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.

socal1976 wrote:Lags I don't buy the idea of gottfried being comparable career wise to Murray..................

Agreed.

Hence my own comment in the post ......... "there really is very little meaningful comparison"

Yes, I was agreeing with your earlier post spot on. I keep waiting for a more suitable candidate than murray to be suggested of earning the moniker the best without a slam, but I really can't see other candidates. Now I think that reflects very well on the difficulty to win a slam in this era and of the strength of competition at the highest levels of the game.

Don't you just love how people try to say this is a weak era to explain Andy's success and ability to hold down the No.4 slot for so long. They say there is no strength in depth to try to excuse Andy's standing. Well do these people not stop to think that the opposition will appear weak if they are put up against the greatest player of all-time (Roger Federer), the greatest clay courter of all-time (Rafael Nadal) and the current man of the moment Novak Djokovic tipped by mant to win 10+ slams. Sorry but other players will struggle to get results against that myriad of talent as would the numbers 4,5,6,7,8,9 and 10 of five, ten, fifthteen years ago.

It's good to have a serious debate about someone who is a fantastic player, but yet to find the mental fortitude to take a slam off the great players above him.

Lots of good, impartial, constructive points and not a Murray hater in sight.

Is this the dawning of a new era on this board??

Danny_1982 wrote:... Is this the dawning of a new era on this board??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjxSCAalsBE

Danny_1982 wrote:It's good to have a serious debate about someone who is a fantastic player, but yet to find the mental fortitude to take a slam off the great players above him.

Lots of good, impartial, constructive points and not a Murray hater in sight.

Is this the dawning of a new era on this board??

Firstly it's a little bit early to write Andy's tennis obituary since he's got several more chances to win a slam at least. Secondly this comparison of eras is little unfair. You could only beat the best around you at any given time and, obviously, likewise end up losing to whoever happened to be better.

For Andy (so far), ditto Philippoussis (two slam finals and who knows how many more if not for serious injury) and Mecir (two slam finals and a bad back to boot).

Also if McEnroe had seen off Lendl in the French Open who's to say that wouldn't have been Ivan's last chance and we'd now be talking about him as the greatest ever not to win a slam. What Andy needs to do is take that one opportunity that'll come - like Lendl did when McEnroe ran out of steam . Miss that chance and it might never come around again.

socal1976 wrote:

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.

1. 30 MSes are equivalent to 9 MSes/year x 3+ years. Stating that in the last 30 masters, there have been 4 non-Top 4 winners is using a 'limited' statistic to prove a point, which can be argued.

2. There are players who won less than 8 MSes (the number Murray has currently), yet managed to win slams. As Danny says, MSes and Slams are different animals.

a. One significant factor posters forget is that prior to 2006-2007 (2007 Miami to be exact) the previous series was a Bo5, unlike the current Bo3.
b. Examples of players, who won less MSes (or equivalent), but won slams, are Chang, Courier, Kuerten and Safin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_Masters_Series
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Prix_Tennis_Championship_Series_1970-1989
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_Masters_Series_records_and_statistics

3. Murray does have an interesting five set record. http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=4899272&postcount=214.

Winning MSEs should not be the only yardstick for 'greatness'. As I have said earlier, Fedalovic are tough to beat, but there have been many such triumvirates (Borg/McEnroe/Connors for one) who have also been equally tough to beat.

newballs wrote:What Andy needs to do is take that one opportunity that'll come - like Lendl did when McEnroe ran out of steam . Miss that chance and it might never come around again.

How do you know Lendl did not pay the photographer to make those 'irritating' whirring camera motor sounds?

Just kidding, NB.

Laverfan not surte what your point is about five setters since his 12 W vs. 6 L record only contains two against the "big 3" both of which he lost.

Mentioning Borg/McEnroe and Connors though does make me stop to think. It was only when Lendl beat McEnroe (if my memory serves me correctly) after Borg retired that he entered such distinguished company.

Perhaps it'll be after Federer retires and he finally beats Djokovic in a slam final? A case of deja vu no doubt.

Very true Newballs, how ironic if you think on the eve of the french open of 1984, Ivan Lendl was probably the greatest player to never have won a slam before that famous match with mcenroe. That has to be an optimistic way to look at the situation. I mean i don't want to write murray's obituary in 4 months or year from now he very well may have a slam under his belt and will have forever kicked the moniker.

Craig is correct a lot people on this site in the past loved to dismiss the success of murray and other modern stars down to weak competition and homogenized conditions. It is a backhanded acknowledgement at best for their accomplishments. I think the reverse is true the very fact that we have the existence of a murray a player on course fro 35 to 40 tourney wins who still doesn't have a slam tells us all we need to know about how tough the top level of competition is.

Laverfan i watched mac, borg, and connors and I don't think they won anything approaching this consistently as Fed, Nadal, and Djoko. Also back then the AO was not contested by most of the best stars so a player a good player for sure but not quite at that level like Kriek can win two AOs against lesser fields. By definition if most the best players don't show to Australia like early 80s then it would be easier to win it.

I agree with those that say if we teleported Andy Murray back in time to a different era, then he would have cleaned up the grand slam titles with his luxurion stringed carbon fibre racket with the large racket head, with his medical and scientific support team, his baseline defensive play and his second serve blunder buster.

Except he might have accidentally run over his future dad while speeding in his ferrari sportscar.

Is the answer 1) a bit overrated and 2) not much?

newballs wrote:not surte what your point is about five setters since his 12 W vs. 6 L record only contains two against the "big 3" both of which he lost.

I was looking at MSes (Bo5 up to Miami 2007) and was interested in Murray's 5-set record.

newballs wrote:It was only when Lendl beat McEnroe (if my memory serves me correctly) after Borg retired that he entered such distinguished company.
Perhaps it'll be after Federer retires and he finally beats Djokovic in a slam final? A case of deja vu no doubt.

DelPotro at USO 2009 beat Fedal, even if Nadal was injured with an abdominal tear.

socal1976 wrote:i watched mac, borg, and connors and I don't think they won anything approaching this consistently as Fed, Nadal, and Djoko. Also back then the AO was not contested by most of the best stars so a player a good player for sure but not quite at that level like Kriek can win two AOs against lesser fields. By definition if most the best players don't show to Australia like early 80s then it would be easier to win it.

There is this little matter of Vilas and Connors, Gerulaitis showing up at the AO in 80s.

And a certain Mr. Tanner beat Vilas and Rosewall enroute to an AO title.

Some pretty distinguished names in this list...

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Vi/G/Guillermo-Vilas.aspx?t=pa&y=0&m=s&e=580#

This one reminds me of the Soderling FO quote after losing to Federer in 2009.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitas_Gerulaitis#Quote

laverfan - I've always loved that quip by Gerulaitis. There are few things that endear us (or me, at least ..!) more to personalities in the sporting world than those who - although having reached a very high level in their chosen field - still retain the ability to make light of him/herself in the right circumstances .....

In very similar vein, Andy Roddick (3-21 vs Federer ) only recently joked that he had "clearly gotten inside Federer's head", and that Fed had no idea how to tackle him on the court. The comments came in a fun court-side interview, immediately after Roddick had beaten him in an exho. Maybe it had some effect - because Roddick then went on to claim a famously rare victory over Fed in a proper tourney (Miami 2012)

LLeyton Hewitt went seven years and lost fifteen in a row to Federer before finally managing a tight 3 set win at Halle. But, after all those years of suffering - not least in a whole succession of Slams - I don't think Hewitt was in the mood to make any Vitas-like quips about it......

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. .

------------

Firstly, I don't think anyone is disputing your argument that Murray is the best non-slammer ever so stop getting you knickers in a twist!

Secondly, no-one disputes the fact that the top 3 are very very good. However, there are theories that can explain the triopoly on the slams we currently have. Back in the day, the surfaces used to be so different. Guys like Sampras, Rafter, Ivanisevic would rarely if ever find themselves in the business end of Roland Garros likewise muck sluggers like Moya, Kuerten and Coria would hardly ever be struting their stuff on the lush green lawns of Wimbledon deep into the second week. However, now we have a situation that with surfaces becoming ever more similar, the top 3 are dominant everywhere. There's absolutely nothing in the tour for fast court players anymore with the complete abolishment of carpet courts and the very few grass courts left are slowed down for the baseliners. Considering these theories it is not hard to understand that if you're good somewhere you're good everywhere.

I would bet on Krajikek (on proper grass) getting a slam now. He was wildly good when he won SW19 in 1996. Who else, Moya quite possibly had enough weaponry to topple Nadal perhaps on one occassion too. Ferrero could have done it as well given that he has beaten Nadal fairly recently way past his best and on clay.

There is no evidence (nor can there be, it's all theoretical) that Murray would win a slam in any era. .
----------



The best comment of the thread. It used to bug me that the Beeb along with several other experts from the tennis loving media used to say if it weren't for Sampras then Henman would have won Wimbledon and maybe more than one. He had at least four more good years after Sampras went on the slide and failed.

I feel that Murray is the sort of player that may have never won a slam even if he was playing in 2002 with one slam wonders such as Johansen and Costa. It's not just great players that win slams it's players playing great that win them too. In the case of players like Krajikek in particular, I remember he was, at times pretty unplayable when he won Wimbledon in 1996. Krajikek and to a lesser extent players like Ferrero and Del Potro are the sorts of players who would have gotten their one slam in any era, such was their greatness in their fortnights of glory.

Super D Boon, Krajicek on grass probably could get hot and lucky in one match against Nadal or Djoko but for the most part i see Fed getting the better of him on grass. By the way i didn't say that every one slammer of the past would fail to win today's era. I just said that in today's era it is much harder to win a slam and many one slam winners of the past would not have the open slam draws that aided in their victory.

The surfaces are not homogonizing results, this is another myth. How come the women playing with the same surfaces have had such topsy turvy results? For the last couple of years, although Aza seems to be changing it, you had about as much chance of picking the winner before a WTA tournament as picking the correct numbers in the lottery. These three are just that exceptionally good as 31 out of 36 proves.

And finally and most importantly you vastly exaggerate the uniformity of the surfaces. If the surfaces are so similar that the top guys can just win as easily one week to the next why is it that Nadal has 6 RG titles and only one US or Australian? Why is it that fed has 6 wimbeldons and one fortunate RG title? How come Murray is so vulnerable on clay and so strong on hardcourt? The surfaces all do not play the same. I watched Monte Carlo and now I am watching madrid next week and two clay courts playing completely differently. I don't want so much varation that bunch of euro hawaiian grip guys out there dominating the tour for 3 months and dissappearing that much variation in surfaces is too much variation.

1996 Krajicek on 90's grass with 90's equipment destroys Nadal, Djokovic or Murray.

Pete does it left handed.

There is no evidence (nor can there be, it's all theoretical) that Murray would win a slam in any era. .

Agreed. There is no evidence that he would or that he wouldn't. It could never be proved or disproved.

It used to bug me that the Beeb along with several other experts from the tennis loving media used to say if it weren't for Sampras then Henman would have won Wimbledon and maybe more than one. He had at least four more good years after Sampras went on the slide and failed.

Tim had that one year when he was at his peak and Samprass was knocked out by Federer, and then he beat Federer... And if he had beaten Goran he would have had a great chance.

That was the one year lacking in great players, when Tim had it within him to win it. All other years - before and after - he had far better players to compete with, and players that he was so inferior to that winning it was unlikely.

People compare him to Murray, but Murray is a far more talented player and has actually beaten the best many times. Tim at his best couldn't compete with Samprass or later on with Federer, but he was better than Andy at bringing his best to the slams.... He was more consistent. So far anyway.

Henman was so rubbish on grass that he took a set in two Wimbledon semis against the greatest Wimbleon champion of all time at his peak. Those sets we're the first and second, not consolation 3rds.

Murray wouldn't have taken a set at that event at that time against that player.

And finally and most importantly you vastly exaggerate the uniformity of the surfaces. If the surfaces are so similar that the top guys can just win as easily one week to the next why is it that Nadal has 6 RG titles and only one US or Australian? Why is it that fed has 6 wimbeldons and one fortunate RG title? How come Murray is so vulnerable on clay and so strong on hardcourt? The surfaces all do not play the same. I watched Monte Carlo and now I am watching madrid next week and two clay courts playing completely differently. I don't want so much varation that bunch of euro hawaiian grip guys out there dominating the tour for 3 months and dissappearing that much variation in surfaces is too much variation. .

--------------

Sure there are differences but they are not as clear as they used to be. For example, a clay hater in Roddick got to the QF of RG the year Federer won it. The last time I watched Roland Garros in full was in 2009 and I was amazed at the fact that no player seemed to bother sliding and they were hitting outright winners from everywhere with the ball skidding through very quickly. It played like a hard court. And as for Murray not being so confident on clay I am sure he's made at least one SF at Roland Garros last year and in 2009 got to the QF where he lost a very winnable match against Fernando Gonzalez.

Federer, Djokovic , Nadal and Murray are getting deep into all the slams all the time. Sure the top three are great but it's also to do with the fact that the morphing of surfaces has played a part in it.

I believe the last player to do a proper slam was Agassi, fast grass, fast hard, slow hard and slow clay. All 4 GSs were very different when Agassi won them. Now to win the French and Wimbledon double doesn't seem such a big deal anymore.

BB - I don't think Henman was rubbish, I don't know how you got that from my post. I loved watching Henman back in the day, and his consistency at Wimbledon was fantastic.

Tim had that one year when he was at his peak and Samprass was knocked out by Federer, and then he beat Federer... And if he had beaten Goran he would have had a great chance.

-------------

Henman was still at his peak up to 2004 so in theory had four chances after the great Sampras had waned. Federer had not yet established himself as a great player and Henman was being hyped up to the hills in 2004 on the logic that if he could get so far in Roland Garros he was bound to win Wimbledon.

..........and Henman also held a positive H2H against both Roddick and Federer which made people think he would beat both of them. I remember the Henman hyperbole of Wimbledon 2004 very well.

Henman had a ridiculously good H2H against Roger, while he was still emerging.... But once Roger found himself he used to walk all over him, like he did with most players.

I remember Roger saying that before he became a great player he used to have sleepless nights before playing Henman, and hated playing him more than any other player.

Still, Henman was a top top player. He finished the season in the top 10 about 6 or 7 times, which is a great achievement. Just because he wasn't a great shouldn't detract from the fact that he was very, very good.

Murray is way, way better than Henman BB. Only in bizarro BB world would anyone confuse the two, maybe Henman, maybe would have the edge over Murray on Grass. Either way I think any objective look at the statistics clearly establishes murray as the best player to never win a slam. And furthermore this tells us a lot about how strong the game is today. Henman was a very good pro, but by a long margin inferior to murray in terms of quality and accomplishment.

Murray will be remembered as the greatest ever player with the weakest second serve ever.

Sending Murray back in time to compete against those players in the past, is like sending back in time the super boy band One Direction to compete against the boy band known as the Beatles.

It shows the one dimensionality of the thinking of the armchair viewer that presupposes that those appearing before his/her eyes in the here and now, is the best ever of any generation.

Nore Staat - It could be also be argued that those who sit in their armchairs and say that this generation is nowhere near as good as generations gone by are simply romanticising the past.

As stated earlier, there is no way to prove or disprove how a player from today would have got on in the past, or a player from the past would get on today. It's a pretty pointless exercise to assume how either of these impossible scenarios would work out.

Danny_1982 wrote:Nore Staat - It could be also be argued that those who sit in their armchairs and say that this generation is nowhere near as good as generations gone by are simply romanticising the past. ...

I didn't say that. In anycase I bet my armchair is fluffier than yours. One Direction is really double dope.

Nore Staat wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:Nore Staat - It could be also be argued that those who sit in their armchairs and say that this generation is nowhere near as good as generations gone by are simply romanticising the past. ...

I didn't say that. In anycase I bet my armchair is fluffier than yours. One Direction is really double dope.

Mine is leather.

I'm jealous of your fluff.

One Direction even mentioned in the same sentence as The Beatles .......

Now I've heard it all !!

I used to have a leather sofa but it gave me a rash - small beatles or mites or something. The salesmen said the fluffy delux was the One Direction of the sofa world. One has to move with the times they say.

Nore - you should have bought your sofa from JLS, er, sorry I meant DFS.

Danny_1982 wrote:Nore Staat - It could be also be argued that those who sit in their armchairs and say that this generation is nowhere near as good as generations gone by are simply romanticising the past.

As stated earlier, there is no way to prove or disprove how a player from today would have got on in the past, or a player from the past would get on today. It's a pretty pointless exercise to assume how either of these impossible scenarios would work out.

606v2 needs a 'ticker' at the bottom of the Tennis forum page. This should discourage GOAT/GOTE debates forever.

@LF tennis fans brag out their heroes and their respective era more than the player themselves do, unfortunately thats how fans are and thats what media wants too and thats how these tennis forums survive

Hi LF, if Murray had have been born in the era of the McEnroe, Connors, Borg - how well do you think he would have fared? Those three were tough as old boots mentally with plenty of talent.

Hopefully if Murray had faced McEnroe, Connors or Borg he would have been too embarrassed to put on his usual show. If not then I guess that McEnroe and Connors would have been reduced to laughter. Not Borg. He would have just frozen him with his steely look...

Nore Staat wrote:I used to have a leather sofa but it gave me a rash - small beatles or mites or something. The salesmen said the fluffy delux was the One Direction of the sofa world. One has to move with the times they say.

did you squish Ringo?

The Borg phenomenon was commonly likened to Beatlemania in terms of the mayhem his early appearances created at Wimbledon.

Johnny Mac, massive music fan that he is, has often talked about the hysteria generated as being unique in tennis

"It was amazing. It was like a combination of Elvis and the Beatles," McEnroe told The Boston Globe's Stan Grossfeld of the reception Borg received at Wimbledon. "Never before have I seen Wimbledon like that. It’s never happened before and it’s never happened since."

I doubt we shall ever hear 'One Direction' mentioned in similar vein !! (but that's just my hunch )

http://www.tennisnow.com/news/featured-news/bjorn-borg-on-wimbledon,-john-mcenroe-and-life-aft.aspx

I am getting seriously offended at the constant mention of this so called musical group "One Direction" please stop it immediately!

Nice article btw lags

Thanks reckoner.

Can't speak for others of course, but I hereby promise you shall hear no further mention by myself of the so called musical group which has caused offence ....

(ps. on that point I'm pretty confident I can at least speak for Mac too ; can't imagine he's got the remotest idea who they are anyway ... )

Sometimes Murray gets wrong-footed and he ends up going in One Direction when he should be going in the other.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Sometimes Murray gets wrong-footed and he ends up going in One Direction when he should be going in the other.

RIGHT THAT'S IT I AM SUPER OFFENDED!!!!!!!!!!!

reckoner wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Sometimes Murray gets wrong-footed and he ends up going in One Direction when he should be going in the other.

RIGHT THAT'S IT I AM SUPER OFFENDED!!!!!!!!!!!

P.S. I AM NOT ENTIRELY SURE WHAT I AM OFFENDED ABOUT BUT WILL KEEP YOU POSTED ONCE I FIGURE IT OUT! (IN THE MEAN TIME I REMAIN OUTRAGED.)

I see a letter to The Times coming on .....

Yours
"Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells"

(or of 606v2 in this case)

lags72 wrote:I see a letter to The Times coming on .....

Yours
"Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells"

(or of 606v2 in this case)

excellent idea but first I wish to complain to a moderator about this JHM person who seems intent on offending me - he is clearly a character of ill repute and a cad to boot!

reckoner wrote:....first I wish to complain to a moderator about this JHM person who seems intent on
offending me - he is clearly a character of ill repute and a cad to boot!

And those are my good points!

JuliusHMarx wrote:

reckoner wrote:....first I wish to complain to a moderator about this JHM person who seems intent on
offending me - he is clearly a character of ill repute and a cad to boot!

And those are my good points!

Srtrangely I'm slightly less offended than a minute ago - what is this wyrd sorcery?

Helloooo, can anybody tell me what was this debate all about?