Why Andy Murray is underrated

ForumMember

Hall of Fame
Somehow his record against big 3 kept getting worse with age. Young Murray had two handsome wins against Rafa in GS - 08 USO SF and 10 AO SF. Can't imagine Murray doing that in last 4-5 years. Murray had a winning h2h against Federer one point of time.. some 5-6 years ago. However in last 5-6 years he has just been a pigeon to Federer... I am not sure about Djoko but I have an impression that he used to be more competitive against him to.

Though I like him as a player lot and would be next fav in big 4 afre Rafa but unfortunately he could not take it to the levels of Big 4. It is saddening to know that he would certainly end career with as many or less GS than Wawrinka.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
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.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
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.
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.
 

RaulRamirez

Legend
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.
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."
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
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.

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.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
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.
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.
 

RaulRamirez

Legend
Most surprising stat? That his winning percentage on grass was higher than so many, including Pete and Bjorn.

On TTW, terms like ATG are thrown around without any clear definition. I'd tend to place the line after Agassi - which would include McEnroe, and all above them. No, I wouldn't place Andy there, and he may be a notch below that next group of Becker/Edberg/Wilander, though his all-around accomplishments are close to Wilander's....I know: even with 3 majors to 7.

Is Murray "great"? There's no clear definition, but I'd say yes, and I'd hesitate calling Stan great (even if I'd rather watch Stan's A game).

In the last 15 years, all but three players would probably trade their careers for Andy's. I think he's underrated in that sense. There's a reason that he was included in a Big 4...though there's also a reason, perhaps more compelling, that there is a Big 3.
 

ibbi

G.O.A.T.
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."
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.
 

RaulRamirez

Legend
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 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.

While there aren't as many grass or clay "specialists" as before, there are still many players who are stronger on hard court, or on clay than on the other surfaces. Murray, himself, was becoming even better on clay the last couple years through 2016, and he was one of (not that many) who really knew his way around grass.

I'll meet you halfway. "Homogenization" has reduced the number of one-surface 'specialists', though they still exist. But as for "inflation", I tend to think that each of The Big 3 are simply that great, and that motivated.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
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.

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.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
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.
Yeah his most consistent years were 2015 and 2016 but in 2012 his level was pretty high in the slams when it mattered.
Yeah I cut out after Miami 13 for Murray because his level fell.
Yeah Djokovic wasn’t good in 2013 final at Wimbledon but I did feel Murray play well but he was also great the year before unlucky to face Federer who was zoning in those last 3 sets (especially the last 2 which he was operating at his 2003-07 grass level).
 

killerboss

Professional
Has his share of big wins against top players, which seems to be something a lot of his critics ignore or just dismiss. I think He should have won at least one of his AO finals (what is he like 0-6 slam final conversion rate?) And then the FO final performance was pretty bad. He did well in the 1st set, then his game just went away completely.
 

zvelf

Hall of Fame
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.

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.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
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.
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.
 

zvelf

Hall of Fame
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.
 

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
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.

lol, you ask for respect from people who will happily call: mug, journeyman, clown, pigeon, lostgen, etc. folks that made it to the very top of a very difficult sport.
I wonder what are the achievements of these keyboard warriors, but I guess I know the answer :)

p.s. wouldn't be surprised if enough of these folks could barely hit the ball by themselves, or that some of them never held a tennis racket in their hands
 

RaulRamirez

Legend
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 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.
 

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
If you have to dig up that he has the 9th best streak..... then he is not that good. The end.

lol, of course, there were only 8 better streaks.

what a loser.
got to position #1 in ranking
won a bunch of big titles
made Mio $ in prize money and probably more in endorsements.

I'm sure that every keyboard warrior here makes more money and could easily achieve more on the court, had they decided to switch the keyboard for a tennis racket.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
Clearly a great player and better than his 3 Slams show. It was a done deal at the first stat which says he has a better career win percentage than 5 ATGs which is pretty astounding.
 

killerboss

Professional
And thanks for that, I wasn't trolling, just exchanging thoughts.

Yes I know TROLLING is so popular here.

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.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
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.
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.
 

killerboss

Professional
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.


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.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
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.
Murray beat Federer in 2013, genius.

How many times was Lleyton stopped by Federer in the R16 or the QF?

Murray was incapable of beating mid 30s Federer anywhere.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
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.
Massively overrated considering his record in majors against Federer.

Also the fact he beat a slew of mugs in 2013 (bar a choking Djokovic) and 2016.
 

Sudacafan

Bionic Poster
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?
Murray is underrated because he had the terrible luck of being contemporary of the Big Three.
Murray could have won lots of slams in the 90's, as Sampras/Agassi did not monopolize slams.
 

killerboss

Professional
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.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
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.

Some of them seem to be plainly ignorant of the facts of his career. It's like they have so much disrespect for him they cannot even be bothered to find out what he actually did. Quite amazing and extremely irritating and still going on 8 years after I first joined the forum to defend his record against similar irrational attacks.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
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.

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.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
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.
Courier has an extra slam and more weeks at No. 1.
 

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
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.

everything is possible when you discuss something on internet...
 

RaulRamirez

Legend
Courier has an extra slam and more weeks at No. 1.
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.
 

Zardoz7/12

Hall of Fame
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?
 

DSH

Talk Tennis Guru
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?
Murray is the Olympic tennis male GOAT, though.
:cool:
 

Razer

Legend
Murray is
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?

Murray's % are worthless, this is his actual worth ..... 23rd position in the open era as he lags in big %, big wins, everything..... he is not even better than Safin.

Number of Best of 5 Sets Finals Won in the open era in Big Title Wins

343819236_1312628015985734_3735544467665405077_n.jpg
 

Razer

Legend
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.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
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.

Lol at you trying to blame Murray for not winning more Bo5 finals when he played in an era when Bo5 finals were strictly limited. The fact that he won any at all, including two consecutive Olympic finals, proves he was capable of winning them. Not his fault that Masters finals had already been downgraded to Bo3 when he started winning them. Incidentally he also won a Davis Cup final in Bo5 so his tally should actually be 6! He won Bo5 finals in ALL categories of events that still had them!!

Silly him for playing in the wrong era!!! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Top