So in terms of careers Murray in the OE slots behind only the obvious 6+ Slam guys. If it's by best players then Courier is ahead and I'd even argue Rafter on hard.
 
#54
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 played with 7-8 of the greatest players of all time. Not to mention courts were varied and 16 seeds etc.
 
#56
I'm not sure - it really depends, like I say, on what you look at. Doing it at slams, if that's all you're interested in, sure it's Sampras - by a distance.

Does Connors winning 45 more titles than Sampras, or Lendl winning 30 more than him count for nothing in considering greatness? I certainly don't think it does.

Factor in that there's not much of a difference between all three of them in terms of weeks at no. 1 and you can see it's probably just down to choice.
Dude lots of their 90+ titles are not even masters category! LOL You just can't be serious! Do you think Federer is inferior to Connors as well, just because he didn't break his open era title record, that he achieved by winning garbage tournaments? Do you consider Ferrer greater player than say Wawrinka, because he won 27 titles, but only one of them is big, while Wawrinka didn't even make it past 20 yet??! Like i said you can't be serious! A player, that won 5 times at one grand slam, which is an open era record still to this day, then won 7 titles at another grand slam, which was at the time of his retirement co-shared all-time record, until Federer broke it most recently can't be inferior to players who not only didn't make it to double digits slam count, but also do not have another grand slam, where they would win 4 times let alone 5! I mean c'mmon now! LOL Sampras finals - 14-4 (only 4 finals lost!), Lendl: 8-11 (one final more played than Sampras and yet lost majority of them! LOL), Connors: 8-7 (Lost almost 50% of the slam finals, that he reached and the biggest problem is that some of those weren't even ATG players, like Borg or McEnroe! LOL)
 
Last edited:
#57
True, but he only had to go through 2-3 good players at any one time. Courier had to go through many many more
This could technically be true, but those players you mentioned were upset a great deal more then were Federer/Nadal/Djokovic. Yes, more varied surfaces, 16 seeds at slams, etc., but they were upset a great deal more than the Big Three. Also, since these three are greater players, I think it might be considered more difficult out to beat them in a SF/F since they’re ALWAYS there.
 
#58
Besides the obvious ones ahead of him it really comes down to where you rank Courier. If we're looking at BEST player, it's Courier. His 3 year window for that era was ludicrous and quite honestly wasn't really touched until Big 3.

Murray has the better career rather unquestionably. The WTF, the more Slam finals, semifinals and Masters.

So in terms of careers Murray in the OE slots behind only the obvious 6+ Slam guys. If it's by best players then Courier is ahead and I'd even argue Rafter on hard.
I agree on all of that.
 
#60
Dude lots of their 90+ titles are not even masters category! LOL You just can't be serious! Do you think Federer is inferior to Connors as well, just because he didn't break his open era title record, that he achieved by winning garbage tournaments? Do you consider Ferrer greater player than say Wawrinka, because he won 27 titles, but only one of them is big, while Wawrinka didn't even make it past 20 yet??! Like i said you can't be serious! A player, that won 5 times at one grand slam, which is an open era record still to this day, then won 7 titles at another grand slam, which was at the time of his retirement co-shared all-time record, until Federer broke it most recently can't be inferior to players who not only didn't make it to double digits slam count, but also do not have another grand slam, where they would win 4 times let alone 5! I mean c'mmon now! LOL Sampras finals - 14-4 (only 4 finals lost!), Lendl: 8-11 (one final more played than Sampras and yet lost majority of them! LOL), Connors: 8-7 (Lost almost 50% of the slam finals, that he reached and the biggest problem is that some of those weren't even ATG players, like Borg or McEnroe! LOL)

I can barely see what you've typed here for all the straw men in your post. I haven't said winning more titles is the most important thing. I have said it is a factor - the biggest factor? No. A factor. I haven't even said I think Connors is greater than Sampras, I just don't think it's ridiculous to suggest he is - because, as I've said three times now, it is purely subjective.

From that list, if you configure it at the bottom to give 0 points for ATP 250 level events, if those are your issue, it still puts Connors and Lendl ahead of Sampras. As I said, if I were writing my own list, that might not be the case, but I don't think it's that outrageous. In any event, I think you're really just moving Sampras up and those two guys would be somewhere just behind.

https://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/goatList?oldLegends=true&levelFactors=B=0

To get Sampras above them, you need to weight Grand Slam performance as 8 times more valuable than other tournaments.
 
#62
Mury is of course greater than Courier, but Jim was no freeloader competition-wise, either. Out of 38 losses he incurred in his 1991-92 top seasons, 23 came against Slam champs (former or future) - not bad! During that time, he also scored 9 wins over ATGs: Agassi x5, Sampras x2, Edberg x2 + 2 more in 1993 (AO, Wim), so 4 total.
Overall, even as his consistency declined, Courier still often made it deep in slams up to 1996: besides his 4-3 finals record, he also had many QF and SF losses to tough guys like Sampras x4 (AO '94, '95, USO '92, '95), Bruguera RG '94 and Agassi AO '96.
 
#63
Players such as Ivanisevic (might've won 3 Wimbledons), Roddick (should've been a 3/4 slam winner), Davydenko (surely a 1/2 slam winning talent), et-al don't get to walk away from their careers with the "correct" achievements according to their talent and effort if their best years/tournaments coincide with that of one or two players fundamentally better than them, even if only on a certain surface, and all their opportunities to win big are not entirely about them delivering on a given day. We didn't used to get a 15 year period where 93.5% of slam finals involved at least one of the three greatest players of all time... play the match, or two, of their life at just the right moment and the reward could be MaliVai Washington in the Wimbledon final. Do it in 2010, beat Federer (then Novak, albeit the ****ty serving 2010 version, back-to-back) and Berdych's reward is a healthy and in form Nadal.

Players such as del-Potro, Hewitt, Kuerten, Safin end up in the basket of "what might have been" had injuries not plagued them (and I won't be surprised if in the years well after retirement Murray starts to let on how bad his back, or hip, was in a few of the big matches he lost) but then again maybe injury free their careers might've gone like Roddick and further achievements wouldn't have transpired, regardless...

Players such as Courier, Wawrinka, Pat Rafter, Michael Stich, Kafelnikov, et-al end up with their careers being probably about right, sometimes slightly overachieving in some ways.

Courier is basically the poster boy for peaking at exactly the right time to cash in, smack bang in the changing of the guard space between a number of top players dropping off and the flourishing of Sampras, along with Agassi maturing. Transplant one or two of the top grinders (the aforementioned Berdych for example) from the last 15 years into the years when Courier achieved the most and they likely end up having Courier's career. Transplant Courier's best years to 2008-2012 and he never wins a slam, only makes 1, 2 at a stretch, slam finals and gets to a maximum ranking of world #5. He was a hard working grinder who proved that ugly consistency and a strong mentality absolutely can win a lot of tennis matches but would he have consistently beat Fedalovic? You're having a laugh, and almost certainly didn't sit through any of his matches when he was in his prime, if you think so.

Murray belongs alongside Becker and Edberg. If not alongside then just a notch below.
 
Last edited:
#64
Courier ran into Sampras, Edberg, Muster, Agassi, Lendl, Becker etc etc. A bit worse than just Fed, Djoko and Nadal.
Doesn't matter, point me which Two Ao can courier can win from 2004 onwards. Apart from 2018 AO every champion brought high level, even Fed 2009 ,Rafa 2012,17 and Novak 2014( he won Shanghai, Paris, Beijing, Yec, IW and Miami in succession, only lost one hardcourt match at AO between us open 2013- miami14) can't win it after playing great.
Person like Safin and Wawa has to play out of their mind to win their single AO.
Wawarinka was equally great in 2013 but lost to Novak in tough five setter, a goating Stain lost .
Jim is not winning single RG in this era, even Fed of 11, Sod of 2009,10 and Novak of 11,13,15 lost the RG after playing really high level. I have seen AO 92,93 finals, there is no way Jim is winning with that playing style, even with new poly, his movement is so restricted, and BH is not great, Novak and Fed will completely exploit that slow movement .
Never seen his RG finals so can't say about his level .
Same way as great as Edberg was, he will struggle big time to win two us open, two Wimbledon and two AO (when he never won single AO in his prime on hard court.)if he played around 2004 onwards.
For me Edberg, Courier > Murray because of what they achieve .
I don't like comparing eras on playing style, we should always compair on what player achieve.
Same way Novak will struggle to win 4 Wimbledon when Sampras hits his peak.
 
Last edited:
#65
This is what I hate about TTW, Djokovic will struggle in 80s and 90s and Rafa will be blown out of park but some how Jim will win two AO and RG if he played like Murray in modern era. As great as Edberg was will going to win 6 slam with Fed, Rafa and Novak playing around.
This type of comparison goes both ways.
 
#67
Courier ran into Sampras, Edberg, Muster, Agassi, Lendl, Becker etc etc. A bit worse than just Fed, Djoko and Nadal.
Lendl was nearing the end of his career due to his bad back. Becker was too busy generating tabloid headlines to be consistent. Courier only ran into hairpiece-era Agassi, not baldy focused post-meth world #1 Agassi. Taking their careers as a whole Muster did worse at the FO than Tim Henman did at Wimbledon. Edberg couldn't win the AO post-grass and wasn't a serious threat on clay (one good run to the RG final aside). Sampras didn't really flourish until '93 and after their Wimbledon final Courier never made it to another slam final...

Context matters.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
#69
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.
True, but I still think Lendl had it every bit as difficult as Murray.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
#70
Players such as Ivanisevic (might've won 3 Wimbledons), Roddick (should've been a 3/4 slam winner), Davydenko (surely a 1/2 slam winning talent), et-al don't get to walk away from their careers with the "correct" achievements according to their talent and effort if their best years/tournaments coincide with that of one or two players fundamentally better than them, even if only on a certain surface, and all their opportunities to win big are not entirely about them delivering on a given day. We didn't used to get a 15 year period where 93.5% of slam finals involved at least one of the three greatest players of all time... play the match, or two, of their life at just the right moment and the reward could be MaliVai Washington in the Wimbledon final. Do it in 2010, beat Federer (then Novak, albeit the ****ty serving 2010 version, back-to-back) and Berdych's reward is a healthy and in form Nadal.

Players such as del-Potro, Hewitt, Kuerten, Safin end up in the basket of "what might have been" had injuries not plagued them (and I won't be surprised if in the years well after retirement Murray starts to let on how bad his back, or hip, was in a few of the big matches he lost) but then again maybe injury free their careers might've gone like Roddick and further achievements wouldn't have transpired, regardless...

Players such as Courier, Wawrinka, Pat Rafter, Michael Stich, Kafelnikov, et-al end up with their careers being probably about right, sometimes slightly overachieving in some ways.

Courier is basically the poster boy for peaking at exactly the right time to cash in, smack bang in the changing of the guard space between a number of top players dropping off and the flourishing of Sampras, along with Agassi maturing. Transplant one or two of the top grinders (the aforementioned Berdych for example) from the last 15 years into the years when Courier achieved the most and they likely end up having Courier's career. Transplant Courier's best years to 2008-2012 and he never wins a slam, only makes 1, 2 at a stretch, slam finals and gets to a maximum ranking of world #5. He was a hard working grinder who proved that ugly consistency and a strong mentality absolutely can win a lot of tennis matches but would he have consistently beat Fedalovic? You're having a laugh, and almost certainly didn't sit through any of his matches when he was in his prime, if you think so.

Murray belongs alongside Becker and Edberg. If not alongside then just a notch below.
Becker had a multi slam year and both Becker and Edberg actually defended slam titles. Murray hasn't.
 
#73
Becker had a multi slam year and both Becker and Edberg actually defended slam titles. Murray hasn't.
Neither of them made 3 GS finals in a season. Neither of them managed 3 GS finals in a row, let alone twice. Murray won 2 slams from 4.

Becker only lasted 12 weeks at world #1.

Murray won 14 Masters level events, Becker 13, Edberg 8.

There's reasons why Murray should be rated around about those two guys that go beyond just GS title count. Confirmation bias is not an argument. Context matters.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
#74
Neither of them made 3 GS finals in a season. Neither of them managed 3 GS finals in a row, let alone twice. Murray won 2 slams from 4.

Becker only lasted 12 weeks at world #1.

Murray won 14 Masters level events, Becker 13, Edberg 8.

There's reasons why Murray should be rated around about those two guys that go beyond just GS title count. Confirmation bias is not an argument. Context matters.
All of that is not enough to make up for a difference of 3 slam titles.
 
#75
Neither of them made 3 GS finals in a season. Neither of them managed 3 GS finals in a row, let alone twice. Murray won 2 slams from 4.

Becker only lasted 12 weeks at world #1.

Murray won 14 Masters level events, Becker 13, Edberg 8.

There's reasons why Murray should be rated around about those two guys that go beyond just GS title count. Confirmation bias is not an argument. Context matters.
Becker got screwed over by the silly ranking systems. And he won 3 YECs, WCT Finals and a Grand Slam Cup. Very bigly titles, believe me.
 
#76
All of that is not enough to make up for a difference of 3 slam titles.
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of someone reducing "greatness" to slam titles approaches 1"
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
#78
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of someone reducing "greatness" to slam titles approaches 1"
Slams are the most important titles, whether you like it or not. All the other stats will come into play only when they are tied in the slam count.
 
#80
There's literally 40 threads about whether Murray is an ATG.

No one is an ATG with three majors. I don't care if he has 20 OGM's, nobody is an ATG with three majors. The majority of tennis historians don't even put Wilander, Becker or Edberg as ATG's and they all have 6 and 7 slams, respectively.
 
#85
When thinking of Murray I think more of the likes of Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Newcombe and maybe Vilas rather than Ashe, Courier, Nastase. I think of the former bracket, but Murray is not greater than them.

Stilljonesing thinks of him as being, IIRC, in the Agassi/McEnroe bracket. Given what Red Rick has stated thus far in this thread, his view is probably similar.
 
#86
ATG is apparently this invisible line or threshold which, if crossed, puts the player in the club. People enjoy simple thinking and deceptive clarity.
 
#87
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.
Which takes us to the question why did he fail in winning enough slam titles:
The answer we all know. Bad luck to be contemporary of the Big Three.
 
#88
Neither of them made 3 GS finals in a season. Neither of them managed 3 GS finals in a row, let alone twice. Murray won 2 slams from 4.

Becker only lasted 12 weeks at world #1.

Murray won 14 Masters level events, Becker 13, Edberg 8.

There's reasons why Murray should be rated around about those two guys that go beyond just GS title count. Confirmation bias is not an argument. Context matters.
Hugely disagree. The Masters thing is really mindblowingly wrong - Stefan played 2 GS’s on grass and remind me again how many Masters were held on grass? In Bo3 format? Different ballgame back then.

How far was Edberg from a career GS and how far was Andy? How about their no. 1 time? Andy’s best results required injuries of two mega old ATG’s and a meltdown of his only remaining competitor. And even then he fell of the throne basically the very next second. His 2012/13 run deserves a lot of credit, but Stefan dominated (not competed) for far longer.

There is really nothing Andy has over Stefan, apart from Masters (already addressed) and OG (completely irrelevant in that time). And if you actually saw both of them play, you should never make such a claim. He is well behind Edberg and there should really be little debate about it.
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
#89
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?
This eras Lleyton Hewitt.
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
#90
Players such as Ivanisevic (might've won 3 Wimbledons), Roddick (should've been a 3/4 slam winner), Davydenko (surely a 1/2 slam winning talent), et-al don't get to walk away from their careers with the "correct" achievements according to their talent and effort if their best years/tournaments coincide with that of one or two players fundamentally better than them, even if only on a certain surface, and all their opportunities to win big are not entirely about them delivering on a given day. We didn't used to get a 15 year period where 93.5% of slam finals involved at least one of the three greatest players of all time... play the match, or two, of their life at just the right moment and the reward could be MaliVai Washington in the Wimbledon final. Do it in 2010, beat Federer (then Novak, albeit the ****ty serving 2010 version, back-to-back) and Berdych's reward is a healthy and in form Nadal.

Players such as del-Potro, Hewitt, Kuerten, Safin end up in the basket of "what might have been" had injuries not plagued them (and I won't be surprised if in the years well after retirement Murray starts to let on how bad his back, or hip, was in a few of the big matches he lost) but then again maybe injury free their careers might've gone like Roddick and further achievements wouldn't have transpired, regardless...

Players such as Courier, Wawrinka, Pat Rafter, Michael Stich, Kafelnikov, et-al end up with their careers being probably about right, sometimes slightly overachieving in some ways.

Courier is basically the poster boy for peaking at exactly the right time to cash in, smack bang in the changing of the guard space between a number of top players dropping off and the flourishing of Sampras, along with Agassi maturing. Transplant one or two of the top grinders (the aforementioned Berdych for example) from the last 15 years into the years when Courier achieved the most and they likely end up having Courier's career. Transplant Courier's best years to 2008-2012 and he never wins a slam, only makes 1, 2 at a stretch, slam finals and gets to a maximum ranking of world #5. He was a hard working grinder who proved that ugly consistency and a strong mentality absolutely can win a lot of tennis matches but would he have consistently beat Fedalovic? You're having a laugh, and almost certainly didn't sit through any of his matches when he was in his prime, if you think so.

Murray belongs alongside Becker and Edberg. If not alongside then just a notch below.
That could easily apply to Murray too...
 
#91
Hugely disagree. The Masters thing is really mindblowingly wrong - Stefan played 2 GS’s on grass and remind me again how many Masters were held on grass? In Bo3 format? Different ballgame back then.

How far was Edberg from a career GS and how far was Andy? How about their no. 1 time? Andy’s best results required injuries of two mega old ATG’s and a meltdown of his only remaining competitor. And even then he fell of the throne basically the very next second. His 2012/13 run deserves a lot of credit, but Stefan dominated (not competed) for far longer.

There is really nothing Andy has over Stefan, apart from Masters (already addressed) and OG (completely irrelevant in that time). And if you actually saw both of them play, you should never make such a claim. He is well behind Edberg and there should really be little debate about it.

Seems odd to use playing on more grass slams as being a negative. If there were two GS on grass in Murray's day, equally he'd have won more slams - because that is his best surface. Make the Australian Open grass during Murray's career and he wins at least two of them, probably more when you factor out people as non-contenders on grass (only Federer, Borg and McEnroe have a better win percentage on grass than Murray), even more so when you factor in that participation at the Australian Open in those days was way lower than even Masters 1000 events now.
 
Top