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

First topic message reminder :

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.

It's been about different things for different people.

Best you have a read of the previous posts and make up your own mind .........!

Pssst lags, check out polished's favourite band, I think he's a Trojan Horse.

lags72 wrote:It's been about different things for different people.

Best you have a read of the previous posts and make up your own mind .........!

Good! I like very much debates around more than one thing and not necessarily focussing on a specific person.

polished, for my part I was quite reasonably taking offence at the constant mention of an inexplicably popular beat combo.

reckoner, I heard Murray is going to model his second serve on Del Potro's accuracy. From now on he's aiming for the Juan direction. Just sayin'.

Right, that's it, I'm 2000.4% more offended than I was last time!!!!!

reckoner wrote:Right, that's it, I'm 2000.4% more offended than I was last time!!!!!

On behalf of Juans everywhere and by the thighs of Kournikova I appeal for justice!

Murray's also been practicing a new 'smash/drop-shot' hybrid shot to confuse opponents. It's inspired by a scene in the last Harry Potter movie, where Harry fought Voldemort with his weapon held in an upright position.
Murray is rather cheekily referring to this new technique as the Wand Erection.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Murray's also been practicing a new 'smash/drop-shot' hybrid shot to confuse opponents. It's inspired by a scene in the last Harry Potter movie, where Harry fought Voldemort with his weapon held in an upright position.
Murray is rather cheekily referring to this new technique as the Wand Erection.

By the creaking chin of Rusedski make it stop!! Mods!! Mods?!

Another ploy Lendl has been quietly encouraging Murray to adopt is delaying Fed's relative quickness between points, by loitering around the baseline before getting ready to receive. They're referring to this tactic by a less-than-subtle codename of "Wander Action".

Just no stopping JHM now. (shades of Queen but at least far more deserving of mention than the combo giving rise to his dreadful puns .....!!)

Don't forget that we look to Mods to maintain high standards .....

JuliusHMarx wrote:Another ploy Lendl has been quietly encouraging Murray to adopt is delaying Fed's relative quickness between points, by loitering around the baseline before getting ready to receive. They're referring to this tactic by a less-than-subtle codename of "Wander Action".

Murray has been spotted at a nearby ice rink, practicing spirals and lifts with Judy.

The idea is to improve flexibility and strengthen the lower back.

What do you think? Will Andy profit from this Kwan direction?

Possibly. I just hope he can kerb his temper. I remember his last big run-in with an umpire. Man, that was one dire ruction.

IIRC Murray was still annoyed about his unicycle at the time - he'd just made a series of unsuccessful bids at the One Tyre Auction.

Even reckoner's at it now.

We're all doomed.

Another rumour regarding Murray's withdrawal from Madrid is the blue clay, which he felt a) was too pale a blue and b) he might be allergic to.

Allegedly, he was worried he might suffer a wan dye reaction.

In fact not only are WE doomed ......

Sadly I think Nikolay is too.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Another rumour regarding Murray's withdrawal from Madrid is the blue clay, which he felt a) was too pale a blue and b) he might be allergic to.

Allegedly, he was worried he might suffer a wan dye reaction.

A likely story... the way I heard it, there was a hot chick at the laundromat across the road from his hotel and Andy did his back in during a bit of laundry action!

reckoner wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Another rumour regarding Murray's withdrawal from Madrid is the blue clay, which he felt a) was too pale a blue and b) he might be allergic to.

Allegedly, he was worried he might suffer a wan dye reaction.

A likely story... the way I heard it, there was a hot chick at the laundromat across the road from his hotel and Andy did his back in during a bit of laundry action!

OMG! Did he have an entire 'rection?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

reckoner wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Another rumour regarding Murray's withdrawal from Madrid is the blue clay, which he felt a) was too pale a blue and b) he might be allergic to.

Allegedly, he was worried he might suffer a wan dye reaction.

A likely story... the way I heard it, there was a hot chick at the laundromat across the road from his hotel and Andy did his back in during a bit of laundry action!

OMG! Did he have an entire 'rection?

A semi at least - Kim wasn't best pleased, Andy's bracing himself for the blonde reaction.

reckoner wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

reckoner wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Another rumour regarding Murray's withdrawal from Madrid is the blue clay, which he felt a) was too pale a blue and b) he might be allergic to.

Allegedly, he was worried he might suffer a wan dye reaction.

A likely story... the way I heard it, there was a hot chick at the laundromat across the road from his hotel and Andy did his back in during a bit of laundry action!

OMG! Did he have an entire 'rection?

A semi at least - Kim wasn't best pleased, Andy's bracing himself for the blonde reaction.

Ouch! Take that, Murray!

JHM

poor Davydonkey - set and a break down...

Socal, i'm surprised you have not mentioned the player i talk about below:

The player i would say most comparable to Murray and give a mention as a great player never to win a slam was Miloslav Mecir - AO - F, RG - SF, W - SF and US - F, plus 3 masters titles and Olympic gold 88 (taking out Edberg in the process). the Slams results were in the mid-late 80s and what an era that was! Interestingly his playing style was not leaps and bounds from Murrays in some respects, so for me Murray and Mecir hold the title of 'greatest never to have won'. Also Mecir got obliterated in the two slam finals he made, yet, come away from slam finals and you find he had some success against the best of that era (E.g Wilander/Edberg). Other examples include losing in 5 sets from 2-0 up at Wimbledon 88 in the SF vs eventual winner Edberg.

Mecir had to retire aged 26 due to back injury..........so the relative age comparison is quite good at the present time between him and murray

Murray appears to shade it - but have a look at Mecir on youtube if you were not properly into tennis in the late 80s - he was clearly an excellent addition to the sport.

Rios only got to one final, so I can't include him here with the likes of Murray and Mecir.

The Donkey 'rection is a wonderous sight to behold.

Donkeydenko is doing Russia proud today. Nadal must be so poor though. I remember Mardy Fish handing out a severe 6-0 6-2 thumping to Davy, in theory Nadal is worse than Fish.

4 games won against Rafa on his joint worst surface, is Rafa injured?

socal1976 wrote: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

Socal: you got a little carried away imo. You started a thread to discuss if Murray is the best slamless player and soon after, you hint at the possibility he might even better than multi-slam winners as Safin and Kafelnikov??

I must confess I don't understand your POV: you seem to disregard completely technical and personal factors to focus only on the statistics in terms of wins outside the slams.

Have you ever thought this is a full logical circle? On the one side you highlight how exceptionally strong is Murray's competion in slams, on the other side you point out how good is Murray's record in the masters 1000. But: doesn't Murray have to compete with same as above guys when he plays the masters?

Also you based your conclusions only on statistical data. Does this mean that the WTA is currently expressing its greatest era as well since Wozniacky is, for the records, probably the strongest WTA player not to win a slam?

Please answer both qs.

Actually, who said Rios??

If we want to compare the best slamless players, (oh these guys will be so pleased!!) then Rios to me shades Murray.

Despite just the one awful performance in a slam final, Rios won 18 titles and I think won all the clay masters (a big achievement back then) and five in total. What must secure the dubious honour in Rios' favour is the fact he was, for a short time number 1 in the world. He was also considered something of a wizard and a very talented player. Mecir was never number 1 and Murray is not regarded as talented.

So there. Marcelo Rios is the best player never to win a slam.................FACT!

I would also say Kafelnikov was more talented than Murray in my opinion. Much more.
46 ATP finals, 26 titles, slams on clay and hard-court, as well as titles on grass (3-time Halle winner - 4-time finalist) as well as further indoor and carpet titles, plus 4 slams doubles titles and many others - all no mean feat in an era when you had specialists for every surface. He was a brilliant attacking player - who overplayed in my opinion - he had basically 10 seasons on tour and played around 1500 singles and doubles matches...thats 150 matches per season! 150!!!. I believe he would have won alot more had he not entered as many events as he could ($$$$$).

Tom_____ wrote:Socal, i'm surprised you have not mentioned the player i talk about below:

The player i would say most comparable to Murray and give a mention as a great player never to win a slam was Miloslav Mecir - AO - F, RG - SF, W - SF and US - F, plus 3 masters titles and Olympic gold 88 (taking out Edberg in the process). the Slams results were in the mid-late 80s and what an era that was! Interestingly his playing style was not leaps and bounds from Murrays in some respects, so for me Murray and Mecir hold the title of 'greatest never to have won'. Also Mecir got obliterated in the two slam finals he made, yet, come away from slam finals and you find he had some success against the best of that era (E.g Wilander/Edberg). Other examples include losing in 5 sets from 2-0 up at Wimbledon 88 in the SF vs eventual winner Edberg.

Mecir had to retire aged 26 due to back injury..........so the relative age comparison is quite good at the present time between him and murray

Murray appears to shade it - but have a look at Mecir on youtube if you were not properly into tennis in the late 80s - he was clearly an excellent addition to the sport.

Rios only got to one final, so I can't include him here with the likes of Murray and Mecir.

Mecir, very good player Tom, but I frankly don't understand the fascination and overestimation of his abilities. He was a player if I remember correctly who got to two grandslam finals and reached for a shot period like murray number 2 in the world in era replete with high level talent. However, the similarities for me end there. Murray has about 3 times the career singles titles Mecir has and is about 18 months younger than Mecir when Mecir retired. I know that mecir was hampered by the bad back, but I think he had this cult following because he was the last top guy to stop playing with a wood racquet. Murray just much more conistent and much more power in his game even taking to account the difference in eras. Mecir is not even close I am afraid, Tom, great player for sure, very unorthodox.

lydian wrote:I would also say Kafelnikov was more talented than Murray in my opinion. Much more.
46 ATP finals, 26 titles, slams on clay and hard-court, as well as titles on grass (3-time Halle winner - 4-time finalist) as well as further indoor and carpet titles, plus 4 slams doubles titles and many others - all no mean feat in an era when you had specialists for every surface. He was a brilliant attacking player - who overplayed in my opinion - he had basically 10 seasons on tour and played around 1500 singles and doubles matches...thats 150 matches per season! 150!!!. I believe he would have won alot more had he not entered as many events as he could ($$$$$).

Again lydian, best player not to win a slam kafelnikov has two. I said that murray in my mind is better than some guys who have won one or two slams, I didn't say he was better than all of them.

Super D Boon wrote:Actually, who said Rios??

If we want to compare the best slamless players, (oh these guys will be so pleased!!) then Rios to me shades Murray.

Despite just the one awful performance in a slam final, Rios won 18 titles and I think won all the clay masters (a big achievement back then) and five in total. What must secure the dubious honour in Rios' favour is the fact he was, for a short time number 1 in the world. He was also considered something of a wizard and a very talented player. Mecir was never number 1 and Murray is not regarded as talented.

So there. Marcelo Rios is the best player never to win a slam.................FACT!

Wrong, Marcelo Rios was first mentioned by me in the opening post of thread by the way. A great slam less player no doubt but murray's accomplishments already surpass Rios' in every area but the cup of coffee Rios had at number one. If I was to make a list of open era greats with no slam Rios and Davydenko would be in there but right behind murray. Rios 18 titles, Murray 22. Rios 5 masters Murray already has 7. Murray has more years of top 5 finishes as well and more grandslam finals as well. And Murray is currently young and has at least another couple of years of his prime tennis in front of him. Rios is a clear and distant #2 in my mind on the fact that murray has more tourney wins, more masters, more grandslam finals, and is younger.

Yeah I'm with socal on this one. Murray isn't 25 yet and no other slam-less player has a trophy cabinet like his.

Even if Murray starting going backwards now (unlikely for the next couple of years at least I think) you would imagine he'd still pick up another handful of tournaments.

I think that over the next couple of years this will not even be a talking point as I remain sure he'll get at least one major.

I think we can summarise the OP argument thus;

Murray is the best no-Slam player because he plays in the best era.

It's the best era because it has a player like Murray not winning Slams.

Danny exactly if you look at the trophy cabinet there is no competition. Murray is already enjoying a significant advantage over any open era guy who doesn't have a slam. On virtually every objective measurement of the best non-slam winner of the open era murray wins hands down.

BB, I did not say murray being the greatest player without a slam proves that this era on its own is a strong era. What I said is that taking this fact along with the strength of the top 3 combined is good evidence of the strength of the current era. Obviously Nadal, Federer, and djoko are the main strength. But the fact that a statistical anomoly like murray exists a player that wins so much but still can't get a slam does help tell us the following: 1. Murray is really good 2. It is very difficult to win slams in this era 3. Eras of tough competition also are usually periods where is difficult to break your slams duck, therefore this a very tough era. It is simple logical reasoning BB but why am not surprised that you appoach it like the italian army approached a battle in the spring of 1943.

It coud just as easily show you the weakness of the rest and the limitations of Murray. Certainly he has some glaring technical shortcomings, a quick look at the forehand or second serve confirms that.

I'm just pointing out the circularity of the argument you make. Each assertion depends on the others. Nothing stands alone.

Oh, and lame insults don't help your 'argument'. Show it up, more like.

Well lets just say that in general I am less than impressed with your ability to grasp logical arguments. It is not circular logic. Which assumption do you dispute? Do you dispute that it is difficult to win a slam in this era? 31 of 36 have been taken by just 3 men. Do you dispute that Murray's track record of 20 plus tournament wins and 3 grandslams finals is evidence that he is good? How exactly is any of this circular?

Jeremy Kyle, for one thing you seem to draw this distinction between Murray at slams and at Masters Murray has a great slam record for not having won a slam The amount of semis he has are staggering and he has 3 finals appearances. Furthermore Wozniacki is a different scenario please read my prior post on how murray is just supporting evidence when taken in conjunction with the obvious slam domination of the 3 guys above him.

You can't prove one point by reference to another which in turn depends on the first. Sorry, but that's just obvious.

It's no harder to win a Slam now than ever; there are 4 the same as always, maybe there's just a weak field. You can't prove or disprove that by reference to records since they are a function of the strength of the winners and shortcomings of the losers, and either can be independently assessed by records.

Obvious really.

socal1976 wrote:

Super D Boon wrote:Actually, who said Rios??

If we want to compare the best slamless players, (oh these guys will be so pleased!!) then Rios to me shades Murray.

Despite just the one awful performance in a slam final, Rios won 18 titles and I think won all the clay masters (a big achievement back then) and five in total. What must secure the dubious honour in Rios' favour is the fact he was, for a short time number 1 in the world. He was also considered something of a wizard and a very talented player. Mecir was never number 1 and Murray is not regarded as talented.

So there. Marcelo Rios is the best player never to win a slam.................FACT!

Wrong, Marcelo Rios was first mentioned by me in the opening post of thread by the way. A great slam less player no doubt but murray's accomplishments already surpass Rios' in every area but the cup of coffee Rios had at number one. If I was to make a list of open era greats with no slam Rios and Davydenko would be in there but right behind murray. Rios 18 titles, Murray 22. Rios 5 masters Murray already has 7. Murray has more years of top 5 finishes as well and more grandslam finals as well. And Murray is currently young and has at least another couple of years of his prime tennis in front of him. Rios is a clear and distant #2 in my mind on the fact that murray has more tourney wins, more masters, more grandslam finals, and is younger.

But you're basing you theory of Murray as the best slamless player purely on numbers. Rios for what it's worth was considered more talented than Murray and unlike Murray has the wondereful "unlucky with injuries" excuse that many a non-slammer in history can trot out to explain away why he was never able to capture a big one. You've also got to remeber that Rios will probably be remembered more in 50 years time as well given that he was number 1. In 50 years Murray will scarcely be remembered away from these shores as he was neither #1 or a slammer if he continue in his non slam winning ways until the end of his career. You're assessing greatness on one criteria alone that being silverware.

Brian Gottfired and Thomas Enquist won more titles than Rios but they are not as well remembered.

The Kafelnikov/Murray comparison is a good one. I can't see where anyone is coming from suggesting that Kafelnikov was a more talented player than Murray. He was a workmanlike player who made the most of a solid game. Murray moves better; has bigger weapons and probably edges the returns. Heck, for all his faults, he even has a better first serve. In his whole career, Kafelnikov won four more titles than Murray has to date, despite the fact he consistently rocked up at small-time events where he was a massive favourite. Check out some of the draws he had in his 5 Moscow triumphs for example.

The only reason anyone is even able to argue that Yevgeny is a better player is the two grand slams he won. In the Australia he didn't have to beat a player ranked higher than 13 and in the French he faced Krajicek; Sampras (knackered from a 5 setter against Courier) and Stich in the last three rounds - hardly the clay court specialists one might have expected him to face. Anyone who seriously thinks that Murray wouldn't have a good chance to pick up slams in similar circumstances is having a laugh.

Kafelnikov emphasises the point that in any other era a player as strong as Murray would have, at the very least, got a couple of occasions where the top guys fell early. That simply doesn't happen today. To win a slam today requires the equivalent of beating both of Sampras and Agassi in the same tournament.

The greatest ever player never to have won a slam was Jim McTaversham. He was bjorn in 1356 (common era) in Gingallynonga, a small village in the highlands of Scotland. His feats of caber throwing and bull breaking are legend. Unfortunately for him he was bjorn before his time.

Not only is this a FACT it is also entirely untrue.

Born Slippy wrote:The Kafelnikov/Murray comparison is a good one. I can't see where anyone is coming from suggesting that Kafelnikov was a more talented player than Murray. He was a workmanlike player who made the most of a solid game. Murray moves better; has bigger weapons and probably edges the returns. Heck, for all his faults, he even has a better first serve. In his whole career, Kafelnikov won four more titles than Murray has to date, despite the fact he consistently rocked up at small-time events where he was a massive favourite. Check out some of the draws he had in his 5 Moscow triumphs for example.

The only reason anyone is even able to argue that Yevgeny is a better player is the two grand slams he won. In the Australia he didn't have to beat a player ranked higher than 13 and in the French he faced Krajicek; Sampras (knackered from a 5 setter against Courier) and Stich in the last three rounds - hardly the clay court specialists one might have expected him to face. Anyone who seriously thinks that Murray wouldn't have a good chance to pick up slams in similar circumstances is having a laugh.

Kafelnikov emphasises the point that in any other era a player as strong as Murray would have, at the very least, got a couple of occasions where the top guys fell early. That simply doesn't happen today. To win a slam today requires the equivalent of beating both of Sampras and Agassi in the same tournament.

Great post. Fully agree.

"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."

Honestly thats rubbish.

He won 11 titles, that included 3 masters wins and a gold medal in seoul 88'. He also made 3 other masters finals. He made 2 slam finals, 2 slam SFs and 3 slam QFs - that is not that far behind Murray and to be honest you could debate endlessly how good an era the mid-late 80s was - it undeniable that it was one of the best period of tennis talent. To cap that his career was ended early by injury. He also seems to perform badly in the slam Finals he did get to (like Murray) and unfortunately for him vs Lendl he had a poor career record.

Compare to Rios, in comparison - he made only one slam final and 5 QFs in a period when Sampras was waning and Agassi was in the gap between his 2nd and 3rd careers ranked about 30 in the world. Ok he won 5 masters in a short space of time, but really his career is a good hot streak during a lull at the top of the game (he only played the best of the 90s (Samp/Ags 5 times in total)). If you bring up Rios you may as well throw in Tomas Enqvist who made a Slam final also and won 3 masters titles with a total of 19 to Rios's 18. I don't really rate the whole ranked higly thing thing as a mark of greatness - Magnus Norman got to rank no.2 in the world on the back of 1 good year on tour with a slam final and masters win, but he would not feature in this debate.

Compare all to Murray, then yes Murray comes out on top, however Mecir is the closest to him in terms of consistently battling, but coming out just worse off than the best of their period over a number of years.

Ultimately i still think that if Murray remains uninjured then his time will come and the greatest never to win a slam will have to revert back the other players.

I do think we are in a very strong era and I get the point of the article was to highlight Murray being great to indicate just how good this era is. However, for me the dominance of 4 players consistently all year highlights that the courts and playing styles have homogenised to such a degree where that type of domination is possible - in the time when SV was a competitive game style, you would never expect such players to turn up to clay and even slow HC tournaments with a great chance to win. things have changed and we have 4 very different but highly talented players able to compete seriously to try to win all events. This is a mixed blessing in my mind, but ultimately the homogenisation of the surfaces via compound changes, ball sizes/pressures/fluff and string technology makes the comparison between era's more subjective than ever - i.e in the future i believe we can expect more players to achieve consistently on all but the greatest stage, without that necessarily meaning the era is strong relative to a time when surfaces were more diverse.

A very good article (you see non fans of a player can write good balanced articles about them, without insulting their ability

Personally, given that Andy is only half way through his career (all being well) and less in terms of challenging for the honours - it is too soon

One thing I will say, is that the reason why he has such an astonishing record in the Masters (i.e. for every 3 or 4 Masters wins - you'd expect one Slam) is quite simple, when he played Fed in the 2008/10 Slam finals, it was against a player who was better than in the two 2010 Masters finals (they met in)

Likewise Nole at Miami 09 or Canada 11, wasn't the same as the awesome Aus Open version of last year

In other words, it isn't that much of a mystery - he's been beaten by players playing Tennis that would have won most of the majors in any year

I do think that gets lost. We need to see what happens when Murray plays someone other than the Top 3 in a Slam final - which I believe will happen one day

@Tom: Well Tom there is much in your post that I do agree with. I am glad that you acknowledge that on an objective basis that Murray is more accomplished than Mecir and other slamless players. I do agree with you in that Mecir was a very talented player who I did watch growing up. i do not dispute that but in my mind I would rate him behind Murray, Rios, and probably Davy in terms of open era slamless wonders. i will say this he had a lot more potential that was cut very short by injury. But I took that into account in my analysis. I still don't think he is nearly as good as Murray. Very good player however.

Born Slippy wrote:The Kafelnikov/Murray comparison is a good one. I can't see where anyone is coming from suggesting that Kafelnikov was a more talented player than Murray. He was a workmanlike player who made the most of a solid game. Murray moves better; has bigger weapons and probably edges the returns. Heck, for all his faults, he even has a better first serve. In his whole career, Kafelnikov won four more titles than Murray has to date, despite the fact he consistently rocked up at small-time events where he was a massive favourite. Check out some of the draws he had in his 5 Moscow triumphs for example.

The only reason anyone is even able to argue that Yevgeny is a better player is the two grand slams he won. In the Australia he didn't have to beat a player ranked higher than 13 and in the French he faced Krajicek; Sampras (knackered from a 5 setter against Courier) and Stich in the last three rounds - hardly the clay court specialists one might have expected him to face. Anyone who seriously thinks that Murray wouldn't have a good chance to pick up slams in similar circumstances is having a laugh.

Kafelnikov emphasises the point that in any other era a player as strong as Murray would have, at the very least, got a couple of occasions where the top guys fell early. That simply doesn't happen today. To win a slam today requires the equivalent of beating both of Sampras and Agassi in the same tournament.

Excellent post, I am in full agreement. Come on is there anyone on this website who doubts that Murray could win a slam if the highest seeded player he had to play was ranked 13 in the world? Born Slippy, I have been trying to clue in some stubborn folks on this website who fail to recognize why it is that a top heavy tour by its very nature makes it harder to win slams. In this current era you would have to beat two goat candidates in successive matches to win a slam, with as consistent as the top guys have been. You aren't getting any Johansson or kafelnikov draws. And because in tournament tennis you don't play the field en masse it really doesn't matter if you have great parity across the top 30 as much as having to play two legends in the semi and final match. To win a slam today most likely a player outside of the top 3 would have to win two straight matches against a goat candidate or Djokovic. A great many one and two slammers of the past would never have been able to jump the hurdle set by today's players. And again that is very strong evidence of the strength of the era.

I think Tom's last paragraph sums up the difficulty with making such claims, such as that in the OP.

Is Murray's superior talent reflected by his superior stats vis a vis the other non-slam winning talents or is it more as a result of playing in an era of homogenised conditions where one can play one style of game, and thus not step outside one's comfort zone, and be successful across all surfaces and tournaments?

socal1976 wrote:@Tom: Well Tom there is much in your post that I do agree with. I am glad that you acknowledge that on an objective basis that Murray is more accomplished than Mecir and other slamless players. I do agree with you in that Mecir was a very talented player who I did watch growing up. i do not dispute that but in my mind I would rate him behind Murray, Rios, and probably Davy in terms of open era slamless wonders. i will say this he had a lot more potential that was cut very short by injury. But I took that into account in my analysis. I still don't think he is nearly as good as Murray. Very good player however.

Mecir is in Fab 5 (Mac, Connors, Agassi, Federer and 'The Cat) and I'm more than happy for Andy to be classed in the same league

If you compare Murray's Masters and Majors achievement, one is driven by Bo3 format, the other Bo5. My belief is that if Masters were Bo5 like they used to be then his title count would be far lower as I believe over 5 sets he's nowhere near as good at mentally toughing it out as the shorter Bo3 format. Mecir and Co had to win Masters over a much tougher format back then and not surprisingly the same guys who won the Majors tended to prevail. Otherwise, isnt the difference between Murray's TMS and Major results somewhat odd?

emancipator wrote:I think Tom's last paragraph sums up the difficulty with making such claims, such as that in the OP.

Is Murray's superior talent reflected by his superior stats vis a vis the other non-slam winning talents or is it more as a result of playing in an era of homogenised conditions where one can play one style of game, and thus not step outside one's comfort zone, and be successful across all surfaces and tournaments?

But I don't think the homogenised conditions, particularly favour Murray. They favour the Top 2

Look at Dubai, where the faster courts meant that the two best hard court players, reached the final, i.e. if we could actually have two hard court slams of this nature - Andy would have a far better chance

Andy's game is about instinctive shots on the run from impossible angles. For this he need medium fast to fast courts - so he can keep players like Rafa off balance. He doesn't slide into the shots like the Top 2 - this means he's at a disadvantage on clay because he doesn't stop and spend that extra micro-second getting a stronger shot. He wants courts where he can carry out a variety of shots - you can only really get that on a fast hard court, i.e. get the most out of his brilliant changes of pace

Of course if the courts were all fast - then he'd still have Roger to contend with but I still think he would have more of a chance