Murray is the greatest player to have never won a slam, what does this say about him and the era he plays in?

For my part I am not really a murray fan in fact he is probably the last of the big 4 that i enjoy watching. That being said he is in my mind without question the best player to have never won a slam. Now many take that as a sideways compliment but I don't really mean it that way, it is still quite a statement about Murray's ability. The amount of masters and the 3 grandslam finals shows that he has grandslam level ability but lacks the trophy. Now what does that say about Murray? What does it say about the current era he is playing in?

About Murray it tells us that he is a remarkable talent, in my mind better than many players with one or two slams that have played recently. I mean he already has more masters than Safin and kafelnikov combined and many slam finals to boot. When looking back the only other player that was as good as murray and never won a slam is former short time #1 Marcelo Rios. Many others talk about Nalbandian but Murray has already lapped nalbandian in terms of total tournament wins, masters, and overral consistency in the ranking. Mecir is not even close I don't know frankly what people see in him other than he played with a wooden racquet for far too long and won a total of like 7 tournaments.
Murray is just not as good as 3 players that have monopolized a decade unlike any trio in the history of the game. Since Federer won his first slam the trio of Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic (since 2003) has won an outstanding 31 of the last 36 grandslams. That is an incredible statistic.

That leads us to a very pertinent question. What does that tell us about the current state of today's game. In my mind this is further evidence of the strength of top level competition in the last few years. In an era that has top down a strong core of legends represents the epitome of strong period in tennis. And murray while clearly able to separate himself from the rest of the tour has not been able to catch the other three guys or carve out his own grandslam legacy. Look at what a murderous route the world #5 would have to take to win a slam today, Tsonga or Berdy could very possibly have to beat fed in the quarter, Novak in the semi, and Nadal in the final in successive 5 set matches to win a slam. And murray is lurking there as the greatest player to have never won a slam. This is further evidence for socal's famous axiom that eras where you have a small group of top heavy talent dominating the tour is a tell tale sign of strong era. And murray being the best non-slam winner is further proof.

Just curious, why is there a desire to add the 'greatest' tag to players.

There are many players preceding Murray with very similar record. Davydenko has a couple of MSes, but no slam finals.

Andrei Medvedev is another (the famous Agassi FO match).

Del Potro, Korda, Edmondson, Johansson won a slam, but are/were not consistent enough to carve a large footprint for themselves.

It is a tough 'era' with Fedalovic around, to win a slam, since 2003+.

It has been said that Ernests Gulbis is the greatest player to have never won a slam. Loads of talent but prefers to party rather than to train.

It seems strange to talk about greatness in terms of what someone hasn't done. Murray is a fine player, but I don't like to label him beyond that.

I do think that Federer raised the bar in terms of consistent performance at the slams, as shown by his semi-final streak. Nadal and Djokovic have followed his lead. What else does it say that Murray has not won a slam? Not sure really. The concentration of talent seems to be at the very top currently, rather than spread a bit more in the past. Convergence of surfaces has played a part in this. Early round defeats seem a thing of the past for the top guys - because they are that much better or due to deficiencies in the opposition is the part that is hard to decipher.

4th street I think it has less to do with a deficiency in the competition as with the superiority of the 3 guys ranked above Murray. I think 7 slams and 3 finals is an unprecedented level of accomplishment for a player to have never lifted a slam. Murray might get 40 or more tournament wins and for sure 10 plus masters when he is all said and done. If there is another non-slam winner that can match murray's success in every other tournament and 3 finals appearances I would be interested to hear about it. That is why I assigned the greatest player to never win a slam tag on murray.

I think it is another clear indication of how really strong the top group of guys is in this era. No Johansson draws are out there for Murray to benefit from.

How many chances does Murray have to have to prove that he is not good enough to win a grand slam?

But this is all premature, he will be turning 25 soon, and he still has a few more years left in the tank with regard to those grand slams. Only once he hangs up his racquet can we say whether or not he was good enough to win a grand slam.

Personally I think it is obvious from listening to his interviews, listening to those that were in or have left his team, listening to his brother, his mother, and watching him perform why he hasn't yet been able to win a grand slam. If he performs the way he performed in his recent attempt at winning a slam a few months back, then we can be sure that he is giving it his best.

socal1976 wrote:
No Johansson draws are out there for Murray to benefit from.

I am surprised you are willing give 'greatest' tags so easily, yet take an opportunity to knock down someone else's achievement.

Look at the seeds for AO when Johansson won, and perhaps, you can appreciate what these players were capable off. Ivanisevic, Kafelnikov, Henman, Kuerten, et al.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Australian_Open_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_Singles

Remember, Sampras won USO 2002, seeded #17. Djokovic's era is not the only strong era, all of them are (Unless you want to rekindle the Wee Keira stuff ).

BTW, the current #9 was a finalist in Athens Olympics in 2004.

Nore Staat wrote:How many chances does Murray have to have to prove that he is not good enough to win a grand slam?

Till he retires....

Socal I consider you as a wise poster, but this thread doesn't say so.

To start with Murray's career is not over, so whats the point in starting a thread to say he is the greatest of players to have not won a slam?

Secondly whats the point in holding the title, if such title can be given, what about this, i am the greatest of all players who have exactly the following criteria

5'9 height, 170 pounds, 4 degree of educational qualifiaction, and to have worked in 4 different continents and to have played just 2 tennis matches winning both of them.

The point is such title is of no use.

Murray would be end up in the same level of comparison as Davydenko, Soderling as a good player who played at the highest level of tennis.

Well invisible cooler your last post is lacking your usual insight. The fact is that many people talk about the title of best player without a slam. I didn't make up the distinction. When you look at a player on pace for 35 to 40 singles titles and yet doesn't have a slam that in it of itself is an unusually unique situation when you look at numbers for a lot of guys that have just one slam or two.

Laverfan, I don't think anywhere in any of my posts did I disrespect Ivanisivic or Kuerten. All I said was that murray is probably the best player never to win a slam. And I drew certain conclusions about the strength of the current era. I think one tell tale sign of a great era is that you have great players who can't win a slam, ie Andy murray. In fact other than Johansson who i feel very comfortable in my assessment that he an inferior player to murray, I didn't mention any past slam champion. Judging by the fact that nobody even tries to challenge my logical contention that murray is the best player to never win a slam but argue about side issues this is probably a good indication that my conclusion is correct and practically unanamous.

A bit of non-thread really. An obsessed Djoko fan bashing Murray with silly stuff. How creative.

No I am okay with the tag as it holds a load of water. It is not a matter of Andy not being good enough to win a slam as he has already been close reaching three slam finals. As socal says in that look what stands in his way. Yes we don't want another 'wee keira' thread LaverFan but we cannot get away from the fact that Andy has A. Federer widely regarded as the greatest player of all time B. Nadal widely regarded as the greatest clay courter of all-time and at one time tipped to surpass Federer's achievements and C. Novak Djokovic who has the time and potential to win 10+ slams. Now it is true that ALL players playing today have that as an obstacle to overcome but it is only Andy Murray who has consistently won Masters Cup and strung together an impressive line of slam semis and final appearances giving him his right to that tag above others.

I am the greatest player ever to have never won a game off our club champion.

I did get it to 30 once in a game, but well you know, he is the greatest club champion ever to have played at our club.

If I had have been born in another era, well you know, I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let's face it.

Hey N-S I bet your a nice bum though

I too am not particularly a Murray fan but thats mainly down to me not him.
Born out of frustration, and sometimes anger to think that we have this player who has all the tools of the trade and just somehow cannot get his act together.
However that being said, he must be doing something right... how long has he remained in the rankings at number 4. ??? he is not there by luck .. he has had to work to remain in that position for this length of time. So Andy where is it all going wrong.. a succession of coaches has not seemingly helped. I am of the opinion (and I believe someone else has already mentioned) he was the product of incorrect coaching and discipline by his Mother.. however good her intentions were.
Lendl had a very strict regime for himself when he played.. if he is applying that same regiime to Andy I cant help but believe that Andy would rebel given time. He is a hot-headed young man who cannot appear to stay focussed for long periods of time. IMO Andy does not have the mental stability to stay focussed over a period of more than three sets. His body language is a giveaway to what is going on inside his head.. a distinct advantage for his oponent I think

I mean he already has more masters than Safin and kafelnikov combined

Were masters really as sought upon in the 90's like they have been recently?

Murray can certainly win a slam or two if he gets this anti climax ending draw:-

Semi Final - Tomic

Final - Wildcard

Wildcard may never get a better chance to win his slam.

Oh God, another attempt by socal to worship Djokovic disguised as praise of Murray.

The most titles won by a non slammer is 25 I think and that is held by Brian Gottfried and some Dutch player who's name escapes me. However Murray is on 22 slammless titles so is quickly catching up.

As for the era, the top 3 and way ahead of everyone and then slightly below is Murray at 4 who seems to occupy an area of class all to his own.

The fact is strong era or weak era there's not enough talent underneath the top 4.

Super D Boon wrote: ... The fact is strong era or weak era there's not enough talent underneath the top 4. ...

Which makes Roger Draper's failed self declared target of five British players knocking on the door of the top 20 by the end of 2011 even more puzzling.

Nore Staat wrote:

Super D Boon wrote: ... The fact is strong era or weak era there's not enough talent underneath the top 4. ...

Which makes Roger Draper's failed self declared target of five British players knocking on the door of the top 20 by the end of 2011 even more puzzling.

Giant fallacy wrapped up in a myth, the strength of players outside the top 4 is no way weak compared to other eras. Berdy, Tsonga, Sod, Ferrer, and Del Po are a very strong second group. They just aren't good enough to pull out 3 straight wins against big 4 players that would be required of them to win slams. Del Po was good enough once.

See it is quite clear that my conclusion that murray is the greatest player to never win a slam is 100 percent correct, nearly 20 posts and yet no one has yet even made an attempt to argue the proposition. Now, so Murray is the greatest player to never win a slam, what does that tell you? I know it is hard for some BB the logically disabled, or Nore Staat our resident bill murray impersonator, to apply logic but here is how it is done. A very good piece of evidence for an era that is strong is having the existence of a murray, a player who may win as many as 35 to 40 tournaments and still possibly not be able to win a slam. Why is that a logical person might conclude? Well because the 3 guys above him are all extraordinarily good.

FOR THE DEFENDERS OF NOSTALGIA PLEASE ANSWER ONE QUESTION IF YOU DISPUTE MY LOGIC AND VIEWS ON THIS ISSUE. TELL ME IN ALL HONESTY HOW MANY OF THE ONE AND 2 SLAM WINNERS OF THE PAST WOULD HAVE GOTTEN A SLAM IF THEY HAD TO PLAY 3 OF THE FOLLOWING PLAYERS IN SUCCESSIVE 5 SET MATCHES, (murray, federer, nadal, djokovic). How many of the old time one and two slammers would win 3 straight matches against 3 of the above four mentioned? Answer that question and then make pronouncements about how weak the players outside the top 4 are.

socal1976 wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:

Super D Boon wrote: ... The fact is strong era or weak era there's not enough talent underneath the top 4. ...

Which makes Roger Draper's failed self declared target of five British players knocking on the door of the top 20 by the end of 2011 even more puzzling.

Giant fallacy wrapped up in a myth ... it is quite clear that my conclusion ... is 100 percent correct ... our resident bill murray impersonator ...

I am pleased you have put that giant phallicy to bed

bogbrush wrote:Oh God, another attempt by socal to worship Djokovic disguised as praise of Murray.

If you don't worship him, you don't belong here. This is the DJOKOVIC Forum!!!!

socal1976 wrote:FOR THE DEFENDERS OF NOSTALGIA PLEASE ANSWER ONE QUESTION IF YOU DISPUTE MY LOGIC AND VIEWS ON THIS ISSUE. TELL ME IN ALL HONESTY HOW MANY OF THE ONE AND 2 SLAM WINNERS OF THE PAST WOULD HAVE GOTTEN A SLAM IF THEY HAD TO PLAY 3 OF THE FOLLOWING PLAYERS IN SUCCESSIVE 5 SET MATCHES, (murray, federer, nadal, djokovic). How many of the old time one and two slammers would win 3 straight matches against 3 of the above four mentioned? Answer that question and then make pronouncements about how weak the players outside the top 4 are.

You're judging past players by present standards without taking into account that the game moves inexorably to higher levels. I doubt Laver could take a set off Rafa, but now put Rafa into the 1960s with a wooden racket and natural gut strings, and it's the reverse. And now put Rafa against Ivanisevic on a fast Wimby court, again without Luxilon strings. In fact, I'd fancy Goran to beat Murray, Rafa, Djoko, and possibly even Fed on a very fast grass surface, if he was serving well enough.

Then get Djokovic (or Fed, if you prefer) to play in the early 1990s on vastly different surfaces at the FO (against clay court specialists) and then at Wimby (against serve and volleyers on a surface which favours them).

You're comparing apples with oranges, and transparently praising Murray to glorify Djokovic, in a less than objective fashion. That's hardly logical. There is no evidence (nor can there be, it's all theoretical) that Murray would win a slam in any era.

socal1976 wrote:In fact other than Johansson who i feel very comfortable in my assessment that he an inferior player to murray, I didn't mention any past slam champion.

Did you watch Johansson play when he was on tour?

socal1976 wrote:Judging by the fact that nobody even tries to challenge my logical contention that murray is the best player to never win a slam but argue about side issues this is probably a good indication that my conclusion is correct and practically unanamous.

You are side-stepping the challenge. When Hewitt(USO 2001), Kuerten (FO 2001), Ivanisevic (W 2001 - with a 200+ kmph serve), Kafelnikov could not make the SF of a slam, does it imply the competition was strong or weak, when Johansson won? The same slam, where Rios (the precursor to Murray) lost to 7th seed Tommy Haas (did you follow Munich 2012)?

socal1976 wrote: ... See it is quite clear that my conclusion that murray is the greatest player to never win a slam is 100 percent correct, nearly 20 posts and yet no one has yet even made an attempt to argue the proposition. ...

Au contraire, it is quite clear my conclusion that murray is the greatest player to have never done the Tutti Frutti au rutti is 102 percent correct, and yet no Homo sapien has yet even made an attempt to argue the supperposition

Yes Laverfan, I did watch Johansson play and as I said before I am completely comfortable with murray's superiority. And again Laverfan you keep mentioning multiple slam winners. If my conclusion is incorrect then name another player who has never won a slam that is superior to murray. But you can't name another player superior to murray who is not a slam winner.'

Julius, again I think it is clear that many have made the contention that there isn't a lot of strength outside the top 4. Before making said contention lets look at the slam route that a player outside the top 4 would have to take. And winning 3 straight 5 set matches against one of these four players (murray, novak, nadal, and federer) is going to be an incredible hurdle. A hurdle that many past slam winners would not have been able to pass. That is relevant when people put forth the erroneous contention that outside the top 4 there isn't that much competition.

Murray's career is in many ways already a statistical anomaly. Very few players have been in the top 5 for 5 years, have 3 slam finals, 7 masters, 20 tourney wins and still not have a slam. What causes this type of an aberration? Very simple the quality of the top echelon of talent the three guys rated above murray. As Laverfan herself has stated this era is very difficult to win a slam in. Murray's career in many ways provides further evidence of the strength of this era.

People often talk about depth. Depth is less important because of the nature of tournament tennis. You don't have to beat the entire top 20 to win a slam, but in strong eras like this one you are going to have to beat 2 possibly 3 legends in a row in 5 set matches. No benefit of a johansson slam draw where you can win a slam without playing a single top ten player. 3 players over the course of 9 years have won 31 out of 36 slams. Not much loose change for the lower ranked guys to pick up.

socal1976 wrote:Yes Laverfan, I did watch Johansson play and as I said before I am completely comfortable with murray's superiority. And again Laverfan you keep mentioning multiple slam winners. If my conclusion is incorrect then name another player who has never won a slam that is superior to murray. But you can't name another player superior to murray who is not a slam winner.'

I am not sure how to evaluate 'superiority', but one example that I had provided was Andrei Medvedev.

Let me provide a couple more for you to consider.

Tom Okker, Jose Luis-Clerc (fantastic on Clay), Brian Gottfried (the notorious 10 finals-lost-in-a-row player), Tony Roche (if you ignore his pre Open Era FO 1966 win).

You can find many more examples in the 1974-1981 period (similar to the current Top 3) where Borg/Connors/McEnroe (26 slams between them) dominated and other players had to wait for Borg's departure in 1981 to get a foothold.

If Sampras had been better on Clay or Agassi had not taken a sabbatical, 1990-1997 would have been similar to 1974-1981, or 2003-2011. Notice that such cycles seem to be 7-8 years typically. This may also be the empirical definition of an 'era', which I personally detest.

PS: 1983-1991 is also similar with Wilander(7)/Edberg(6)/Lendl(8)/Becker(6), roughly 27 slams in between them. It was the advent of Sampras in 1990 which broke this hold. Again 1983-1990+ is roughly 7=8 years.

Socal - of course the quality of the players outside of the top four is very high (as testamount by the fact that Roger Drapers prediction failed markedly) and probably the "best ever" in terms of "absolute" quality in depth.

However it is also true that we have a "new era" where the top players are so consistent and professional that only more or less 3 players have won the slams for about 8 years. Some say it is because of the style of play (baseline top spun) as well as the "uniformity" of court conditions that have contributed to this.

But what is the point of banging on about Murray being the greatest player to have never won a slam? This really depends on how you define greatest player - most consistent or most talented or most potent. Certainly Murray is or is close to being the "greatest player to have never won a slam" - but who really cares about that label - how is that label going to make it any likelier that he will go on from here to win a slam?

Whether or not he wins a slam is what most people are interested in (or not as the case may be), but who really cares whether or not he is really the greatest player to have never won a slam? Isn't that just a more respectable way to say he is the best "failure" of a player. As some say: Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser.

I don't see too much doubt that Murray has the best achievements of any player not to have won a slam. The examples mentioned on this thread emphasis the point as none of them even come close. Whether some of them were better players but achieved less is subjective. However, having seen both of them play, I'd certainly put Murray well above medvedev.

Personally, I have no doubt Murray would have won a slam had he been playing in the 80s, 90s or early 00s. Great though the players were in those times, there were far more opportunities to pick up a slam without having to beat an all-time great to do it, not least because the top players weren't too fussed about Australia. The level of consistency achieved by all the top 4 in the last few years is simply unparalleled. The reason for that is again open to debate. However, given the talent pool should stay relatively consistent (unless some major change occurs like the number of players massively diminishing), it seems far more likely that we are watching a period where there are four sensational players rather than one where the rest of the tour is markedly weaker than in the past.

The rest of the top 4 of course had relatively easy starters to get them up and running in grand slam titles. Fed picked up his first against an unseeded player, nadal against puerta and djokovic the slightly harder task of Tsonga but still a grand slam final debutant.

Welcome to 606v2, B(orn) Slippy.

You're most likely right socal, I just don't like the terminology. Greatest not to have done something seems like an oxymoron to me.

Born Slippy wrote:The examples mentioned on this thread emphasis the point as none of them even come close.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Andy-Murray.aspx?t=tf

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Go/B/Brian-E-Gottfried.aspx?t=tf

Take a look.

Born Slippy wrote:Whether some of them were better players but achieved less is subjective.
...
Personally, I have no doubt Murray would have won a slam had he been playing in the 80s, 90s or early 00s.

As JHM states, comparing the current Murray to someone in 80/90/00, is very subjective.

Would Murray have developed the same if he did not have Fedalovic to contend with, perhaps a matter of pure conjecture and Wellsian imagination.

As Positively says, such an accolade is what a player does not want, similar to Rios.

If this is a 'subtle' argument to make the 'other' Top 3 and 'current' era, the 'golden' era of Tennis, using Murray as a yardstick is rather flattering, instead of using Fedalovic. Other posters have hinted at such an agenda, which perhaps the author can unambiguously state.

P4S : yes, something of an oxymoron. Perhaps an element of 'damned with faint praise' ...?

I think it's largely a perception that the media ("it's the meeja you know ...." ) likes to create, although admittedly many of us follow. And it happens in the world of sport generally, not only tennis. It was ever thus.

Another Scot - Colin Montgomerie - was similarly tagged through much of his golfing career. Not sure just how much he plays these days on the main tour, but if not already retired he must be close to it. He was Europe's officially-ranked best golfer for a record eight years, and also made it as high as World No.2. Finished runner-up in five Majors but never managed to win one.

But there's still time for Andy M.

Coria was a greater player not to have won one. Hope this helps!

I always think this type of assertion advertises a shallow understanding of the game (that, and a fondness for circular logic!).

The game changes so much that I can't imagine Djokovic getting a set off Pete in 90'sWimbledon, nor Pete getting one in current conditions. As for Murray, he gets nothing off Lendl on clay or hard court if he plays in 80's conditions.

At the risk of getting partisan, I know only of one player who could cut it in pretty much any era with any equipment. I think you know who I mean.

lags72 wrote:P4S : yes, something of an oxymoron. Perhaps an element of 'damned with faint praise' ...?

I think it's largely a perception that the media ("it's the meeja you know ...." ) likes to create, although admittedly many of us follow. And it happens in the world of sport generally, not only tennis. It was ever thus.

Another Scot - Colin Montgomerie - was similarly tagged through much of his golfing career. Not sure just how much he plays these days on the main tour, but if not already retired he must be close to it. He was Europe's officially-ranked best golfer for a record eight years, and also made it as high as World No.2. Finished runner-up in five Majors but never managed to win one.

But there's still time for Andy M.

Good post lags. There is an obsession with ranking all and sundry and creating all-time lists. A case in point, after the Barcelona final one of the pundits started talking about David Ferrer being the 'greatest tier 2 player ever'. Is there really a need?

Laverfan, I will put up Murray's accomplishments to the non-slam winners you mentioned and clearly on most objective basis murray would out point them. Born Slippy makes a very strong post that I concur with. I particularly like the point made by Born Slippy about how great the players were in the 80s and 90s that even then in those strong periods it is still more difficult to win a slam today. I make the corollary arugument to this as well. How many one and two slam winners of the past would succeed if in virtually every semi and final they had 2 of the following 3 players waiting for them (Fed, Nadal, Novak)?

Nore Staat and positvly the reason I mention the terminology of greatest to never win a slam is because it is a title often discussed in the sport. It also is an apt analogy and description of where Murray's career is right now. And of course it does not describe him as a failure. A great many of highly skilled players and great players have played on tour and never won a slam. Someone I like that rarely gets mentioned is davydenko, he is not as good or talented as murray but another highly successful player to never win a slam.

He is the best player not to have won a slam in my opinion. What does it say about Murray? Well, he's a world class tennis player who has the capabilities to beat the three great players above him as he has proved many times, but is unable to do so when it really matters in slams.

Why can someone match and beat these players in masters and other tournaments, but rarely overcome them in majors? That is the question for me. Some people say that the other 3 don't care as much in masters, but the stats don't back that up as Nadal and Fed lead the way for most masters wins. When the top 4 meet each other it always matters.

In my opinion the top 3 are mentally stronger, have more belief in themselves and the confidence that comes from winning multiple majors. That makes them better players. Bringing your best when it matters is a skill, and it's a skill Murray lacks so far in his career.

The Djokovic match at the AO is only the 3rd time in majors that I can remember where Murray has actually played near the level that he can against the top 3, which is a bizarre state of affairs. I'm not saying his level would have beaten those players - it didn't in Melbourne - but it gives him a chance to.

My hope is that he can now see that trying to win a match is the way to go in semis and finals, rather than dealing with the nerves by playing 'not to lose'. But that's a mental thing and at SW19 and in New York we'll see if Melbourne was a one off or a sign of a new belief. It will need to be the latter if he is to win 1 or more majors. He still has a bit to go as he didn't go for a single winner with any of those 3 BP's at 5-5 in the fifth against Novak. A potential career turning point missed.

However, he is the only guy regularly threatening these 3 legends, and is a brilliant player. Sometimes in tennis, and on this board in particular, there is an incomparable lack of perspective when it comes to top level tennis players. They get incredible stick for not being up to the level of all time greats. In some cases, even the greats get incredible stick (Nadal being dubbed 'the death of tennis' being a great example).

Would the 4th best footballer in the world get criticism that the 4th best tennis player does? It's a very unique situation when compared with other sports.

Very fair & balanced post, Danny_1982

Hard to argue with anything you say (although it's quite likely some will ....)

Excellent post by Danny, and i have to agree with pretty much all of it. I have always wondered why it seemed out of every sport people seemed to view tennis players the most unfairly. Any player from number 2 on down is somehow wildly deficient and could never be great in his own right. I have always found this odd.

Now here is the second part of the analysis which among some may be even more controversial. Part of this thread revolves around the question of assume if murray is the greatest non-slam winner what does it say about the strength of this era and the difficulty of winning slams post rise of fed and now nadal and Djoko? I would posit that this is strong evidence of the quality at the top of the mens game, many other commentators, highly respected have also mentioned how high the quality is in this era. Murray is good supportive evidence of the strength of the era. And of course the main evidence is the remarkable 31 of the last 36 slams won by Nadal, Fed, and Djoko.

lags72 wrote:Very fair & balanced post, Danny_1982

Hard to argue with anything you say (although it's quite likely some will ....)

I agree Danny's post was great, how come however when I argue basically the same thing nobody ever comes in and says "fair and balanced" to me? Come on Lags give a brotha a little love here

I hope Murray doesn't read this thread, as I suspect the pressure of maintaining his greatest player ever never to have won a slam, might just cause him to mentally crumble into a heap of cookie crumble, the next time he steps out on court to face a qualifier from Tajikistan in the first round of a major.

Why does Murray often get knocked out in the first round of a Masters or 500 tournament after the AO, whereas players like the Fed, the Nadal and the Djokerman don't?

Because Fed, Nadal, and Djoko are better and are among the elite to have ever played. Andy for all his skill is not that good but he is still an exceptional and successful player.

socal1976 wrote:
..........................................................................................................................................
I would posit that this is strong evidence of the quality at the top of the mens game, many other commentators, highly respected have also mentioned how high the quality is in this era. Murray is good supportive evidence of the strength of the era. And of course the main evidence is the remarkable 31 of the last 36 slams won by Nadal, Fed, and Djoko.

Indeed (although I've never cared much for talk of 'eras' per se)

And there is yet further supporting evidence to be seen once you drop down a level from the Slams to the Masters series. But there at least, Murray does become part of the picture because he has won a decent number of them as we know ; and so in the case of the MS, it's fair to refer to a 'big four' rather than the big three :

Out of the last 30 MS played, only on four occasions has a player below the Top Four managed to win.

socal - have just spotted your 7.02pm post .....

Can't speak for others, but personally I am more than happy to attest to the fact that (on this particular topic at least...!!) you have been scrupulously fair & balanced.

In fact : two for you , not just one

(never let it be said ........)

lags72 wrote:

socal1976 wrote:
..........................................................................................................................................
I would posit that this is strong evidence of the quality at the top of the mens game, many other commentators, highly respected have also mentioned how high the quality is in this era. Murray is good supportive evidence of the strength of the era. And of course the main evidence is the remarkable 31 of the last 36 slams won by Nadal, Fed, and Djoko.

Indeed (although I've never cared much for talk of 'eras' per se)

And there is yet further supporting evidence to be seen once you drop down a level from the Slams to the Masters series. But there at least, Murray does become part of the picture because he has won a decent number of them as we know ; and so in the case of the MS, it's fair to refer to a 'big four' rather than the big three :

Out of the last 30 MS played, only on four occasions has a player below the Top Four managed to win.

yes that is an even more amazing stat, 26 out of the last 30 masters won by a big 4 player. I mean that is total spectrum domination, and I think from what we see of the evidence it is safe to assume that the top 3 are just that superior. Murray as a supporting cast member is very strong as well.

lags72 wrote:socal - have just spotted your 7.02pm post .....

Can't speak for others, but personally I am more than happy to attest to the fact that (on this particular topic at least...!!) you have been scrupulously fair & balanced.

In fact : two for you , not just one

(never let it be said ........)

Thanks lags, sorry about fishing for compliments there. I still haven't seen a realistic factual resume provided by those disputing my conclusion of a player (modern era please at least open era) that has resume approaching murray's and has yet to win a slam. I don't mean just dropping names what have they accomplished when compared to a 24 year old murray?

Trawling back over the years it's the name of Brian Gottfried that comes up as the only player to have won tournaments than Murray, but also without a Slam to his name. I think I actually mentioned him myself a couple of weeks back in a similar debate and another poster did so, only the other day.

Gottfried ended his career with 25 official titles. Murray's current tally is 22.

However...... the status of those tournies won by Gottfried is way below those of Murray ; other than the actual numbers, there is really very little meaningful comparison.

There is no comparison to Murray in tennis history. I don't think any player has such a good record in events outside of slams and failed to convert it into victories in slams.

I'm guessing in masters (certainly on a hard court) he must be around 50% in terms of wins against the top 3. In majors he's won 2 out of what, 10? 12? I don't think there is a more baffling disparity in men's tennis. Players develop at different rates of course, and it will be impossible to judge where Murray stands until he finishes.

This era of tennis is - for my taste - fantastic. 3 truly great players, 1 player behind them with all the gifts but (so far) lacking their steel, and the likes of tsonga, Delpo, berdych, ferrer who have a little less in terms of gifts and/or steel but are top players.

It's my favourite era to watch tennis. Whether its the best is subjective of course, and there is no definitive proof either way. I just know that in the semis of top tournaments when all the top 4 get there it is a feast of entertainment, and I don't think we realise how lucky we are to be watching this era.

Lags I don't buy the idea of gottfried being comparable career wise to Murray. What is most impressive about Murray is that he has had so much success at the masters level and has been so consistent in getting to the semis of slams. I think it is pretty clear that Murray, at least as far as the open era is concerned is the best of the non-slam winners. I rate him above a lot of guys with a slam and even one or two guys with two slams.


Danny, I agree the era you prefer to watch is subjective. But what isn't subjective is the accomplishments of the top of the men's tour right now. That is why I am baffled by those who want to pretend that there is no up and down in terms of quality between eras. Never have we seen this kind of strong top heavy control of the tour by 3 players and it is not because of conditions or weak competition they are just that good.