Why Andy Murray is underrated

[zvelf]

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?

 

[NatF]

Overrated.

 

[StrongRule]

Pretty sure Nadal can live with that stat about winning percentage on hardcourt. He won 5 slams on this surface, Murray won 1.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

I strongly suspect there is serious inflation of stats for some reason since Fed came on the scene or maybe even earlier

 

[RelentlessAttack]

Great post. Incredibly consistent, very complete and very accomplished player. Main limitation was lack of a huge weapon to really take it to the big 3.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Pretty sure Nadal can live with that stat about winning percentage on hardcourt. He won 5 slams on this surface, Murray won 1.

I saw Nadal walk on water one time

Clever fishing technique

 

[tennis_pro]

Murray is the Medvedev of the 00s.

 

[RelentlessAttack]

I strongly suspect there is serious inflation of stats for some reason since Fed came on the scene or maybe even earlier

Court homogenization. Less specialists.

Top players skip less tournaments.

Bigger prize money -> top players accumulate a huge advantage in training and health care resources over up and comers. Also less likely to retire during hard times due to financial incentive to keep playing. Pretty sure Borg wouldnt have retired at 25 if he was minting money like this.

Stability in racket/string tech since 05ish and court speeds since 02 so greats not pushed out the way say McEnroe was by racket tech or Sampras by drop in speed or poly/bigger racket heads improving the value of defense.

 

[Sabrina]

Murray may have the consistency of the big 3. However, his peak level is not that high.

 

[EdSWright]

Overrated.

Rated.

 

[NatF]

Rated.

X-rated?

 

[Red Rick]

Overrated.

So we meet again.

 

[EdSWright]

X-rated?

FBI Warning: Reproduction of this style of play is punishable by 5 years prison.

 

[NatF]

So we meet again.

For the last time.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

It appears mury is rated where he should be... borderline ATG, consistent though homugenies helped, lacking peak though hence his F/SF record. Shouldn't dream of putting him over Becker/Edberg/Wilander who all thrived in the peak competition era and achieved exquisite feats, both peak and clutch, mury never did.

 

[Nadal_Django]

2 words: Novak Djokovic

 

[RS]

It appears mury is rated where he should be... borderline ATG, consistent though homugenies helped, lacking peak though hence his F/SF record. Shouldn't dream of putting him over Becker/Edberg/Wilander who all thrived in the peak competition era and achieved exquisite feats, both peak and clutch, mury never did.

I think Murray needed 2 more slams to be called a ATG with one of them being a AO win vs Djokovic.

 

[StrongRule]

It appears mury is rated where he should be... borderline ATG, consistent though homugenies helped, lacking peak though hence his F/SF record. Shouldn't dream of putting him over Becker/Edberg/Wilander who all thrived in the peak competition era and achieved exquisite feats, both peak and clutch, mury never did.

Murray is not even close to being an all time great. He was so terrible in big matches, it's not even funny.

 

[NatF]

I think Murray needed 2 more slams to be called a ATG with one of them being a AO win vs Djokovic.

I think he had enough on his resume to not need the win over Djokovic at the AO, much better players than he don't have that.

 

[Start da Game]

still overrated......i would like to bet on stan than murray when he is up against big-3 in slams......i mean for some reason you don’t get a feeling that he’s got the game for the big sundays.......

 

[StrongRule]

I think he had enough on his resume to not need the win over Djokovic at the AO, much better players than he don't have that.

Him winning AO without beating Djokovic would be daylight robbery.

 

[RS]

still overrated......i would like to bet on stan than murray when he is up against big-3 in slams......i mean for some reason you don’t get a feeling that he’s got the game for the big sundays.......

Wawrinka did beat a out of shape Djokovic in USO 16 and USO 19 which made him look better then he was at times. He rarely got the best versions of Djokovic at slam meetings see AO 15 and RG 15 for this as well.
I think Wawrinka is better at RG and Murray at Wimbledon and USO with AO being a tossup.

 

[RS]

I think he had enough on his resume to not need the win over Djokovic at the AO, much better players than he don't have that.

With Nadal is was only one meeting and with Fed people would argue he wasn’t at his best or in his Prime. Murray was though and lost all of them. One meeting in route a title with all Finals would have done him good IMO.

 

[NatF]

Him winning AO without beating Djokovic would be daylight robbery.

Draws don't begin and end with Djokovic.

Anyway, Murray is a guy with great consistency (that's probably inflated by the era) but without a great top level (relative to the ATG's). He's made a lot of slam finals etc...but lost most of them pretty easily. He put himself in position so many times that he was able to score three slam wins when the Big 3 faltered. Obviously a great player but he tends to be overrated IMO.

 

[AlexanderTheGreat08]

Should’ve defeated Djokovic at the AO 12 or 13

 

[Bertie B]

Overrated.

 

[RS]

Should’ve defeated Djokovic at the AO 12 or 13

Had blisters in 2013 after one all. 2012 was a great chance. He was up vs Djokovic in set 3 in 2015 then after Djokovic took a MTO I think he lost 12 of the last 13 games if I am not wrong?

 

[Mainad]

Overrated.

 

[Mainad]

Murray is the Medvedev of the 00s.

Let's wait and see first if that will be the case shall we?

 

[Mainad]

Murray is not even close to being an all time great. He was so terrible in big matches, it's not even funny.

Yeah he only won 20 of them so I guess you're the only one laughing.

 

[ChrisRF]

I think all those "Inflation" comments are invalid.

- Homogenisation means that anyone tries to specialise for exactly these conditions, so it doesn’t become easier in total. Back then it was easier where you were specialist yourself, but more difficult where others were specialists. Today it cancels each other out.

- Today there are even more matches against top players because Masters are mandatory, in contrast to before 2000.

 

[Mainad]

It appears mury is rated where he should be... borderline ATG, consistent though homugenies helped, lacking peak though hence his F/SF record. Shouldn't dream of putting him over Becker/Edberg/Wilander who all thrived in the peak competition era and achieved exquisite feats, both peak and clutch, mury never did.

I just had to stop myself from falling over with laughter at your suggestion that Murray had no peak competition when he's been playing in the era of the widely acknowledged 3 greatest players of all time!

Never in the history of TTW has a player been so put down and denigrated than has Murray and this is a prime example. The hatred for him on here is truly pathetic and.....very revealing!

The OP's post just says it all and nobody can come up with anything remotely worthwhile to refute it.

 

[megamind]

Has a sheetty finals record tbh

Chokes too often

Apart from that, amazing player

 

[megamind]

Let's wait and see first if that will be the case shall we?

it'll be great for NextGen if Danevil Medvedev can be Murray and more!

 

[Mainad]

it'll be great for NextGen if Danevil Medvedev can be Murray and more!

He'll do very well indeed if he can be even half as good.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

So we meet again.

I remember you made a post saying Murray is better than Lendl. Explain his atrocious record against Federer in majors and his inability to even push the man after he was 33?

Murray is an overrated muppet. He wins no more than 3 or 4 slams in any era.

Very Kafelnikov-like.

 

[NatF]

I just had to stop myself from falling over with laughter...

Next time don't stop yourself

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I just had to stop myself from falling over with laughter at your suggestion that Murray had no peak competition when he's been playing in the era of the widely acknowledged 3 greatest players of all time!

Never in the history of TTW has a player been so put down and denigrated than has Murray and this is a prime example. The hatred for him on here is truly pathetic and.....very revealing!

The OP's post just says it all and nobody can come up with anything remotely worthwhile to refute it.

You misread me as usual, mate. Murray thrived in a solid era but late 80s - early 90s was even better, so this cannot boost him in comparison.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I think all those "Inflation" comments are invalid.

- Homogenisation means that anyone tries to specialise for exactly these conditions, so it doesn’t become easier in total. Back then it was easier where you were specialist yourself, but more difficult where others were specialists. Today it cancels each other out.

- Today there are even more matches against top players because Masters are mandatory, in contrast to before 2000.

Easier to make more quarters and semis as you won't encounter surface specialists playing above their ranking average early on.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I remember you made a post saying Murray is better than Lendl.

link or it didn't happen

 

[tennis_pro]

Let's wait and see first if that will be the case shall we?

no

 

[RF-18]

Then people get outraged when you say he is an ATG.

These stats speak volumes.

 

[Deleted member 763999]

I respect Murray and all his achievements in his career. But at the end of the day, Murray only has himself to blame. His performances in the slam finals are just underwhelming. To be honest, the 3 slams finals that he won are not particularly impressive. And he could have done much more in the 8 slam finals that he lost. It is what it is, but he still remains as one of the best players of the past decade.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Then people get outraged when you say he is an ATG.

These stats speak volumes.

I get outraged when people say he is not ATG. He clearly is. No angry fan can change that.

 

[zvelf]

It appears mury is rated where he should be... borderline ATG, consistent though homugenies helped, lacking peak though hence his F/SF record. Shouldn't dream of putting him over Becker/Edberg/Wilander who all thrived in the peak competition era and achieved exquisite feats, both peak and clutch, mury never did.

I wouldn’t put Murray ahead of Becker, Edberg, and Wilander either, but I would take him over Courier as well as all other 3-major winners Ashe, Kuerten, Wawrinka, Kodes. As for the competition, 1 in every 10 of Murray's matches over his entire career has been against Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic. That's pretty astounding.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I wouldn’t put Murray ahead of Becker, Edberg, and Wilander either, but I would take him over Courier as well as all other 3-major winners Ashe, Kuerten, Wawrinka, Kodes. As for the competition, 1 in every 10 of Murray's matches over his entire career has been against Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic. That's pretty astounding.

Murray obviously had it tough competition-wise but not to the extreme considering he managed to snatch two easier wimbledons (2013 included, no idea what was wrong with Djokovic in the final). Anyway, I agree with that placement, sure he's better than other 3-slammers and even Courier, whose peak was better than Murray's I think but he flamed out too quickly.

 

[zvelf]

Has a sheetty finals record tbh

Chokes too often

This implies that Murray should have won. Who wouldn't have a bad finals record if 10 of your finals were against Federer and Djokovic? Basically you're holding against him that Murray is not better than two players who when their careers end, either could potentially be considered the greatest of all time, i.e., Murray is not that good because he didn't consistently beat the very best players ever.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I respect Murray and all his achievements in his career. But at the end of the day, Murray only has himself to blame. His performances in the slam finals are just underwhelming. To be honest, the 3 slams finals that he won are not particularly impressive. And he could have done much more in the 8 slam finals that he lost. It is what it is, but he still remains as one of the best players of the past decade.

This is the biggest problem. Sure, Mandy lost to some of the greatest but a lot of those times he couldn't put up any fight, or started well but broke down halfway through the match. Of the many losses to Big 3, only 2012 AO/Wimbledon were memorable.

 

[RS]

Murray obviously had it tough competition-wise but not to the extreme considering he managed to snatch two easier wimbledons (2013 included, no idea what was wrong with Djokovic in the final). Anyway, I agree with that placement, sure he's better than other 3-slammers and even Courier, whose peak was better than Murray's I think but he flamed out too quickly.

Djokovic had some energy take from the Del match. Also he wasn’t as good in mental situations in 2013 as well so both come hand in hand. He actually had Murray on the ropes in 2 of the 3 sets.

 

[alexio]

link or it didn't happen

impossible to find it now