Why Andy Murray is underrated

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
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.

Or actually players have become better and actually put an effort in being relevant accross the whole calendar?
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 791948

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.
The Slams didn't rate Murray.
Murray rated himself by constantly losing at the Slams due his lack of tennis skill.
Apart from Kyrgios, has there ever been an uglier guy than Murray on the tennis tour?
At least he's a winner in that regard.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
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:

Yes we can blame Murray for being bad in best of 5, murray even has a losing h2h to wawrinka in best of 5, do you know that ?


Win% for Murray in his BO3 Finals = 70%
Win% for Becker in his BO3 Finals = 70%
Win% for Djokovic in his BO3 Finals = 70%

Win% for Murray in BO5 Finals = 38%
Win% for Becker in BO5 Finals = 59.57%
Win% for Djokovic in BO5 Finaks = 67.65%

Win% for Murray in Big Titles BO5 Finals = 38%
Win% for Becker in Big Tiles BO5 Finals = 54%
Win% for Djokovic in Big Titles BO5 Finaks = 67.65%

Murray played in a homogeneous era where it is easier to reach QF/SF than in previous eras, but no sooner did he reach there, he got exposed, especially in best of 5. I have nothing against Murray, he is a great player but he still far behind Boris Becker as a Tennis Player, the gap is massive.
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
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.

yep, vs the field, Murray has benefitted in terms of consistency due to homogenization.
You can talk about him having to face the Big 3 as a disadvantage (true), but no way he makes as many GS semis in a non-homogenized era as he actually has.
 

thrust

Legend
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, Courier and Kuerten were Great Players, if not quite ATG players. Murray's 3 slams, over 40 titles, 2 OG, 1 YE at #1 and 1 WTF title, puts him very close to being an ATG player. The same is true with Courier and probably to a lesser degree, Kuerten.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
He’s the most overrated player ever.
3 shams and less than a year at No.1 and he’s rated higher than Edberg and Becker because ‘big 3’.
Whoever rates him higher than Edberg and Becker is already a complete ignoramus. It gets worse though, I read threads here where he was compared to Agassi, and some very bold fangirls even already made attempts putting him in the league of Borg.
 
Last edited:

Mainad

Bionic Poster
He’s the most overrated player ever.
3 shams and less than a year at No.1 and he’s rated higher than Edberg and Becker because ‘big 3’.

The only sham on here is you. Go and play marbles or something which you might make more intelligent comments about (although I wouldn't hold my breath).
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Yes we can blame Murray for being bad in best of 5, murray even has a losing h2h to wawrinka in best of 5, do you know that ?


Win% for Murray in his BO3 Finals = 70%
Win% for Becker in his BO3 Finals = 70%
Win% for Djokovic in his BO3 Finals = 70%

Win% for Murray in BO5 Finals = 38%
Win% for Becker in BO5 Finals = 59.57%
Win% for Djokovic in BO5 Finaks = 67.65%

Win% for Murray in Big Titles BO5 Finals = 38%
Win% for Becker in Big Tiles BO5 Finals = 54%
Win% for Djokovic in Big Titles BO5 Finaks = 67.65%

Murray played in a homogeneous era where it is easier to reach QF/SF than in previous eras, but no sooner did he reach there, he got exposed, especially in best of 5. I have nothing against Murray, he is a great player but he still far behind Boris Becker as a Tennis Player, the gap is massive
Of course his Bo5 stats are skewed against him because of his many lost Slam finals. Otherwise he won Bo5 finals in everything else that was available to him, outside the Slams he didn't lose a single one I think. Had the finals of the WTF and the Masters series continued to be played as Bo5 (as they should have been) I firmly believe his Bo5 % would have increased dramatically.

You can't keep holding his era against him. I agree Becker is the better player, he won twice as many Slams of course, but the gap is not at all massive. For example Becker never won a clay title and only held the #1 position for over 3 times as fewer weeks.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Of course his Bo5 stats are skewed against him because of his many lost Slam finals. Otherwise he won Bo5 finals in everything else that was available to him, outside the Slams he didn't lose a single one I think.

You can't keep holding his era against him. I agree Becker is the better player, he won twice as many Slams of course, but the gap is not at all massive. Becker never won a clay title and only held the #1 position for over 3 times as fewer weeks.

Becker's era and his style of play was not too kind on him for clay.
Anyway, I think versatility is overrated. IF someone is too great on 1 surface to rake up plenty of titles then so be it, like Muster or Nadal, they have huge wins on 1 surface, nobody should complain.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
Becker's era and his style of play was not too kind on him for clay.
Anyway, I think versatility is overrated. IF someone is too great on 1 surface to rake up plenty of titles then so be it, like Muster or Nadal, they have huge wins on 1 surface, nobody should complain.
Exactly. Sure versatility is important, but saying that versatility is a MUST in the sense of pretending like more FO titles will not further enhance Nadal’s legacy at all and that he needs more wins outside clay (which some of our resident fanboys claim) is ridiculous. Nadal has dominated one Surface like nobody before or after and this must count for something. Versatility can serve as a tie-breaker if two guys are equal in slams and other metrics, but will not outweigh a difference in slams of >1.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Exactly. Sure versatility is important, but saying that versatility is a MUST in the sense of pretending like more FO titles will not further enhance Nadal’s legacy at all and that he needs more wins outside clay (which some of our resident fanboys claim) is ridiculous. Nadal has dominated one Surface like nobody before or after and this must count for something. Versatility can serve as a tie-breaker if two guys are equal in slams and other metrics, but will not outweigh a difference in slams of >1.

True. If Nadal gets a slam lead over Djokovic most people will not worry about versatility as long that 1 slam lead exists. Roger despite his versatility is behind by 2 slams and this means his versatility was not of much use, dominating 1 slam in a weird way has its own charm too, thats where slam count determines who is what. 1 lead is enough if he can get and sustain it.
 

Hood_Man

G.O.A.T.
I'll always wonder what Murray's career would have looked like had he won that Wimbledon semi final against Roddick.

He was in great form in the first half of that year; wins against Nadal, Djokovic and Federer, overtook Djokovic in the rankings, won the trophy at Queens Club, grinded out a gutsy 5 set win against Wawrinka at Wimbledon, and then suddenly he plays Roddick in the semis and something about him just seemed off that day.

It's a big IF sure but if he'd won Wimbledon that year he would have been the world number 1 at age 22, and who knows? Maybe he would have had some belief in himself from that point on instead of just being the plucky underdog to the big 3 fair the next few years?

3 majors trophies and a stint at number 1 is more than most players dream of sure, but I'll always wonder "What if?" when it comes to his summer of 2009.
 

SonnyT

Legend
Murray vs Federer: pre-'09 IW 6-2, post-'09 IW 5-12

Just like I said, Federer was better in 10's than 00's. Because of better competition, in the form mainly Djokovic, Nadal, Murray and Wawringka.
 

a10best

Legend
Imagine if Murray had Roddick or Tsonga's serve or even Fritz or Shelton's. I say it turns that 3-8 slam finals record completely around and those guys having 22 to around 16-ish.
He probably wouldn't be as injured running less from free service points. There's several women serving with more speed than him.
 

mtommer

Hall of Fame
I suspect the main, if not only, reason why Murray doesn't have more Slam titles, is that of the big 4 so to speak, I believe he is the one least likely to be a doper.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
I'll always wonder what Murray's career would have looked like had he won that Wimbledon semi final against Roddick.

He was in great form in the first half of that year; wins against Nadal, Djokovic and Federer, overtook Djokovic in the rankings, won the trophy at Queens Club, grinded out a gutsy 5 set win against Wawrinka at Wimbledon, and then suddenly he plays Roddick in the semis and something about him just seemed off that day.

It's a big IF sure but if he'd won Wimbledon that year he would have been the world number 1 at age 22, and who knows? Maybe he would have had some belief in himself from that point on instead of just being the plucky underdog to the big 3 fair the next few years?

3 majors trophies and a stint at number 1 is more than most players dream of sure, but I'll always wonder "What if?" when it comes to his summer of 2009.

nothing was off about Murray in Wim 2009 semi from what I saw. Roddick just outplayed him.
 

duaneeo

Legend
Murray has a losing record to Djokovic, Nadal, and Wawrinka at the slams. He was an early thorn to Federer in B03 but it didn't translate to the slams. He's 0-5 vs Fedal at Wimbledon. He has a losing record to Wawrinka at both the US Open and Roland Garros. He made only one USO final during the 2010s.

At the WTF, his lone 2016 title is his lone YEC final...very poor for a player with such a great indoor hard record.

I don't think Murray is underrated.
 

AgassiSuperSlam11

Hall of Fame
What is underrated about Murray is his Grass success outside of WImbledon. Murray was 7-0 in DC matches in Grass and won a Gold Medal in the Olympics in Grass. Moreover, he won Queens Club 5x in a different grass played in Wimbledon. Wimbledon changed to 100% to Perennial Ryegrass while Queens club used 50% Rye, 45% Creeping Fescue (mixture includes Red Fescue and likely some Tall Fescue) and 5% Bent Grass. Only Federer and his success in Halle was able to win multiple titles outside of the slower grass among the "big 4." In fairness, Nadal did win in Queens once and Djokovic did get one Grass at a 250 (Eastbourne) that was in a different grass played in Wimbledon.

Murray was 43-4 in International Representation (Olympics/Davis Cup) which resulted in 2 singles Gold Medals and I think he won an additional Silver Medal in either Doubles or Mixed Doubles.

Murray also won 15 Indoor titles and HC titles in various court pace index speeds. He defeated both Nadal and Djokovic in Clay finals. I think he needed 2-3 more big wins to get close to ATG status. However, with all things considered labeling Murray a "Homogenization" beneficiary is not fair to Murray's career.
 
Last edited:

socallefty

G.O.A.T.
I always thought Murray is over-rated on TTW especially by his UK diehard fans. He is the fourth best player of a long era with homogenization of surfaces and periods that are considered unusually weak by the majority on this forum. He favored a defensive style of play for most of his career that was effective, but not entertaining. He has also been a non-entity for the last third of his career after his hip injury and he was not elite in the first third of his career - in fact he was the fourth best player of his era only for about seven years.

Does the fourth best player of any previous era in tennis who was good for about 7 years total get as much respect as he does?
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
I always thought Murray is over-rated on TTW especially by his UK diehard fans. He is the fourth best player of a long era with homogenization of surfaces and periods that are considered unusually weak by the majority on this forum. He favored a defensive style of play for most of his career that was effective, but not entertaining. He has also been a non-entity for the second half of his career after his hip injury. Does the fourth best player of any previous era in tennis get as much respect as he does?

The 4th best player of any other era did not have to deal with the 3 best players of all time all playing at the same time and all playing on the same homogenised surfaces so if he doesn't deserve any respect, why should they? Your attitude towards him merely shows how strangely prejudiced so many on here are against him because if any other player had been the 4th best player of his era I'm sure they wouldn't attract the same amount of disrespect that he does on here!
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
What is underrated about Murray is his Grass success outside of WImbledon. Murray was 7-0 in DC matches in Grass and won a Gold Medal in the Olympics in Grass. Moreover, he won Queens Club 5x in a different grass played in Wimbledon. Wimbledon changed to 100% to Perennial Ryegrass while Queens club used 50% Rye, 45% Creeping Fescue (mixture includes Red Fescue and likely some Tall Fescue) and 5% Bent Grass. Only Federer and his success in Halle was able to win multiple titles outside of the slower grass among the "big 4." In fairness, Nadal did win in Queens once and Djokovic did get one Grass at a 250 (Eastbourne) that was in a different grass played in Wimbledon.

Murray was 43-4 in International Representation (Olympics/Davis Cup) which resulted in 2 singles Gold Medals and I think he won an additional Silver Medal in either Doubles or Mixed Doubles.

Murray also won 15 Indoor titles and HC titles in various court pace index speeds. He defeated both Nadal and Djokovic in Clay finals. I think he needed 2-3 more big wins to get close to ATG status. However, with all things considered labeling Murray a "Homogenization" beneficiary is not fair to Murray's career.

He and Laura Robson won a silver medal in mixed doubles at the 2012 Olympics along with his individual gold.
 

LaVie en Rose

Hall of Fame
I always thought Murray is over-rated on TTW especially by his UK diehard fans. He is the fourth best player of a long era with homogenization of surfaces and periods that are considered unusually weak by the majority on this forum. He favored a defensive style of play for most of his career that was effective, but not entertaining. He has also been a non-entity for the last third of his career after his hip injury and he was not elite in the first third of his career - in fact he was the fourth best player of his era only for about seven years.

Does the fourth best player of any previous era in tennis who was good for about 7 years total get as much respect as he does?
Watch out, TimHenmanATG is raging somewhere and is coming for you. Just when he settled with the rest of british excellence you're joking about die hard UK fans

Emulating (at least I'm hoping) fedfan favorite sh*tick:-D Those posters are able to enjoy the game only when RF was winning. The rest of the time yapping about homogenisation , weak era ,RF ancient age , "luck" of certain player whose one of the best winners ever hit, that bullet of a FH return called "lucky junior shot" by loser. :-D Tears flooding over tennis discussion platforms. Entitlement&brattiness over the hill

No ,not just in tennis, but in any sport. It was good while it lasted . Sport moved on
Murray overexerted his body at age 29 in order to become No.1 . I guess he doesn't regret
 

AgassiSuperSlam11

Hall of Fame
When I wrote my last post I was thinking about Earnie Shavers. Which I know will upset people of throwing the boxing angle (sorry TTW). That is the sport from both a professional journalistic/promotional level and paternal lineage that I am most connected with. Earnie Shavers fought at a time when there was Muhammad Ali (a fighter he deserved no less than a draw when he fought), Larry Holmes, George Foreman, and Joe Frazier. If you put Shavers maybe 10-12 years later he would've been a HW champion especially when there was the alphabet soup of champions between the WBC, WBA, and IBF until Mike Tyson became the undisputed champion. Murray played in a time where 3 guys took 64 slams between them. (unprecedented). No other ATP player won more than 3 (Wawrinka also tied with 3).

Murray won in "fast grass" and indoor tournaments (including 1 title in carpet) does this mean if he played 30 years ago he can't win indoor carpet and Fescue Grass? Did Djokovic and Nadal benefit from modern racquet technology and homogenous courts? Djokovic was 1-3 in Grass Finals outside of Wimbledon and Nadal won Queens only once and won Stuttgart which is essentially the same composition as Wimbledon. Jimmy Connors who won 4 Grass slams might win more than 2 Wimbledon in modern grass. Ivan Lendl who was 0-3 in Grass finals (includes 1 AO) likely becomes a Calendar Grand Slam Champion playing today.

I agree with the poster who said he was the fourth best of his generation. What is the fourth best of their generation between 1984-2003 before Federer took over? Sampras, Lendl, and Agassi likely were considered the most accomplished as Connors and Mcenroe only got 2 slams in that time frame. The fourth best are players like Becker, Edberg and Wilander who all in the mix. All of whom are considered ATG.

Murray was able to win 2 Gold Medals after going through Olympic Style Drug testing. I'm not accusing anyone of doping but still that something that is interesting. Use the search forum tool and see my previous posts on the topics regarding blood passports, random testing, WADA etc.

Is Murray an ATG? No, as I said he needed 2-3 more big wins to reach that status. He still won over 700 matches and his among the highest winning percentages of the ATP era. Obviously, he is going to the Hall of Fame in Newport, RI. The guy made the finals in all 4 slams, Olympics, and YEC which is something that many who are considered ATG didn't accomplish. At minimum, he is much more than a "mug" which some posters have suggested.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
When I wrote my last post I was thinking about Earnie Shavers. Which I know will upset people of throwing the boxing angle (sorry TTW). That is the sport from both a professional journalistic/promotional level and paternal lineage that I am most connected with. Earnie Shavers fought at a time when there was Muhammad Ali (a fighter he deserved no less than a draw when he fought), Larry Holmes, George Foreman, and Joe Frazier. If you put Shavers maybe 10-12 years later he would've been a HW champion especially when there was the alphabet soup of champions between the WBC, WBA, and IBF until Mike Tyson became the undisputed champion. Murray played in a time where 3 guys took 64 slams between them. (unprecedented). No other ATP player won more than 3 (Wawrinka also tied with 3).

Murray won in "fast grass" and indoor tournaments (including 1 title in carpet) does this mean if he played 30 years ago he can't win indoor carpet and Fescue Grass? Did Djokovic and Nadal benefit from modern racquet technology and hominization? Djokovic was 1-3 in Grass Finals outside of Wimbledon and Nadal won Queens only once and won Stuttgart which is essentially the same composition as Wimbledon. Jimmy Connors who won 4 Grass slams might win more than 2 Wimbledon in modern grass. Ivan Lendl who was 0-3 in Grass finals (includes 1 AO) likely becomes a Calendar Grand Slam Champion playing today.

I agree with the poster who said he was the fourth best of his generation. What is the fourth best of their generation between 1984-2003 before Federer took over? Sampras, Lendl, and Agassi likely were considered the most accomplished as Connors and Mcenroe only got 2 slams in that time frame. The fourth best are players like Becker, Edberg and Wilander who all in the mix. All of whom are considered ATG.

Murray was able to win 2 Gold Medals after going through Olympic Style Drug testing. I'm not accusing anyone of doping but still that something that is interesting. Use the search forum tool and see my previous posts on the topics regarding blood passports, random testing, WADA etc.

Is Murray an ATG? No, as I said he needed 2-3 more big wins to reach that status. He still won over 700 matches and his among the highest winning percentages of the ATP era. Obviously, he is going to the Hall of Fame in Newport, RI. The guy made the finals in all 4 slams, Olympics, and YEC which is something that many who are considered ATG didn't accomplish. At minimum, he is much more than a "mug" which some posters have suggested.
You are tempting me to make this other cross sports thread.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
If you read the autobiographies of Rod Laver, Andre Agassi, and Billie Jean King all 3 compare Tennis to Boxing which will definitely aggravate some posters. Both sports have differences and similarities.
Love both sports almost equally in a different way so not complaining.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
If you read the autobiographies of Rod Laver, Andre Agassi, and Billie Jean King all 3 compare Tennis to Boxing which will definitely aggravate some posters. Both sports have differences and similarities.
In Agassi’s case though that is mostly quotes from his father who was an Olympic level boxer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS

AgassiSuperSlam11

Hall of Fame
In Agassi’s case though that is mostly quotes from his father who was an Olympic level boxer.
Pretty sure there are comments directly from Agassi besides the fact that his dad competed for the Iranian Olympic team. I haven't read the book in a while but if you can share direct quotes and page numbers, I'll look them up.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Exactly. Sure versatility is important, but saying that versatility is a MUST in the sense of pretending like more FO titles will not further enhance Nadal’s legacy at all and that he needs more wins outside clay (which some of our resident fanboys claim) is ridiculous. Nadal has dominated one Surface like nobody before or after and this must count for something. Versatility can serve as a tie-breaker if two guys are equal in slams and other metrics, but will not outweigh a difference in slams of >1.
I just disagree with the idea that versatility can't be a legitimate argument. Nadal dominating clay shows he is the clay GOAT, which he is. But he's definitely had major trouble winning slams on the other surfaces overall. He's only won 4 non-clay slams since 2010 when he was 24. As many as Fed since then when Fed was 29.

The GOAT of tennis in my eyes shouldn't struggle this much to win slams on 2/3 surfaces, but that doesn't mean I don't believe Nadal can be the GOAT now. As long as he finished with more slams, he will be the GOAT since even in this case versatility won't help Djokovic if it couldn't get him more slams.

But I do think Fed did have a chance vs Nadal in the GOAT debate when both were at 20 because of the former's superior versatility.
 
Last edited:

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I'll always wonder what Murray's career would have looked like had he won that Wimbledon semi final against Roddick.

He was in great form in the first half of that year; wins against Nadal, Djokovic and Federer, overtook Djokovic in the rankings, won the trophy at Queens Club, grinded out a gutsy 5 set win against Wawrinka at Wimbledon, and then suddenly he plays Roddick in the semis and something about him just seemed off that day.

It's a big IF sure but if he'd won Wimbledon that year he would have been the world number 1 at age 22, and who knows? Maybe he would have had some belief in himself from that point on instead of just being the plucky underdog to the big 3 fair the next few years?

3 majors trophies and a stint at number 1 is more than most players dream of sure, but I'll always wonder "What if?" when it comes to his summer of 2009.
Not much to wonder. Fed would've beaten him in 3 or 4 sets. Roddick was way tougher.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
Pretty sure there are comments directly from Agassi besides the fact that his dad competed for the Iranian Olympic team. I haven't read the book in a while but if you can share direct quotes and page numbers, I'll look them up.
Well off the top of my head: boxing related, apart from talking about his father’s boxing career (which was quite unimpressive, losing in the first round at both Olympics he participated in and chickened out of a big fight in Madison square garden), he mentions that his father tells him some analogy between boxing and tennis, that as a boxer he always waited for his opponents best punch, to show him that he can take it and destroy him mentally, which he translated to tennis in the sense that Andre should attack his opponents strengths. If his opponent was proud of his forehand he should attack it, if his opponent had a good serve he should break it. Andre writes that this was the reason he became a counterpuncher with a great return (this one is maybe coming from Andre himself). Other than that the only other boxing related stuff I remember is when Peter Graf claims to be able to knock out Mike Agassi and the two of them are about to start a boxing match the first (and only) time they met.

Page number I would need to look it up, but I am not sure whether I still have the book. Only had it in German anyways so not sure whether page numbers would coincide.
 
Last edited:

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
I just disagree with the idea that versatility can't be a legitimate argument. Nadal dominating clay shows he is the clay GOAT, which he is. But he's definitely had major trouble winning slams on the other surfaces overall. He's only won 4 non-clay slams since 2010 when he was 24. As many as Fed since then when Fed was 29.

The GOAT of tennis in my eyes should struggle this much to win slams on 2/3 surfaces, but that doesn't mean I don't believe Nadal can be the GOAT now. As long as he finished with more slams, he will be the GOAT since even in this case versatility won't help Djokovic if it couldn't get him more slams.

But I do think Fed did have a chance vs Nadal in the GOAT debate when both were at 20 because of the former's superior versatility.
Yea agree here. As I said, as a tie-breaker with same number of slams it can serve. Cannot outweigh a considerable difference in slams though.
 

AgassiSuperSlam11

Hall of Fame
Well off the top of my head: boxing related, apart from talking about his father’s boxing career (which was quite unimpressive, losing in the first round at both Olympics he participated in and chickened out of a big fight in Madison square garden), he mentions that his father tells him some analogy between boxing and tennis, that as a boxer he always waited for his opponents best punch, to show him that he can take it and destroy him mentally, which he translated to tennis in the sense that Andre should attack his opponents strengths. If his opponent was proud of his forehand he should attack it, if his opponent had a good serve he should break it. Andre writes that this was the reason he became a counterpuncher with a great return (this one is maybe coming from Andre himself). Other than that the only other boxing related stuff is when Peter Graf claims to be able to knock out Mike Agassi and the two of them are about to start a boxing match the first (and only) time they met.

Page number I would need to look it up, but I am not sure whether I still have the book. Only had it in German anyways so not sure whether page numbers would coincide.
I remember him talking about his dad getting into road rage fights and assaulting other drivers. Some of the other stuff sounds about right. Agassi often took the ball early and on the rise while punishing 2nd serves often with winners. Interestingly, Agassi is a boxing fan as he attends events in Vegas including ring side Mayweather-Pacquaio.

Without going through the hassle of looking through the book he also had this quote, “Only boxers can understand the loneliness of tennis players - and yet boxers have their corner men and managers. Even a boxer's opponent provides a kind of companionship, someone he can grapple with and grunt at. In tennis you stand face-to-face with the enemy, trade blows with him, but never touch him or talk to him, or anyone else. The rules forbid a tennis player from even talking to his coach while on the court. People sometimes mention the track-and-field runner as a comparably lonely figure, but I have to laugh. At least the runner can feel and smell his opponents. They're inches away. In tennis you're on an island. Of all the games men and women play, tennis is the closest to solitary confinement....”

The quote seems to say there are both similarities and differences between both sports which is actually a fair quote and assessment.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
I just disagree with the idea that versatility can't be a legitimate argument. Nadal dominating clay shows he is the clay GOAT, which he is. But he's definitely had major trouble winning slams on the other surfaces overall. He's only won 4 non-clay slams since 2010 when he was 24. As many as Fed since then when Fed was 29.

The GOAT of tennis in my eyes shouldn't struggle this much to win slams on 2/3 surfaces, but that doesn't mean I don't believe Nadal can be the GOAT now. As long as he finished with more slams, he will be the GOAT since even in this case versatility won't help Djokovic if it couldn't get him more slams.

But I do think Fed did have a chance vs Nadal in the GOAT debate when both were at 20 because of the former's superior versatility.

Even at 20-20 Roger would still have a losing h2h you know. However I'll agree the public would narrowly rate him ahead since he beat Nadal at AO and Wimbledon in 17 and 19, 2 very crucial wins.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
I remember him talking about his dad getting into road rage fights and assaulting other drivers.
Yep. He tells stories of his dad knocking out a trucker, pointing a gun at another driver and destroying some guy’s car headlights with an axe.
Without going through the hassle of looking through the book he also had this quote, “Only boxers can understand the loneliness of tennis players - and yet boxers have their corner men and managers. Even a boxer's opponent provides a kind of companionship, someone he can grapple with and grunt at. In tennis you stand face-to-face with the enemy, trade blows with him, but never touch him or talk to him, or anyone else. The rules forbid a tennis player from even talking to his coach while on the court.
One more I can now remember is before his USO semi against Becker where a friend (allegedly) asks him if he wouldn’t prefer to handle this old-fashioned in a boxing ring since so much bad blood is involved and he retorts (something along the lines) that tennis is like boxing, a fist-fight without body contact.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
Agassi gives me some reminders of Mike Tyson. Both a bit on the short side but effectively aggressive in both there sports.
 

Nole_King

Hall of Fame
Of course his Bo5 stats are skewed against him because of his many lost Slam finals. Otherwise he won Bo5 finals in everything else that was available to him, outside the Slams he didn't lose a single one I think. Had the finals of the WTF and the Masters series continued to be played as Bo5 (as they should have been) I firmly believe his Bo5 % would have increased dramatically.

You can't keep holding his era against him. I agree Becker is the better player, he won twice as many Slams of course, but the gap is not at all massive. For example Becker never won a clay title and only held the #1 position for over 3 times as fewer weeks.

Only reason Murray held #1 for all those week was because Djokovic fell of the grid and Fedal were coming back after 6 month injury layoff. He practically won nothing to defend his #1 for all those weeks that he held it. Becker was a far superior player than Murray. Sampras rated him as the best indoor player he every played.
 

zvelf

Hall of Fame
His stats indicate consistency in beating lower field. But he rarely won against big 3 in slams.

This is a weird thing to hold against Murray. Murray is "overrated" because he couldn't consistently beat arguably the 3 best players to ever play tennis (although he did consistently beat prime Federer), so basically some people's requirement for Murray to prove himself is that Murray had to be as good as Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic.

Murray is rated about right. He’s a Jim Courier type level player. That said, dude should have retired a long time ago

Yes, Murray is in this ballpark area. I'd put him above Ashe, Courier, and Nastase, but under Becker, Edberg, and Wilander. Tough call between Murray and Newcombe and Vilas.
 

D.Nalby12

G.O.A.T.
This is a weird thing to hold against Murray. Murray is "overrated" because he couldn't consistently beat arguably the 3 best players to ever play tennis (although he did consistently beat prime Federer), so basically some people's requirement for Murray to prove himself is that Murray had to be as good as Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic.



Yes, Murray is in this ballpark area. I'd put him above Ashe, Courier, and Nastase, but under Becker, Edberg, and Wilander. Tough call between Murray and Newcombe and Vilas.
Read slams. He was no better than Berd Tsongas in slams against big 3.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
This is a weird thing to hold against Murray. Murray is "overrated" because he couldn't consistently beat arguably the 3 best players to ever play tennis (although he did consistently beat prime Federer), so basically some people's requirement for Murray to prove himself is that Murray had to be as good as Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic.



Yes, Murray is in this ballpark area. I'd put him above Ashe, Courier, and Nastase, but under Becker, Edberg, and Wilander. Tough call between Murray and Newcombe and Vilas.

1.
Murray vs big 3 in slams: 5-20 combined (20%)
Wawa vs big 3 in slams: 6-14 combined (30%) - clearly better
Tsonga vs big 3 in slams: 4-13 combined (23.52%)
Del potro vs big 3 in slams: 4-15 combined (21%)

Murray did no better than Stan/Tsonga/delpo in slams vs the big 3.
especially compared to Stan - where he did clearly worse.

2. Courier > Vilas.
and Newk > Murray

Courier was #1 in a tough field for quite some time and won 4 slams. Vilas won 2 full majors RG 77, USO 77. and YEC 74 which can be considered to be a major. Vilas had a great 77, but not 3 years like Courier's 91-93.

Newk is like nearing Becker/Edberg/Wilander level. Above Murray. higher peak level and clearly better mental strength.
Won Wim 70, Wim 71, USO 73. the WCT tour in 74 ( a big deal, somewhat similar to a major).
did win AO 75 (weak field, but beat Connors) and amateur slams in Wim 67 and USO 67.

Edit: IIRC, Newk also won an important clay court tournament in 68 or 69 (IIRC). also won tournaments on carpet, hard and other CC tournaments. so could play and win anywhere.
 
Last edited:
Top