Why Andy Murray failed to become an ATG

ElisRF

Professional
Time travel matchups.

1. Davydenko RG 07 vs Djokovic RG 14
2. Tsonga AO 08 SF vs Dasco AO 09 SF
3. Federer AO 06 vs Wawrinka AO 13
4. Wawrinka AO 14 vs Nadal AO 17
5. Hewitt Wim 05 vs Murray Wim 15
6. Roddick Wim 04 vs Federer Wim 17
7. Djokovic RG 16 final vs Nadal RG 18 final
8. Roddick USO 06 final vs Djokovic USO 12 final
9. Nadal AO 09 final vs Federer AO 10 final
1. Djokovic
2. even
3. even
4. even
5. Hewitt in 5
6. even
7. Nadal in 5 (I think Djokovic of RG 11/13 hitting the ball harder has a better chance)
8. Djokovic USO 12 final
9. Nadal in 5
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
I’m saying Kyrgios had the potential to be an ATG but Murray didn’t.
Couldn't disagree more. Murray either is or is very close to being an ATG. Kyrgios is nowhere near and never will be.

Kyrgios reads us ? Wouldn’t surprise me, it’s not like he was busy doing anything else.
Knowing Nick, he might well do and I can assure you he has the utmost respect for Murray and would treat your suggestion that he is more likely to become an ATG if only he worked a bit harder with the same amusement and disbelief that I do.
 

heftylefty

Hall of Fame
I think Murray is an ATG. While his slam count is not as impressive as others before him; his competition will go down as the greatest group of players of all times.

Also, he carried Great Britain to a Davis Cup title, it's first in the Open Era. Plus his medals at the Olympics. Murray has milked every ounce of his talent. He may have come up short, but it wasn't due to a lack of effort and grit.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
You state quite confidently that he would lose to Becker and Courier in the same way he lost to Djokovic. I totally disagree but, as we know, the difference is that you don't like and therefore don't rate Murray as a top player. Consequently we are never going to agree about him and we will just have to leave it at that.
My statement
"Example: He lost to Djoko in 4 AO finals. Those versions of Murray loses to in-form Becker, Courier, Sampras etc. as well. 1 version of Murray who showed up vs Djokovic at AO who would have a decent chance was the semi at AO 12."

I said in-form Becker, Courier. Both have won 2 AOs to 0 for Murray.
You are the one disrespecting Becker and Courier thinking Murray not even at his best (AO 11,13,15,16 finals) would beat in-form versions of them. I said AO 12 semi Murray would have a decent chance vs them (given he played Djokovic close)

other examples of versions of Murray having a decent chance vs in-form Becker/Courier would be AO 10 QF, AO 13 SF (vs Nadal&Federer respectively). But those weren't in the AO finals. Which was the whole point. Murray's under-performance in slam finals.

I rate Murray as he should be rated. You on the other hand blatantly distorted stuff to over-rate him.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
My statement
"Example: He lost to Djoko in 4 AO finals. Those versions of Murray loses to in-form Becker, Courier, Sampras etc. as well. 1 version of Murray who showed up vs Djokovic at AO who would have a decent chance was the semi at AO 12."

I said in-form Becker, Courier. Both have won 2 AOs to 0 for Murray.
You are the one disrespecting Becker and Courier thinking Murray not even at his best (AO 11,13,15,16 finals) would beat in-form versions of them. I said AO 12 semi Murray would have a decent chance vs them (given he played Djokovic close)
Don't recall ever thinking or saying that Murray, not even at his best, would likely beat in-form versions of past ATGs. Of course he would have to be at his best.

I rate Murray as he should be rated. You on the other hand blatantly distorted stuff to over-rate him.
I blatantly distort nothing. I defend his record as it is and defend his ability to handle ATGs of all eras given that he has shown, on many occasions, that he can handle the 3 greatest of them in this one and my opinion is based on that fact. I have never and will never claim something for him that I know or think to be beyond his capabilities.

Difference between you and me is that, unlike you, I respect his record.
 

Nole Slam

Legend
Don't recall ever thinking or saying that Murray, not even at his best, would likely beat in-form versions of past ATGs. Of course he would have to be at his best.



I blatantly distort nothing. I defend his record as it is and defend his ability to handle ATGs of all eras given that he has shown, on many occasions, that he can handle the 3 greatest of them in this one and my opinion is based on that fact. I have never and will never claim something for him that I know or think to be beyond his capabilities.

Difference between you and me is that, unlike you, I respect his record.
It's alright, man. Djokovic even failed to become a tennis legend.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Don't recall ever thinking or saying that Murray, not even at his best, would likely beat in-form versions of past ATGs. Of course he would have to be at his best.
This was what you said in response to me stating what I did. When I said Murray of AO 11/13/15/16 finals would lose to in-form Becker/Courier..

"You state quite confidently that he would lose to Becker and Courier in the same way he lost to Djokovic. I totally disagree but, as we know "

Murray was not at his best in those finals.
What else does this mean?

I blatantly distort nothing. I defend his record as it is and defend his ability to handle ATGs of all eras given that he has shown, on many occasions, that he can handle the 3 greatest of them in this one and my opinion is based on that fact. I have never and will never claim something for him that I know or think to be beyond his capabilities.

Difference between you and me is that, unlike you, I respect his record.
you just did in this thread. I showed how the record of Stan, Hewitt and Roddick in slams finals vs quality competition in name is significantly better than Murray's. But you ignored that and instead only focussed on one part with apologism for Murray when truth is he didn't play well enough in many of them, clearly inferior to the 3 I mentioned.

Yes, its true that Murray did face Djokovic or Federer in all of his slam finals except one. But its also true that he wasn't upto the mark in many of them.


I rate Murray record just fine. I just other examples of his pretty good performances at AO. But unless someone is a sycophant for Murray, you are not happy. Too bad, just because a fanboy says some something, doesn't mean its going to change the reality that there's a significant chasm b/w Murray and Becker/Edberg/Wilander greatness wise.
 
Last edited:

Imperator

Hall of Fame
Couldn't disagree more. Murray either is or is very close to being an ATG. Kyrgios is nowhere near and never will be.



Knowing Nick, he might well do and I can assure you he has the utmost respect for Murray and would treat your suggestion that he is more likely to become an ATG if only he worked a bit harder with the same amusement and disbelief that I do.
Of course Kyrgios is not an ATG and never will be, I said he had the potential to be one and did nothing with it. Murray, on the other hand, gave it his all but couldn’t keep up with the Big 3 because he lacked talent and winning 3 slams is not enough to be an ATG in my book.

I couldn’t care less about what Kyrgios would think of my statement, the guy is a clown. I’m more interested in your opinion, care to explain why you find this so surprising ?
 

RS

G.O.A.T.
Time travel matches

1. Nadal Wim 06 final vs Federer Wim 15 final
2. Nadal Wim 11 final vs Murray Wim 13 final
3. Agassi AO 03 final vs Federer AO 09 final
4. Federer AO 09 final vs Djokovic AO 13 final
5. Djokovic RG 12 final vs Wawrinka RG 15 final
6. Hewitt Wim 02 final vs Federer Wim 19 final
7. Roddick USO 03 final vs Nadal USO 13 final
8. Hewitt USO 01 final vs Djokovic USO 15 final
9. Del Potro RG 09 vs Federer RG 10
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
This was what you said in response to me stating what I did. When I said Murray of AO 11/13/15/16 finals would lose to in-form Becker/Courier..

"You state quite confidently that he would lose to Becker and Courier in the same way he lost to Djokovic. I totally disagree but, as we know "

Murray was not at his best in those finals.
What else does this mean?
I love the way you blandly assume that Becker and Courier would always play better than any of the Big 3 did in their Slam finals and that Murray would behave towards them in the exact same manner he did in the finals he actually played. I happen to think that wouldn't necessarily be the case and I feel it is reasonable to think that way. You just always think the worst of Murray based on the simple fact that you don't like him and therefore don't rate him.

you just did in this thread. I showed how the record of Stan, Hewitt and Roddick in slams finals vs quality competition in name is significantly better than Murray's. But you ignored that and instead only focussed on one part with apologism for Murray when truth is he didn't play well enough in many of them, clearly inferior to the 3 I mentioned
Stan only made 3 Slam finals and wasn't able to win any of them in straights. In his last one, at RG of all places, he did significantly worse than Murray did the year before against Djokovic. Hewitt only faced 1 ATG in a Slam final, not 2 and Roddick couldn't bring the bacon home when he had a golden opportunity to do so (2009). Clearly superior only to you.

Yes, its true that Murray did face Djokovic or Federer in all of his slam finals except one. But its also true that he wasn't upto the mark in many of them.
Not up to the mark in any of them...lol. Only a confirmed Murray-hater like you would have the gall to say that when he won TWO of them, one of them in straight sets. Enough said!
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Of course Kyrgios is not an ATG and never will be, I said he had the potential to be one and did nothing with it. Murray, on the other hand, gave it his all but couldn’t keep up with the Big 3 because he lacked talent and winning 3 slams is not enough to be an ATG in my book.

I couldn’t care less about what Kyrgios would think of my statement, the guy is a clown. I’m more interested in your opinion, care to explain why you find this so surprising ?
I happen to think that the variety of Murray's accomplishments across his whole career puts him in ATG brackets. For me, it's not all about the Slam count. To even mention that a clown like Kyrgios even had more potential than Murray is just a gross insult and complete disrespect for what Murray did achieve in his career.
 

RS

G.O.A.T.
I happen to think that the variety of Murray's accomplishments across his whole career puts him in ATG brackets. For me, it's not all about the Slam count. To even mention that a clown like Kyrgios even had more potential than Murray is just a gross insult and complete disrespect for what Murray did achieve in his career.
Kyrgios in the Miami 2017 SF played as well as Murray ever did. If he took tennis serious he would probably have about the same slams as Murray or close.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
I love the way you blandly assume that Becker and Courier would always play better than any of the Big 3 did in their Slam finals and that Murray would behave towards them in the exact same manner he did in the finals he actually played. I happen to think that wouldn't necessarily be the case and I feel it is reasonable to think that way. You just always think the worst of Murray based on the simple fact that you don't like him and therefore don't rate him.
no, I never assumed that nor did I say anything remotely close to that. I said in-form Becker/Courier vs Murray of AO 11/13/15/16 finals. They do have 2 AO finals with well above average performances in them, unlike Murray in AO finals.
I also mentioned Murray of AO 10 QF/AO 12 SF/AO 13 SF would have a decent chance since he played well in those.

Your insecure delusional reading is your problem, not mine

Stan only made 3 Slam finals and wasn't able to win any of them in straights. In his last one, at RG of all places, he did significantly worse than Murray did the year before against Djokovic. Hewitt only faced 1 ATG in a Slam final, not 2 and Roddick couldn't bring the bacon home when he had a golden opportunity to do so (2009). Clearly superior only to you.
Stan made 4 slam finals, not 3.
Also, Nadal of RG 2017 final quite clearly better than Djokovic of RG 2016 final. That was only slam final performance of Stan that was lacking out of 4.
Hewitt faced 2 ATGs in slam finals - Sampras and Federer (3rd one I mentioned was not an ATG, but a rampaging Safin who had beaten peak ATG federer in the semi of AO 2005)

The fact that you got even basic stuff regarding Stan/Hewitt wrong says it all about your focus on fanboying of Murray and consequently under-rating of these players.

Oh and Roddick fought very hard in Wim 09. Fed should've won 1st and Roddick 2nd set. Just went the other way. Don't even bring it up when Murray has CRUMBLED far worse in slam finals.

Oh and you are cribbing Stan couldn't win in straights in his slam finals vs Nadal/Djokovic/Djokovic? :-D :-D :-D

Not up to the mark in any of them...lol. Only a confirmed Murray-hater like you would have the gall to say that when he won TWO of them, one of them in straight sets. Enough said!
I said not upto to the mark in many of them.
I didn't say not any of them.

Learn to read, you completely insecure Murray fanboy.
Screenshot is from your own post including where you quote me.
It reads many, not any.



I had already said before that Murray has played well above average in 4 slam finals: Wim 12, USO 12, Wim 13, Wim 16
(a little above average in AO 13/AO 15 finals at best)
 
Last edited:

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Kyrgios in the Miami 2017 SF played as well as Murray ever did. If he took tennis serious he would probably have about the same slams as Murray or close.
Well taking tennis seriously is an essential part of potential ATGhood. The fact that he never will take it as seriously as Murray means he could never have the potential to be an ATG in any shape or form, unlike Murray.
 

RS

G.O.A.T.
Well taking tennis seriously is an essential part of potential ATGhood. The fact that he never will take it as seriously as Murray means he could never have the potential to be an ATG in any shape or form, unlike Murray.
I was kidding.
 

Poisoned Slice

Bionic Poster
1. Nadal Wim 06 final vs Federer Wim 15 final
2. Nadal Wim 11 final vs Murray Wim 13 final
3. Agassi AO 03 final vs Federer AO 09 final
4. Federer AO 09 final vs Djokovic AO 13 final
5. Djokovic RG 12 final vs Wawrinka RG 15 final
6. Hewitt Wim 02 final
vs Federer Wim 19 final
7. Roddick USO 03 final vs Nadal USO 13 final
8. Hewitt USO 01 final vs Djokovic USO 15 final
9. Del Potro RG 09 vs Federer RG 10
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS

Sunny014

Hall of Fame
Murray would win many Masters level tournaments in any era, that's not in dispute.
But it is ridiculous to bunch slam and masters/YEC finals here together in this since its known Murray's problem was in slam finals.

He was winning Masters in 08-11 without winning any slams.

Out of 11 slam finals:
Murray has played clearly above average in just 4: Wim 12, USO 12, Wim 13, Wim 16
AO 13, AO 15, AO 10, AO 16, RG 16 were below par to average
USO 08 was clearly mediocre
AO 11 was the worst clearly

For a comparision:

Wawrinka in 4 slam finals, played above average in 3 of them: AO 14, RG 15 and USO 16
mediocre in one of them: RG 17
all 4 slam finals were vs big 3 just to be clear

Roddick in 5 slam finals, played clearly above average in 3: USO 03, Wim 04, Wim 09
USO 06 was average (slightly above average tbh)
Wim 05 - slightly below average
4 of his 5 slam finals were vs Federer

Hewitt in 4 slam finals played clearly above average in 3: USO 01, Wim 02, AO 05
mediocre in one of them: USO 04

3 of the 4 slams finals were against Sampras, Federer, peak Safin

Quite clear that all of Wawrinka/Roddick/Hewitt did significantly better in their slam finals vs quality competition (by name) than Murray did on an average.

The excuse of Murray having to face Big3 in slams finals doesn't cut it with only 4 of 11 performances being above average. (incl 1 vs Raonic)
100% true

Sir Andy used to reach the Semis regularly because the rest of the field wasn't that deep as it was in previous decades but once he reached the semis he ran into the Big 3 and his level was consistently below everyone. That suggests that his peak game isn't high enough to beat anyone. So he would not have won more than 3 slams in any era and if he was 5-6 years younger then he might have retired on 1 or 0 slam due to running into Peak Federer who could be like Unstoppable as well as Immovable at the same time, one has to be really high peak play like Safin/Nadal to take out Federer on his bad day, not happening, Andy even on his good day cannot beat Fed on his bad day.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
no, I never assumed that nor did I say anything remotely close to that. I said in-form Becker/Courier vs Murray of AO 11/13/15/16 finals. They do have 2 AO finals with well above average performances in them, unlike Murray in AO finals.
I also mentioned Murray of AO 10 QF/AO 12 SF/AO 13 SF would have a decent chance since he played well in those.

Your insecure delusional reading is your problem, not mine

Stan made 4 slam finals, not 3.
Also, Nadal of RG 2017 final quite clearly better than Djokovic of RG 2016 final. That was only slam final performance of Stan that was lacking out of 4.
Hewitt faced 2 ATGs in slam finals - Sampras and Federer (3rd one I mentioned was not an ATG, but a rampaging Safin who had beaten peak ATG federer in the semi of AO 2005)

The fact that you got even basic stuff regarding Stan/Hewitt wrong says it all about your focus on fanboying of Murray and consequently under-rating of these players.
Knew Stan was in 4 finals just had the ones he won on my mind that's all, so shoot me. Forgot about Hewitt playing Fed at USO but he certainly didn't fare better against him there than Murray did. Don't recall Murray getting bagelled TWICE in a single Slam final. So none of my slip-ups actually supported anything you said at all.

Oh and Roddick fought very hard in Wim 09. Fed should've won 1st and Roddick 2nd set. Just went the other way. Don't even bring it up when Murray has CRUMBLED far worse in slam finals.
Shoulda woulda coulda. Fact remains that he didn't win whereas Murray won TWO Wimbledon finals, 1 against an ATG and he did both of them in straight sets. Cry me a river for poor Rodders.

Oh and you are cribbing Stan couldn't win in straights in his slam finals vs Nadal/Djokovic/Djokovic? :-D :-D :-D
Careful you don't choke on all those smilies. Fact remains that Murray beat an ATG in straight sets in a Slam final. Stan didn't a fact you would undoubtedly have pointed out if it was Stan whose record you like to diss instead of Murray's.


I said not upto to the mark in many of them.
I didn't say not any of them.

Learn to read, you completely insecure Murray fanboy.
Screenshot is from your own post including where you quote me.
It reads many, not any.

Okay, I was a bit hasty again none of which is going to change our respective opinions on Murray's worth one little bit (unfortunately in your case).
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Murray straight-setted two Grass ATGs in a final at Wimbledon. @Mainad
It was the same ATG but he is reckoned by many to be the GrassGOAT. He did also straight set another ATG and previous champion en route to the final but naturally the haters on here would never acknowledge that. Now if Hewitt or Roddick had done that they would have been pointing this out right, left and centre.
 

NoleIsBoat

Hall of Fame
Time travel matches

1. Nadal Wim 06 final vs Federer Wim 15 final
2. Nadal Wim 11 final vs Murray Wim 13 final
3. Agassi AO 03 final vs Federer AO 09 final
4. Federer AO 09 final vs Djokovic AO 13 final
5. Djokovic RG 12 final vs Wawrinka RG 15 final
6. Hewitt Wim 02 final vs Federer Wim 19 final
7. Roddick USO 03 final vs Nadal USO 13 final
8. Hewitt USO 01 final vs Djokovic USO 15 final
9. Del Potro RG 09 vs Federer RG 10
1. Federer in 4
2. Nadal in 4
3. Federer in 4
4. Djokovic in 4
5. Djokovic in 5
6. Federer in 4
7. Nadal in 4
8. Djokovic in 3
9. Federer in 5
 

Sunny014

Hall of Fame
Murray’s career > Hewitt + Roddick career combined.

Put Murray in 01-07 fairytale era and he ends up with 10-12 slams if he faces Bagdhatis, Kiefer, Grosjean, Bogdanovic, Philippousis, Gonzo instead of peak big 3 :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: o_Oo_Oo_O
Peak Moorey would be getting straight setted by Fed in every semi they face.

So Baghtatis orKiefer type fellows don't make any difference

To win Slam one needs to beat the Alpha, whether you can beat the Beta or lose to Beta is irrelevant because the Alpha will obliterate you regardless
 

Sunny014

Hall of Fame
Murray in Federer's gen ends up on 0 Slams ..... He is quite lucky to be in Djokovic's gen where free slams are available for Murray and Stanimal


Peak level play in the new millennium

Tier 1 : Federer, Djokovic, Nadal and King Marat Safin.
Tier 2 : Murray, Roddick, Stanimal, Potro
Tier 3 : Hewitt
Tier 4 : Thiem, Medvedev etc etc
 
D

Deleted member 781040

Guest
Murray’s career > Hewitt + Roddick career combined.

Put Murray in 01-07 fairytale era and he ends up with 10-12 slams if he faces Bagdhatis, Kiefer, Grosjean, Bogdanovic, Philippousis, Gonzo instead of peak big 3 :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: o_Oo_Oo_O
Fed must miss the days when he could sweep aside Spadea and Blake on the way to a fun four set hit with his best pals Roddick or Hewitt. He really had a good gig there for a while. Too bad Djokodal had to come along and spoil the Fairytale
:cry:
 
D

Deleted member 781040

Guest
Andy Murray failed to become an ATG because he did not play in the era of Udomchoke where anything was possible
 
D

Deleted member 781040

Guest
Murray’s career > Hewitt + Roddick career combined.

Put Murray in 01-07 fairytale era and he ends up with 10-12 slams if he faces Bagdhatis, Kiefer, Grosjean, Bogdanovic, Philippousis, Gonzo instead of peak big 3 :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: o_Oo_Oo_O
Everything was possible in the Udomchoke era
 

NoleIsBoat

Hall of Fame
I
Peak Moorey would be getting straight setted by Fed in every semi they face.

So Baghtatis orKiefer type fellows don't make any difference

To win Slam one needs to beat the Alpha, whether you can beat the Beta or lose to Beta is irrelevant because the Alpha will obliterate you regardless
In real life matches, Murray was 6-2 up against peak Fed :whistle:

luckily for him he improved his game and turned around his h2hs vs Murray and Nadal.
 

NoleIsBoat

Hall of Fame
Fed must miss the days when he could sweep aside Spadea and Blake on the way to a fun four set hit with his best pals Roddick or Hewitt. He really had a good gig there for a while. Too bad Djokodal had to come along and spoil the Fairytale
:cry:
The tears after AO 09 were because he knew the free ride was finally over :cry:

Then his master burned out with injury and he vultured 3/4 slams... back to cocky arrogant - erer once again... before 40-15 humbled the great one once more:whistle: hard to remain arrogant with so many losses over and over
 
D

Deleted member 781040

Guest
The tears after AO 09 were because he knew the free ride was finally over :cry:

Then his master burned out with injury and he vultured 3/4 slams... back to cocky arrogant - erer once again... before 40-15 humbled the great one once more:whistle: hard to remain arrogant with so many losses over and over
I would probably react the same, if as a Varsity singles champion my competition went from mostly junior varsity singles players to two other guys better than me :cry:
 

Jason Swerve

Professional
The tears after AO 09 were because he knew the free ride was finally over :cry:

Then his master burned out with injury and he vultured 3/4 slams... back to cocky arrogant - erer once again... before 40-15 humbled the great one once more:whistle: hard to remain arrogant with so many losses over and over
Looks good so far. Did you finish the manuscript?
 
Top