killerboss
Professional
How many times he won a tournament while all the big 3 were in?
Quite a few I should imagine in m1000s. Only 1 in slams (Wimbledon 2013). Nadal was missing in USO 2012 and Wimbledon 2016.
How many times he won a tournament while all the big 3 were in?
I agree. His 2012-early 13 and 2016 form was pretty impressive though even peak level wise. It was his 2014-early 16 period which done him in when it came to big matches vs his rivals.There doesn't seem to be much middle ground with Murray. My standard for an ATG is Becker, Edberg and Wilander and I don't think Murray is in that grouping. But if your own definition is something else then that's up to you. On the other hand Murray is certainly a much greater player than say Wawrinka and he's no mug - obviously he's a great player and the 4th best we've seen in the last 15'ish years, which is something to be applauded.
Considering his performance in majors finals though I don't consider him particularly strong competition. A great and consistent player who achieved a lot but wasn't good enough to reach the level of the ATG's.
Perhaps, but you can only play who/where you play. The Big 3 all had a big gap on Murray, but Murray is well ahead of anybody else in the last 15 years, including Stan - and all of these guys enjoyed "homogenization."A lot of these stats where you're comparing him to guys from previous generations are completely bogus, because the changes in the game have made it easier to win matches on all surfaces without having to do a whole lot different than ever before.
I agree. His 2012-early 13 and 2016 form was pretty impressive though even peak level wise. It was his 2014-early 16 period which done him in when it came to big matches vs his rivals.
Grass was good IMO. And the indoor swing good too. Not so much slower HC though. 2012 Murray is probably the best version of Murray peak level wise. Yeah the Big 3 did decline at the point you mentioned but still some impressive form.Can't say his peak peaked in 2016 so to say except on clay, otherwise mury was just really consistent and swept as the Big 3 falrered post-RG. 2012 mury could've been 2-slam champ in 2016, and wtf too of course.
Yes, but my point is that when things are homogenized it slants things in the favour of whoever those conditions favour/whoever are the best, and so the few dominate like we see now.Perhaps, but you can only play who/where you play. The Big 3 all had a big gap on Murray, but Murray is well ahead of anybody else in the last 15 years, including Stan - and all of these guys enjoyed "homogenization."
I get your point, and you defended it very well, but I think there is exaggeration about how much things have been homogenized and how much "inflation" there has been.Yes, but my point is that when things are homogenized it slants things in the favour of whoever those conditions favour/whoever are the best, and so the few dominate like we see now.
Where as before it was borderline impossible to succeed across all surfaces to the same degree with one kind of game, so things like winning percentage and most QF, SF, etc, made is obviously going to be inflated in an era when variety of styles has become less of a requirement.
Note that the majority of guys with 10+ majors played either in this homogenized era (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic) of the last 10/15 years, or in the era when 3 of the 4 majors were on grass (Tilden, Emerson, Laver) there is hardly anyone from the quarter century in between because that's when it's tougher to succeed across all surfaces.
I agree. His 2012-early 13 and 2016 form was pretty impressive though even peak level wise. It was his 2014-early 16 period which done him in when it came to big matches vs his rivals.
Yeah his most consistent years were 2015 and 2016 but in 2012 his level was pretty high in the slams when it mattered.I'd say 2012 was a cut above the rest in terms of peak level, though he did lose a lot of consistency in masters events that year. I think 2013 started off well at the AO (maybe his best level there until mid way through the final) but was otherwise not that great. His Wimbledon level wasn't too high IMO, definitely worse than 2012. His back was already an issue in the clay season IIRC so had to have been giving him trouble at Wimbledon. He was able to gut out a win thanks a pretty weak draw.
Only 1 in slams (Wimbledon 2013)
I get your point, and you defended it very well, but I think there is exaggeration about how much things have been homogenized and how much "inflation" there has been.
Surface changes happened but it didn’t benefit Rafa as much as some people claim. People make out winning post homogezation is easy at times when it isn’t.Agreed. Homogenization is overrated otherwise Nadal wouldn't have won the French 12 freaking times, dominating it far, far beyond anyone ever has any major ever.
Rafa lost in R1, Fed in R2.
A lot of people seem to be misinterpreting this thread. The point of it wasn't an argument for Murray being an all-time great, just that Murray should be respected more than he generally is on this forum because he has several stats that are up there with the all-time greats. I don't think Murray is an ATG. I think he's slightly ahead of Courier if you were to rank tennis players, but being ahead of Courier probably puts you in the top 20 male players in the Open Era.
Yes but I still answered your question correctly.
If we go only by exclusively OE players, he's clearly Top 20, and...no list in front me...about 13 or so.A lot of people seem to be misinterpreting this thread. The point of it wasn't an argument for Murray being an all-time great, just that Murray should be respected more than he generally is on this forum because he has several stats that are up there with the all-time greats. I don't think Murray is an ATG. I think he's slightly ahead of Courier if you were to rank tennis players, but being ahead of Courier probably puts you in the top 20 male players in the Open Era.
If you have to dig up that he has the 9th best streak..... then he is not that good. The end.
And thanks for that, I wasn't trolling, just exchanging thoughts.
Yes I know TROLLING is so popular here.
Yet Mugray couldn't beat 33-34 year old Federer anywhere and struggled to beat him once in majors.I know you weren't and it is indeed unlikely that he would beat all 3 in the same tournament. I think he would have had a small chance of beating Djokovic and Federer though, with the evidence that he already done it in the Olympics.
I think it's just cause he's been out of the limelight for a while. He's def an ATG as these numbers show. I really want him back, at least in the top 20, as he's my fav player.Why the negative comments About Murray? I dont get it
Yet Mugray couldn't beat 33-34 year old Federer anywhere and struggled to beat him once in majors.
Based on Queens 1999 & 2000 Hewitt would have crapped on Sampras anywhere with the same logic you use.
Murray beat Federer in 2013, genius.Did say it was a small chance. And Murray did, in fact, beat Federer in a major the same year coincidentally As for Hewitt and Pete - Hewitt only got to Wimbledon semis and beyond twice in his career. Just getting to Pete would be as hard of a struggle as beating him.
Massively overrated considering his record in majors against Federer.Murray was a class player and it’s a shame his career is going to be judged by his slam count and not how good he actually was. Massively underrated.
Murray is underrated because he had the terrible luck of being contemporary of the Big Three.I'm not even a big Murray fan, but I just noticed this collection of stats.
Murray has the 8th highest winning percentage (77.5%) in the Open Era, better than Sampras, Becker, Agassi, Edberg, and Wilander.
Murray has the 9th highest winning percentage (55.2%) against top 10 players in the Open Era, better than Agassi, Wilander, Edberg.
Murray has the 4th highest winning percentage (83.6%) on grass, higher than Borg, Sampras, Laver, Connors, and Becker.
Murray has the 9th best winning percentage on hard court in the Open Era, better than Nadal’s.
Murray has 2 Olympic gold medals, beating Djokovic then Federer in 2012 and del Potro in 2016.
Andy Murray has played 856 tennis matches in his career. 85 of them were played against Federer (25), Nadal (24), and Djokovic (36), arguably the three best players ever to play the game. This means that 10% of his career has been spent playing against Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. Murray is a combined 29-56 against them (34%). Until 2014, Murray had a winning head-to-head against Federer and was 6-4 against peak Federer in 2005-2009.
Other than the Big 3, no one who’s played Murray more than 5 times has a winning head-to-head against him. Murray’s two other biggest rivals in terms of number of matches played are Ferrer and Wawrinka. Murray is 14-6 against Ferrer and 11-8 against Wawrinka.
Murray has reached 11 Grand Slam major finals, the same number that McEnroe, Edberg, and Wilander did. Murray played Federer or Djokovic in 10 of these, losing to Federer 3 times and to Djokovic 5 times. In the 3 that Murray won, he beat Djokovic at the U.S. Open and Wimbledon and beat Raonic at Wimbledon.
Murray has reached more major semis than McEnroe, Edberg, and Wilander.
Murray has reached more major quarterfinals than Pete Sampras.
Murray has won the 8th highest number of matches in the Open Era.
Murray has won the same number of matches at the Australian Open that Lendl and Agassi had and more than Sampras did.
Murray has won more matches at Wimbledon than Nadal and Edberg.
Murray has the 8th highest winning percentage (85%) at Wimbledon in the Open Era, higher than McEnroe and Connors.
Murray has 10th highest winning percentage (80%) at the French Open in the Open Era, higher than champions like Agassi, Bruguera, Chang, Ferrero, Kafelnikov, Moya, Muster, and Wawrinka.
Murray is one of only 7 men in the Open Era to reach all 4 major semis in the same year.
Which one of these facts is the most surprising to you?
How many times was Lleyton stopped by Federer in the R16 or the QF?
Yep, which just makes it more unlikely that he would beat Sampras at Wimbledon. If his ranking was higher he would have avoided Federer or Sampras until way after that. There is also a difference in my opinion of being incapable of beating someone and it not happening. Roddick, for example, was capable of beating Federer at Wimbledon on a good day (just my opinion) and it nearly did happen(2009). I just don't see Hewitt as being capable of doing it unless the stars just completely align for him. He's got far less chance of beating a player of Sampras or Federer's caliber at Wimbledon than Murray does.
A lot of Murray's critics would have laughed at and immediately dismissed the idea of him beating Federer in a best of 5 final on grass. Yet it happened. This goes back to my point earlier about his critics ignoring or dismissing some of his big wins.
It happened because he was done for like 2 years after Wimbledon 2012.Yep, which just makes it more unlikely that he would beat Sampras at Wimbledon. If his ranking was higher he would have avoided Federer or Sampras until way after that. There is also a difference in my opinion of being incapable of beating someone and it not happening. Roddick, for example, was capable of beating Federer at Wimbledon on a good day (just my opinion) and it nearly did happen(2009). I just don't see Hewitt as being capable of doing it unless the stars just completely align for him. He's got far less chance of beating a player of Sampras or Federer's caliber at Wimbledon than Murray does.
A lot of Murray's critics would have laughed at and immediately dismissed the idea of him beating Federer in a best of 5 final on grass. Yet it happened. This goes back to my point earlier about his critics ignoring or dismissing some of his big wins.
Courier has an extra slam and more weeks at No. 1.If we go only by exclusively OE players, he's clearly Top 20, and...no list in front me...about 13 or so.
Fed, Rafa, Djokovic, Sampras, Borg
Lendl, Connors, Mac, Agassi, Becker
Edberg, Wilander, Murray
...would probably be my list.
If we count just OE Laver, Andy slides to 14. I'm not sure if Newcombe or Rosewall did as much, just in the OE..would have to look.
While indefinite terms, I would call him great, but not quite an ATG.
It happened because he was done for like 2 years after Wimbledon 2012.
Considering Roddick and Federer's H2H I find it far more unlikely actually. I'd give Roddick a good to great chance against some versions of Nole and Rafa at Wimbledon but Federer was completely in his head.
Hewitt had more success against Federer at some duration during their rivalry, and gave him a good go at the US Open one year.
Hewitt has a LEADING H2H against Sampras on grass. How does that show he's incapable? He nearly beat him in his 'wonderful peak' 1999 grass season as an 18 year old kid lmfao.
True, but I think everything else pretty much is in Murray's favor - and sometimes by large margins, including slam finals, M1000s, "big titles", with or without Olympics, winning percentage, etc. I'd take Andy's career over Jim's. Anyway, this was how I would rank him among OE players.Courier has an extra slam and more weeks at No. 1.
i think they're talking about andy, not billWhy the negative comments About Murray? I dont get it
Murray is the Olympic tennis male GOAT, though.I don't know why this came up but he really was a solid player and looking back I think I was validated in believing that he could win multiple slams, he's a gifted player with excellent feel, when he was young he had such variety in his game which he neutered in his quest to win slams which made him more predictable to the Big 3. 2008-2013 for me was Murray's peak 5 years, 2015-2017 was a more consistent Murray with a lower ceiling, Wawrinka had a higher ceiling but was less consistent (Stan as a comparison).
He is one of the best ever Counter Puncher's in Men's tennis but that style against players as good as Djokovic, Nadal and Federer won't ultimately get the job done as they had the tools to dissect Murray's game and at times negative mental approach. Murray would have not gotten the better of Sampras in my opinion but he would have won 3-5 slams between the 1990s and vacuum era between 2000-2003, he would have had a spell at Number 1 also.
Is Murray an all time great? No, not for me, he is an all time good and he will be in the Tennis hall of fame and his career will be looked at more fondly as time goes by given he played in an era where 3 of the best ever played at the same time.
If Murray is seen as an all time great then Courier is an all time great and so is Kuerten but nobody really mentions Courier and Kuerten as having seats at the ATG table do they?
I'm not even a big Murray fan, but I just noticed this collection of stats.
Murray has the 8th highest winning percentage (77.5%) in the Open Era, better than Sampras, Becker, Agassi, Edberg, and Wilander.
Murray has the 9th highest winning percentage (55.2%) against top 10 players in the Open Era, better than Agassi, Wilander, Edberg.
Murray has the 4th highest winning percentage (83.6%) on grass, higher than Borg, Sampras, Laver, Connors, and Becker.
Murray has the 9th best winning percentage on hard court in the Open Era, better than Nadal’s.
Murray has 2 Olympic gold medals, beating Djokovic then Federer in 2012 and del Potro in 2016.
Andy Murray has played 856 tennis matches in his career. 85 of them were played against Federer (25), Nadal (24), and Djokovic (36), arguably the three best players ever to play the game. This means that 10% of his career has been spent playing against Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. Murray is a combined 29-56 against them (34%). Until 2014, Murray had a winning head-to-head against Federer and was 6-4 against peak Federer in 2005-2009.
Other than the Big 3, no one who’s played Murray more than 5 times has a winning head-to-head against him. Murray’s two other biggest rivals in terms of number of matches played are Ferrer and Wawrinka. Murray is 14-6 against Ferrer and 11-8 against Wawrinka.
Murray has reached 11 Grand Slam major finals, the same number that McEnroe, Edberg, and Wilander did. Murray played Federer or Djokovic in 10 of these, losing to Federer 3 times and to Djokovic 5 times. In the 3 that Murray won, he beat Djokovic at the U.S. Open and Wimbledon and beat Raonic at Wimbledon.
Murray has reached more major semis than McEnroe, Edberg, and Wilander.
Murray has reached more major quarterfinals than Pete Sampras.
Murray has won the 8th highest number of matches in the Open Era.
Murray has won the same number of matches at the Australian Open that Lendl and Agassi had and more than Sampras did.
Murray has won more matches at Wimbledon than Nadal and Edberg.
Murray has the 8th highest winning percentage (85%) at Wimbledon in the Open Era, higher than McEnroe and Connors.
Murray has 10th highest winning percentage (80%) at the French Open in the Open Era, higher than champions like Agassi, Bruguera, Chang, Ferrero, Kafelnikov, Moya, Muster, and Wawrinka.
Murray is one of only 7 men in the Open Era to reach all 4 major semis in the same year.
Which one of these facts is the most surprising to you?
28 out of Becker's 49 titles won had best of 5 finals
Only 5 out of Murray's 46 titles won had best of 5 finals
Do you think Murray's 46 titles are anywhere comparable to Becker's 49 ?
Murray just isn't good enough, otherwise he would not be on 3 slams today, quite a mediocre number, he is no ATG, never was, never will be.