I Could Be A Multi Slam Winning All Time Champion Says Murray

CaledonianCraig wrote:The question asked was:-

Are you pleased or do you feel unfortunate to be part of what is arguably the greatest era of tennis ever?

Andy replied:-

I think that it has definitely made me a better player. Hopefully the other guys have also seen things from my game that they have tried to copy as well. Roger obviously set the bar incredibly high and because of that Rafa improved a lot. And then Novak, was going through similar things as I've been going through and then he made his break. Hopefully one day it will be me setting the bar. But people do judge you on what you win and I've won 20-odd titles, and in that respect I could have won more.

If they hadn't have been around then I could have won seven or eight Grand Slams, but still not have been as good a player, so it just depends on how you view it. I've been in the top four now for five years and if that had been in another sport, say boxing, then I would have been world champion for all time. I play against these guys every week and that's what you want - to test yourself against the best. I have a good record over all these guys, so I can say I've beaten two of the greatest players of all time and in Novak - he probably had the greatest year in tennis last year. So I think I've been lucky to be in this era.

So where does he say he'd beat Borg, Sampras, Laver, Connors etcv etc etc?

Super D Boon wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:The question asked was:-

Are you pleased or do you feel unfortunate to be part of what is arguably the greatest era of tennis ever?

Andy replied:-

I think that it has definitely made me a better player. Hopefully the other guys have also seen things from my game that they have tried to copy as well. Roger obviously set the bar incredibly high and because of that Rafa improved a lot. And then Novak, was going through similar things as I've been going through and then he made his break. Hopefully one day it will be me setting the bar. But people do judge you on what you win and I've won 20-odd titles, and in that respect I could have won more.

If they hadn't have been around then I could have won seven or eight Grand Slams, but still not have been as good a player, so it just depends on how you view it. I've been in the top four now for five years and if that had been in another sport, say boxing, then I would have been world champion for all time. I play against these guys every week and that's what you want - to test yourself against the best. I have a good record over all these guys, so I can say I've beaten two of the greatest players of all time and in Novak - he probably had the greatest year in tennis last year. So I think I've been lucky to be in this era.

So where does he say he'd beat Borg, Sampras, Laver, Connors etcv etc etc?

It doesn't but by saying he would have won 7-8 slams then it's pretty implicit that he believes he's better than any of the past greats as there have been great players in every era of the sport so at what point in history does Murray believe he's winning 7-8 slams? If he's winning this many slams he's beating the past greats and beating them often. He's also somehow found a way to not perform so poorly in Grand Slam finals as well by the sounds of it!

Super D Boon wrote:
He seems to imply that the top 3 are the best ever so with him trailing slightly in fourth by definition he must be one of the best players ever as well, despite never winning a slam? This is why I deduce that Murray seems to think he would be a multi slam winning superstar at any other point in history.

Jahu wrote:All you lot, get off Andy's back.

Jahu wrote:Hihihi, no I don't love him, but there is too much riding on his weak back these days