Would Murray trade his No. 1 ranking and Year-End title for an AO title? What matters more?

What is most significant for Andy Murray’s legacy?


  • Total voters
    61
#1
Personally, I think he would given that he always voiced that slams were his priority.

But I feel like getting to No. 1 plus the Year-End title is a more significant achievement in the context of Murray’s career.

What do you think is more important for his legacy (both being mutually exclusive in this scenario)?

41 weeks at No. 1 PLUS a Year-End No. 1 finish

OR

a single AO title?
 

Pheasant

Hall of Fame
#8
I'll add some context here. Murray reached YE #1 before the 2016 WTF. So reaching world #1 was something that Murray already did. With that being said, I think that Murray would take 4 slam titles, 2 weeks at world #1 over 3 slam titles + 1 WTF + 1 YE#1+41 weeks at world #1.

To go further with this, I even think that Murray would take 4 slam titles and 0 weeks at #1 over his current setup. Of course, I cannot read Murray's mind. So I'll say that I find it more impressive to have the 4 slam titles. Murray might say otherwise.

Boris Becker spoke about his goal of reaching #1 in the world. It was a huge goal of his. He never mentioned ending the year #1. But he tried desperately to overtake an aging Lendl and a zoning Edberg in the rankings. And he finally reached his goal, even though he never finished the year at #1. And he only had 12 weeks at #1. But I don't think any historian will say that Becker underachieved, simply because he only spent 12 weeks at #1. I think that his Wimbledon titles and his 6 slam titles says it all.
 
#9
This is like asking, would you trade your left foot for wings! It sounds cool but it is an imposible, non-existent choice.

And people should stop ranking Slams over number 1 ranking its against any logic and against everything top players had said
 
#10
This is like asking, would you trade your left foot for wings! It sounds cool but it is an imposible, non-existent choice.

And people should stop ranking Slams over number 1 ranking its against any logic and against everything top players had said
Well, that’s the debate!

I feel like Murray’s distinction above the rest of the tour comes from the ranking and finishing Year-End Champion.

No one else achieved it while Fedalovic were still playing and it’s very unlikely that anyone will - I think history will look favourably on Murray for that.

Had he instead snagged a solitary AO bumping him to 4 slams but zero weeks at No. 1? I’m not so sure...
 

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
#12
Seeing as I perfectly know what Andy Murray thinks at all times, even about hypothetical questions he isn't even asked at the time, I know exactly how Murray would react to this proposition.

But I am not telling you.

Murray wouldn't like it if I told you people his thoughts.
 

K-H

Hall of Fame
#14
For most players I’d pick the GS.

But in Murray’s case, I’d say the WTF + YE#1.
I can’t explain why but I think it’s the right option...
 
#16
Normally I'd pick the major without much hesitation, and Murray obviously would love a 1-5 or 1-4 mark in Melbourne compared to the zero.

That said, Murray getting the No. 1 ranking during the Fedalovic era, in the manner that he did (dominant 2016, held it for awhile, year end), is he a huge testament to his perseverance and the important role he played in this era. The fact that he capped it off with an easy win over a longtime rival at WTF, in London no less, makes it really tough for me to go with the extra major.

Now, what would Andy himself say? I really don't know. Again, major is the more typical response, but Murray's case is a little different.
 
#17
This is like asking, would you trade your left foot for wings! It sounds cool but it is an imposible, non-existent choice.

And people should stop ranking Slams over number 1 ranking its against any logic and against everything top players had said
That's false baby. Marcelo Ríos was #1 a few weeks yet no one would suggest he is greater than Grand Slam winners who have never been #1 like Wawrinka or Del Potro.

Slams > #1.
 
#19
Australian Open wouldn't have given him Career Grand Slam, which for me makes it obvious that he'd rather win at home and become World No. #1.
 
#20
That's false baby. Marcelo Ríos was #1 a few weeks yet no one would suggest he is greater than Grand Slam winners who have never been #1 like Wawrinka or Del Potro.

Slams > #1.
Nobody who hasn't also won at least two slams has ever finished YE number 1 though. If the question is would he swap a couple of weeks as #1 then of course he would, but that's not the question nor is that the achievement.
 

duaneeo

Hall of Fame
#23
I think 2-1-1-0 slightly edges out 2-1-0-0 + 1 YE#1/41-weeks-at-#1.

But the sad thing is that Murray won't get the opportunity to win more slams or weeks-at-#1.
 
#25
Personally, I think he would given that he always voiced that slams were his priority.

But I feel like getting to No. 1 plus the Year-End title is a more significant achievement in the context of Murray’s career.

What do you think is more important for his legacy (both being mutually exclusive in this scenario)?

41 weeks at No. 1 PLUS a Year-End No. 1 finish

OR

a single AO title?
No.

A) being #1 is a BIG BIG deal for players. Even lower ranked players (200s and 300s I knew), obsess over their rankings. Murray killed himself trying to get #1.

B) He already won slams

C) If it were Wimbledon we were talking about and he hadn’t won one, then probably.
 
Last edited:

duaneeo

Hall of Fame
#26
Even with the World Tour Finals title that gave him the YE #1?
So did Wimbledon. Even with the WTFs win, Murray wouldn't have been YE#1 if he hadn't won Wimbledon.

Still, yes. I don't think it's only about the slams, but it is mostly about the slams. 4 slam titles/3 different slams > 3 slam titles/2 different slams + 1 WTF + 1 YE#1.
 
#27
So did Wimbledon. Even with the WTFs win, Murray wouldn't have been YE#1 if he hadn't won Wimbledon.

Still, yes. I don't think it's only about the slams, but it is mostly about the slams. 4 slam titles/3 different slams > 3 slam titles/2 different slams + 1 WTF + 1 YE#1.
All his titles and points contributed to his YE #1 ranking of course but by winning the WTF final he was guaranteed the YE #1 but the same couldn't have been said after him winning Wimbledon.
 
#29
There's something special about being ranked #1 and the YE #1 is an amazing accomplishment. He capped it off with a WTF title. So although the AO title would have been great for his legacy, I think he would choose being #1 and the WTF. Fortunately for him, he won't be one of the players who are multi Slam champs but were never #1.
 
#31
Not being #1 was the greatest argument that his detractors had against him being considered as part of the "Big 4". That surreal 2nd half of 2016 was exactly what was needed to seal his place in the sport, though an AO title would have been nice.
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
#33
Not being #1 was the greatest argument that his detractors had against him being considered as part of the "Big 4". That surreal 2nd half of 2016 was exactly what was needed to seal his place in the sport, though an AO title would have been nice.
3-14-17-20. Yep, totally belongs with them. :love:
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
#36
Lol, that's not what I meant and you know it
He still doesn't "belong" with them historically... he is more in the Courier/Kuerten bracket. He's above Kuerten historically but below Courier... that's how I have him anyway.

I look at the big picture and not just the "unfortunate" era he played in (which is overplayed, as if he was as good as people say he'd have beaten these guys more often for big tournaments).
 
#38
Cincinati title is huge for us Novak fans, don't know why but I got much more happy for that elusive win..

Similarly, WTF title and year end no. 1 looks so much better in case of Andy Murray..
Can't explain, but it suits him and adds to his legacy.. :)
 
#40
He still doesn't "belong" with them historically... he is more in the Courier/Kuerten bracket. He's above Kuerten historically but below Courier... that's how I have him anyway.

I look at the big picture and not just the "unfortunate" era he played in (which is overplayed, as if he was as good as people say he'd have beaten these guys more often for big tournaments).
Of course he doesn't, I see that too
Still - it's nice to romanticise the current era and recognise that he's carved out a great career for himself. I will be interested to see how this is viewed say 50 years from now. When people talk about Federer/Nadal/Djokovic, I would hope he gets recognition for being right there in the mix in the 2010s
 
#42
3-14-17-20. Yep, totally belongs with them. :love:
From 2008-2012, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray won basically every important tournament during that time: Slams, WTFs, Masters and Olympics. They also were the top 4 ranked players in the world which is the longest time that's happened for any four players ever so this is how "Big Four" was born. People were calling them Big 4 even back in 2009 when Federer had 13-15 Slams, Nadal had 6, Djokovic had 1 and Murray had none.
 
#45
He still doesn't "belong" with them historically... he is more in the Courier/Kuerten bracket. He's above Kuerten historically but below Courier... that's how I have him anyway.

I look at the big picture and not just the "unfortunate" era he played in (which is overplayed, as if he was as good as people say he'd have beaten these guys more often for big tournaments).
Not sure that logic really stands. If Bjorn Borg were transported to play in the era Murray played he could quite conceivably finish with no French Open titles and, at best, a couple of Wimbledons.

Guys like Courier, Kuerten and even guys further up like Wilander, Becker and Edberg would all have struggled to win slams if they played in the era Murray did.

That's not to say Murray would have won 20 slams if one or two of them weren't around, but he'd certainly have won more - without question.
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
#46
Not sure that logic really stands. If Bjorn Borg were transported to play in the era Murray played he could quite conceivably finish with no French Open titles and, at best, a couple of Wimbledons.

Guys like Courier, Kuerten and even guys further up like Wilander, Becker and Edberg would all have struggled to win slams if they played in the era Murray did.

That's not to say Murray would have won 20 slams if one or two of them weren't around, but he'd certainly have won more - without question.
So would have a lot of others who are criminally underrated around here... It's unfair to squeeze Murray into their ballpark when he's really not too dissimilar to Hewitt for example. He just has a lot more longevity which he may not even be afforded in previous eras as medical technology wasn't as advanced as it is today...

That's why it's unfair to just lump his records against these guys and say "oh for sure he'd have 8 slams in another era". Put prime Roddick into this era and I could see him still being a top ten fixture at Murray's age today.
 

Rosstour

Hall of Fame
#49
I think that the way he destroyed the field, including the best player of the last decade, on the way to finishing the year #1 and getting the WTF title as well as an Olympic Gold, is a better memory to leave with than one AO title somewhere along the line.

2016 was one of the best years a tennis player can have:

1/3 in Slam Finals, at Wimbledon no less
Most tournaments won
Most Finals contested
Most $ won
Multiple M1000s
YEC over Djoker
YE#1
Defended Singles OG

He dominated every level of tennis that was played that year, and showed us all what he was capable of doing when healthy. In a way he "went out on top".
 
Top