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.

Let's add Federer to that This year another genius by the name of Ronnie O'Sullivan became the oldest person to lift the Snooker world trophy since Dennis Taylor in 85. It would be fitting to have a double with the genius of Tennis.

Murray has imho 2 seasons left to win a slam... it is downhill then.

Until Federer wins one in his 30's he will not be making that list i'm afraid

Will Connors make the list?

What about Sweden's Thomas Enqvist. He had everything in his gameplay, a monstrous serve, big groundstrokes and a decent volley. He was the leading Junior player in 1991 and looked destined to become another of Sweden's great singles players. Sadly though he ended up winning no grand slams by the time he had to retire through injury.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Will Connors make the list?

Only by default. Someone has to assault a line judge first

There is no title of "Greatest Player Never to Win a Slam", only "Best Player Never to Win a Slam".

Come to this thread a bit late, but I'd like to correct an impression given by some posters that Masters 1000 tournaments used to be best-of-5. It was the Final only that was best-of-5. Therefore I don't believe that particular format would have affected Murray's excellent record in these events one jot.