Why Andy Murray failed to become an ATG

aldeayeah

Legend
Considering the large overlap between their primes, it's kinda crazy that he and Nadal never met in a major final.

Bunch of semis/quarters though, plus Nadal is the only player who beat him in all 4 majors!

In my heart he's in the same tier as say Courier, or even Edberg/Becker despite the lack of major titles.

GO ANDEEEH
 
Last edited:

BorgTheGOAT

Hall of Fame
His peak level is simply not good enough. He is like an upgraded version of Ferrer, incredibly consistent in beating lesser players but no real competition for the big shots. Against Federer he was completely useless when it mattered most even after Fed was past his prime and against Djokovic he could only get a win when the other was playing subpar. It was always clear that when one of the big three would play anywhere close to their best Murray would have no chance to win.
 
Last edited:

octogon

Hall of Fame
11 Grand Slam finals, 10 played vs 2 of the top 3 players of all time.

Yeeeeahh I have an idea why he didn't win more Slams.
That's his problem. An ATG would have found a solution, and lessened the damage (and probably won at least the 3 more slams against them Andy needed to be considered an ATG).. Andy Roddick lost a bunch of slam finals to Federer as well. That's sad for Roddick, but it doesn't make him an ATG because he kept losing slam finals to Federer.
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
That's his problem. An ATG would have found a solution, and lessened the damage (and probably won at least the 3 more slams against them Andy needed to be considered an ATG).. Andy Roddick lost a bunch of slam finals to Federer as well. That's sad for Roddick, but it doesn't make him an ATG because he kept losing slam finals to Federer.
Did Agassi found a solution to Federer once Fed hit his stride? Hell he couldn't even beat Sampras at the USO, then proceeds to win a few Medvedev and Schuetler opens and suddenly he's an ATG.
 
6-3 6-2 6-4
6-2 7-5 6-2
6-3 6-4 7-6(11)
6-4 7-6(6) 6-4
6-4 6-2 6-3
6-3 7-5 6-4
5-7 6-2 6-2 6-4
6-4 6-2 3-6 6-2
6-3 6-4 6-7(6) 6-3
6-3 6-2 6-1
7-6(1) 6-7(1) 6-2 6-4
7-6(5) 6-7(4) 6-3 6-0
7-5 7-5 6-4
6-1 7-5 7-6(3)
3-6 6-1 6-2 6-4

Very cumpetitive outside of 2012-13 indeed. 2015 RG aside for taking Djoel to five even though the fifth was a dud.
 
His defense was on par with the other Big 3 (probably better than Fed's, actually), but his offense was a bit lacking.

Having a quite similar game and game plan to Djokovic, and yet being slightly outclassed by the latter in several key areas was also a killer.

He's still the fourth finest player of the era by a very comfortable margin.
Defence alone (getting to balls), perhaps, defence to offence (hitting difficult balls from defensive positions), hell no. Fedalovic were all extremely good at that in their primes, Nadal best of all of course. That's what seriously held Murray back from making an ATG game.
 

D.Nalby12

Legend
Because he could not win enough Slams ? Murray had very solid defensive game that made him very consistent against lower field. But against in form Big 3 you need to have upper gears - just putting ball in play never works. That's why Stan won 3 out 3 finals while Murray took 11 finals to make it 3 titles. Peak level matters - there is no alternative to it. Murray for his credit never lost hope despite repeated losses. He kept coming back till he finally found mediocre Djokovic or Raonic in final. Any other player would have lost the hope and long given up. But Murray always overrated himself in his mind - he regarded himself as a player who belongs to league of other three. Although it's false belief it helped him to win Slam eventually.
 

BGod

Legend
I'm of the opinion with his #1 and 2 Olympic Golds in singles he could have been an all-timer with just 2 more Slams.

Obviously the easiest to argue would be if he had a Career haul winning AO & French but the more realistic would be 2 more AOs.
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
Stan faced same competition and won 3/4. This excuse doesn't work here.
Stan is by far the biggest overperformer in 20 years. His Slam records vs Federer and Nadal are far worse. Never beaten a good Nadal. Never beaten Federer off clay.

The way Stan is dragged into dragging Murray down is disgusting. He couldn't even beat Murray at RG if not for Murray's body utterly failing him. Hell I might even argue Djokovic was ****e in the 2015 RG final cause he went 5 sets vs Murray the day before.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
TBH it's not purely about the slam count for me, it's the manner in which he suffered most of his losses in slams. Most of the time he was routined, mainly as a consequence of being passive and dropping the ball short.

It's the same argument against say Fed being better on clay than multiple FO winners because he lost to Nadal most of the time.
 
Stan is by far the biggest overperformer in 20 years. His Slam records vs Federer and Nadal are far worse. Never beaten a good Nadal. Never beaten Federer off clay.

The way Stan is dragged into dragging Murray down is disgusting. He couldn't even beat Murray at RG if not for Murray's body utterly failing him. Hell I might even argue Djokovic was ****e in the 2015 RG final cause he went 5 sets vs Murray the day before.
Djokovic went 5 sets vs Murray because he was *****, no?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS

zagor

Bionic Poster
Nadal beat him in so many semis though. Wimby 08, 10, USO 11, FO 11, Wimby 11, FO 14
Which plays into my point. In his 3 meetings with Nadal at Wimbledon Murray won one set combined. No matter how amazing Rafa undoubtedly is, that's just punching bag territory. I'd bet on guys like Roddick or Goran pushing Nadal more (even if they lose all 3 encounters), let alone someone like Becker.

Murray's 6 years younger than Fed yet half of his slam losses to Fed were in straights. Agassi on his last legs was giving peaking Fed (who was barely ***** losing matches all year long) more trouble.
 
Last edited:

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
Should have won a couple more slams still.
Should, based on what? It's a circular argument.

He's 9-2 in Slam semis vs non Big 3. One loss to Roddick. One loss to Wawrinka on a broken hip.

Tell me which of the following matches would your Edberg or Becker or Agassi have won

Federer USO 2008
Federer AO 2010
Djokovic AO 2011
Federer Wimb 2012
Djokovic AO 2013
Djokovic AO 2015
Djokovic AO 2016
Djokovic RG 2016.

Here's your answer. None of them.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
Should, based on what? It's a circular argument.

He's 9-2 in Slam semis vs non Big 3. One loss to Roddick. One loss to Wawrinka on a broken hip.

Tell me which of the following matches would your Edberg or Becker or Agassi have won

Federer USO 2008
Federer AO 2010
Djokovic AO 2011
Federer Wimb 2012
Djokovic AO 2013
Djokovic AO 2015
Djokovic AO 2016
Djokovic RG 2016.

Here's your answer. None of them.
Edberg, Becker and Agassi would have beaten Novak Djokovic at the AO a few times methinks.
 

RS

Legend
Should, based on what? It's a circular argument.

He's 9-2 in Slam semis vs non Big 3. One loss to Roddick. One loss to Wawrinka on a broken hip.

Tell me which of the following matches would your Edberg or Becker or Agassi have won

Federer USO 2008
Federer AO 2010
Djokovic AO 2011
Federer Wimb 2012
Djokovic AO 2013
Djokovic AO 2015
Djokovic AO 2016
Djokovic RG 2016.

Here's your answer. None of them.
Agassi would have been a big threat at AO. Could have won AO 13 or AO 15 or something like that remember Murray was dead even at one point before he faded away physically.

Becker is a real threat on faster courts i could see another Wim/USO but that era was a bit further back and depends on how they could adapt to modern tennis.
 

Incognito

Legend
11 Grand Slam finals, 10 played vs 2 of the top 3 players of all time.

Yeeeeahh I have an idea why he didn't win more Slams.
lost to Nadal at RG sf in 2014, probably could have beaten djoko in the final. Rafa wasn’t playing well in the final but still beat Djokovic.

lost to Nadal at WIM sf in 2010. Would definitely have beaten Berdych in that final.

lost to Nadal at WIM sf in 2011. Knowing his great record against Djokovic on grass, he would have done better than Nadal in that final.
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
Agassi would have been a big threat at AO. Could have won AO 13 or AO 15 or something like that remember Murray was dead even at one point before he faded away physically.
Agassi meanwhile very noted for being a better athlete than Murray. Let's be real. 2/4 AOs of his were an absolute joke. And it's not like guys like Kafelnikov were ATG level players either. He has 2 wins over Sampras, himself only 2 time champion and that's it.
 

RS

Legend
Agassi meanwhile very noted for being a better athlete than Murray. Let's be real. 2/4 AOs of his were an absolute joke. And it's not like guys like Kafelnikov were ATG level players either. He has 2 wins over Sampras, himself only 2 time champion and that's it.
Agassi had AO 04 were he had a classic as well and held up better than Murray did physically in any his finals. Sampras is a impressive AO player himself even though i agree he had more luck than Murray in his AOs.

Have nothing against Murray and like him quite a lot for me the era he played in and him not winning more is a bit overblown.
 

blablavla

Legend
Agassi would have been a big threat at AO. Could have won AO 13 or AO 15 or something like that remember Murray was dead even at one point before he faded away physically.

Becker is a real threat on faster courts i could see another Wim/USO but that era was a bit further back and depends on how they could adapt to modern tennis.
on modern slow & high bouncing surfaces, they'd be lucky to be top 20 players and would be described like mugs and pigeons on this board.
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
Which plays into my point. In his 3 meetings with Nadal at Wimbledon Murray won one set combined. No matter how amazing Rafa undoubtedly is, that's just punching bag territory. I'd bet on guys like Roddick or Goran pushing Nadal more (even if they lose all 3 encounters), let alone someone like Becker.

Murray's 6 years younger than Fed yet half of his slam losses to Fed were in straights. Agassi on his last lags was giving peaking Fed (who was barely ***** losing matches all year long) more trouble.
Facts
 
Should, based on what? It's a circular argument.

He's 9-2 in Slam semis vs non Big 3. One loss to Roddick. One loss to Wawrinka on a broken hip.

Tell me which of the following matches would your Edberg or Becker or Agassi have won

Federer USO 2008
Federer AO 2010
Djokovic AO 2011
Federer Wimb 2012
Djokovic AO 2013
Djokovic AO 2015
Djokovic AO 2016
Djokovic RG 2016.

Here's your answer. None of them.
Lol you are so butthurt. Used to be better, guess life is making you bitter like many of us, llelel.

The answer is at least one and for sure more competitive losses all around rather than the buttphuckery Mandrew received outside of 2012-13.
 

Poisoned Slice

Bionic Poster
Which plays into my point. In his 3 meetings with Nadal at Wimbledon Murray won one set combined. No matter how amazing Rafa undoubtedly is, that's just punching bag territory. I'd bet on guys like Roddick or Goran pushing Nadal more (even if they lose all 3 encounters), let alone someone like Becker.

Murray's 6 years younger than Fed yet half of his slam losses to Fed were in straights. Agassi on his last lags was giving peaking Fed (who was barely ***** losing matches all year long) more trouble.
Andy Roddick let Andy Murray stay at his guest house place during the matches against Nadal at Wimbledon.
 

DSH

G.O.A.T.
Considering the large overlap between their primes, it's kinda crazy that he and Nadal never met in a major final.

Bunch of semis/quarters though, plus Nadal is the only player who beat him in all 4 majors!

In my heart he's in the same tier as say Courier, or even Edberg/Becker despite the lack of major titles.

GO ANDEEEH
NadalGOAT!
:giggle:
 
Top