Can Murray become a 'great' without a slam?

Despite the fact he has not won a slam, some of his stats are superior to many slam winners.

Will he always be below players like Chang, Roddick, Kalelnikov, Stich, Hewitt, Safin?

Out of the Above, Murray has won more Masters series titles, been in more Grand Slam semi-finals and only the 7th player in history (only Safin of this list can boast this) to reach the semis or better in all 3 major tournaments

Despite these facts, will he always been behind slam winners no matter in terms of greatness?

Personally, I think only Hewitt with his 2 year end Number 1s plus his 2 Masters Cup wins obviously with his two Slams keep him comfortably in front of the Scot, Safins top form was pretty special but is it enough to put him ahead of Murray over a career? I am not so sure, and the others in my opinion are lesser players than Murray, he has a good 4 years of peak play left, even if he does not win a slam I am confident all of his other numbers will be superior to most players with under 5 slams in history, would that be enough for him to be an all-time great?

Or will he never be considered one unless he gets at least one slam?

No.

And it takes a lot more than one Slam.

This is word inflation gone wild. If someone with a few Masters in an ATG, what words are we going to come up with for people who dominated the sport?

In 2008 he had the potential to be the GOAT, I suppose if he gets a slam that should put him up there. Talent wise definitely, he just hasn't achieved at the highest level yet. Could go down as the biggest waste of talent and not even because of lack of hard work but just in the wrong direction.

While I appreciate the sentiment, Slams are missing from the CV.

In determining greatness they need to have won the big one on the main stage, until that day comes he will be always a good player with quite remarkable consistency on the ATP tour.

If he does end up Slamless, with his stats it will be a case of how didn't someone with such stats and quality in his game not win a Slam. That is a tag I wouldn't wish on anyone.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:In 2008 he had the potential to be the GOAT, I suppose if he gets a slam that should put him up there. Talent wise definitely, he just hasn't achieved at the highest level yet. Could go down as the biggest waste of talent and not even because of lack of hard work but just in the wrong direction.

GOAT??!!!!??

If you don't use any emoticons it's hard to know if you're being sarcastic.

Maybe I'm viewing it slightly nostalgically but then I remember no one could beat him as his best was the best even better than Nadal's best. If he'd taken his game in the right direction he could be on 5-8 slams by now.

I think great may be a bit strong, but what word would you use to you that tier of Safin, Chang, maybe throw Courier in there? I think World Class doesn't do them justice, because anyone in the top 100 is world class in my eyes

I have often heard Federer describe players like Gilles Simon and Tommy Haas as great players, so what is Murray???

Quite apart from where Andy Murray may be deemed to 'sit' within any group of players past or present, I'm struggling with the context set by the original article itself simply because, for me, none of the names mentioned are great anyway.

They are/were all excellent players without doubt, and can all boast of achievements in their sport to be proud of. But "all-time greats....." ?? No way.

And as for the GOAT debate - oh, please, not again. I'd rather not even get started on that. Although I'm sure plenty of other members will never tire of it .....

bogbrush wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:In 2008 he had the potential to be the GOAT, I suppose if he gets a slam that should put him up there. Talent wise definitely, he just hasn't achieved at the highest level yet. Could go down as the biggest waste of talent and not even because of lack of hard work but just in the wrong direction.

GOAT??!!!!??

If you don't use any emoticons it's hard to know if you're being sarcastic.

Indeed.. what a load of nonsense. No one has potential to be the GOAT until they've actually won a significant amount and have set themselves firmly on that path. Murray in 2008 had not done this. Otherwise any player with talent has potential to be the GOAT.

As for the OP, no, JUST NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. I said NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Murray's only claim to fame is winning a load of Master's titles and showing some consistency in reaching the latter stages of slams. What does that actually mean? It means he can beat the lesser guys but not the elite on the biggest stages.

So pray, oh minion CAS, how does that elevate him above players who have actually managed to beat the elite on the biggest stages?

If we're going to use this kind of twisted logic, why stop at the Muzza? I mean why don't we make David Ferrer an ATG? The guy's won millions of ATP 500's, he just hasn't won that many 1000's, but I bet he's far better than many of those 1000 winners ( just for you oh child Bog son of Brush), who in turn are better than many of those slam winners thus hey presto, we have another ATG - Daveeed-master-of-500's-Ferreeeeeeeeeeeeeer.



emancipator - Hallelujah, hallelujah, halleluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuujjjjjjjjjjjaaaaaahhhhhh

..... or as a true great once said.....

"you can't be serious man, you can-not be serious !!"

emancipator wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:In 2008 he had the potential to be the GOAT, I suppose if he gets a slam that should put him up there. Talent wise definitely, he just hasn't achieved at the highest level yet. Could go down as the biggest waste of talent and not even because of lack of hard work but just in the wrong direction.

GOAT??!!!!??

If you don't use any emoticons it's hard to know if you're being sarcastic.

Indeed.. what a load of nonsense. No one has potential to be the GOAT until they've actually won a significant amount and have set themselves firmly on that path. Murray in 2008 had not done this. Otherwise any player with talent has potential to be the GOAT.

As for the OP, no, JUST NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. I said NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Murray's only claim to fame is winning a load of Master's titles and showing some consistency in reaching the latter stages of slams. What does that actually mean? It means he can beat the lesser guys but not the elite on the biggest stages.

So pray, oh minion CAS, how does that elevate him above players who have actually managed to beat the elite on the biggest stages?

If we're going to use this kind of twisted logic, why stop at the Muzza? I mean why don't we make David Ferrer an ATG? The guy's won millions of ATP 500's, he just hasn't won that many 1000's, but I bet he's far better than many of those 1000 winners' ( just for you oh child Bog son of Brush), who in turn are better than many of those slam winners' hence hey presto, we have another ATG - Daveeed-master-of-500's-Ferreeeeeeeeeeeeeer.



emancipator - Hallelujah, hallelujah, halleluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuujjjjjjjjjjjaaaaaahhhhhh

Well I didn't even say he was a great, maybe the greatest waste of talent... Anyhow you could just see from the way he was playing kind of like you'd know from watching Fed play even if you were completely unaware of his history or standing in the game.

I am not a Murray minion, please do not label me. I am tennis fan, and I didn't just point out Masters events so please do not pick and choose. I have said I think all time great is a bit strong but how would you categorise that tier of player? Like Jim Courier, is he a great? Is there a cut off point or something? I was just asking, what would it take for Murray to become one, or has he achieved enough to be looked back on as a great player

What exactly did you see?

I saw a bit of a pusher who had good hands

Ok I was being a bit harsh

These terms are all relative and subjective.

However, personally I do not think a player can be considered a great of the game (in the true sense, ie through achievement and not because of some overly used adjective) until he has demonstrated the ability to win at the highest level at least once.

So by that definition Murray is definitely not a great of the game. As to what exactly constitutes a great record (presumably it's the achievements that we're interested in) then that is subject to debate.

But most definitely Murray has not entered that conversation.



emancipator

emancipator wrote:Ok I was being a bit harsh

These terms are all relative and subjective.

However, personally I do not think a player can be considered a great of the game (in the true sense, ie through achievement and not because of some overly used adjective) until he has demonstrated the ability to win at the highest level at least once.

So by that definition Murray is definitely not a great of the game. As to what exactly constitutes a great record (presumably it's the achievements that we're interested in) then that is subject to debate.

But most definitely Murray has not entered that conversation.



emancipator

Thats is what I was asking, for me he is a great player but for him to be looked back on as a 'great' do you have to win a slam? So I was saying if Chang is a great because he won a slam (for me once you win a slam you will forever be remembered, so in that sense you have embedded yourself into the history of the sport) is he a better player than Murray? Despite if we look years down the line, Murrays career is far superiors to Changs, minus that one slam? Does that slam forever keep him a head of Murray? Just curious to see what people thought

Oh I don't Know

Bah Humbug, you're giving me a headache with all these pesky questions



emancipator

CAS wrote: ...........................................................................................................
..........................................................................................

I have often heard Federer describe players like Gilles Simon and Tommy Haas as great players, so what is Murray???

I don't doubt you on that CAS - it sounds like just the sort of comment Federer might say out of respect for a fellow competitor (and that respect itself is genuine, I'm sure) when a microphone is stuck under his nose, seconds before he steps onto court - as is the way in our modern media age where soundbites are constantly sought and hours of off-court air time need to be filled.

However .... if /when Federer ever decides to pen an autobiog, and it includes a chapter on "The Greats" do you honestly think Simon and Haas are likely to find their way in to it

emancipator wrote:What exactly did you see?

I saw a bit of a pusher who had good hands

I saw a guy with a game for the modern conditions superior to those above him and with flair second to maybe Fed only. He could win any point and in all those improvised reflex points he'd always come out on top whereas now he loses them a lot more and it seems Rafa is the best at those. He could also play that game where you just smack winner after winner like he did in the US open semi that year. He'd got his fitness to an awesome level, I don't know why he got so fixated on improving it in the years that followed. He also had really good mental strength; he could be down 5-2 in a set and come back to win it 5-7. That's without mentioning his returning skills as well he broke Karlovic pretty easily at Cincinatti on his way to his first masters. AO 2009 should really have been his first slam,

bogbrush wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:In 2008 he had the potential to be the GOAT, I suppose if he gets a slam that should put him up there. Talent wise definitely, he just hasn't achieved at the highest level yet. Could go down as the biggest waste of talent and not even because of lack of hard work but just in the wrong direction.

GOAT??!!!!??

If you don't use any emoticons it's hard to know if you're being sarcastic.

Look at the upside of the comment, he now has a tennis life partner in Craig

oh of course not Lags, for me an all time great is a player with 4 slams or above, I dont think they particularly need to dominate because I wouldn't say Becker did, spent much of his career at Number 2 behind Lendl. I have worded the title wrong, should have been "can Murray be a 'great' without winning a slam?" But the players I first mentioned, I think they are certainly mentioned as great players, would he be above them when we look back down the line, if he hasn't won a slam? I think Murray is desperate to have that recognition, he knows a lot about the records and the greats I think he desperately wants to leave his mark. He may never be able to without a slam, despite a great career he may have.

(changed title to prevent an over reaction)

break_in_the_fifth wrote:
Well I didn't even say he was a great, maybe the greatest waste of talent... Anyhow you could just see from the way he was playing kind of like you'd know from watching Fed play even if you were completely unaware of his history or standing in the game.

The greatest waste of talent of all time (GWOTOAT)? Bit harsh.

I see Murray as a very good but limited player, unfairly burdened by the expectations of a hysterical British media.

For all his nonsense about being a multi-slammer in eras gone by he needs to prove himself in his own era not strongly insinuate that he would have handed Sampras and Agassi a pasting if he was born 20 years earlier. He's not a great of his own era because he hasn't done anything great yet.

Emanci I was about to bring David's name as well but as usual you raced ahead of me.

David Ferrer for his continued dominance of lesser players should merit him a place in ATG if Murray's deserves one.

What about another David in Nalbandian? he deserves a place as well, he has won WTF beating the GOAT in the finals from 2 sets down. won 2 master beating Fed-Nadal back to back.

Unless someone wins a slam they don't qualify to be discusses in ATG list, however I wish Murray adds his name to the arguments by winning one soon.

Fair enough CAS, I think you did well to amend the title at least. I appreciate you're not committing some sort of heinous crime against mankind, you're just looking to spark a harmless discussion.

Personally I've never seen anything particularly conclusive coming from these sort of threads over the years, and I feel that's how it will always be - until such time as the player(s) concerned have finally hung up his/their racquets.

If you want to call Murray a great without a slam, then so is Dinara Safina. Yea, now you can slowly backtrack, into dust.

He's a world class player, no doubt about that.

But 'great' to me implies that someone is in the top bracket to have ever played the game. How great a player is is usually defined by slam wins.

So the answer is no. He's not a great and can't be considered as one until he starts winning slams.

jheez, I posed a question, not once did I say he was an all time great. Some players cause so much tension. I was innocently looking through Murrays career statistics and thought to myself this guy has stats of a mullti-major winner and terms of consistency better sam results than a few of them. I wonder if it would allow him to sneak in as an honorary member!? Wont pose a tennis question on a tennis FORUM again, what was I thinking? Thanks to those who answered constructively anyway

Murray is a great!

Over a five year period Andrew Murray has consistently been the fourth best player (shading into the third and second spots for brief periods). During this time we have had the all time GOAT in Roger Federer and the best ever clay court player in Rafael Nadal who has developed a style that allows him to compete now on all slam surfaces. Djokovic had one of the best ever seasons in tennis winning three slams in a year. If Murray is not considered a great then there have been few greats in the history of the game.

Wait a minute. By your logic then Tim Henman is a Wimbledon great because he's been to the quarter finals as much as say Jimmy Connors or John McEnroe??

No a similar comparison would be, is Henman greater than Krajicek at Wimbledon? is Henmans 4 semi-finals and 3 Quater-finals better than the Dutchmans one Win, one Semi and one Quarter-final but littered with first and second round losses? Of course people say the win tops it, but I would say Henman was the better player at Wimbledon

Fair question. I speculated on the 100 greatest players thread that murray was probably more deserving of a place than Bunny Austin and perhaps someone like Cash. He clearly isnt an all-time great but his achievements probably place him onto a list of that nature.

Nore Staat wrote:Murray is a great!

Over a five year period Andrew Murray has consistently been the fourth best player (shading into the third and second spots for brief periods). During this time we have had the all time GOAT in Roger Federer and the best ever clay court player in Rafael Nadal who has developed a style that allows him to compete now on all slam surfaces. Djokovic had one of the best ever seasons in tennis winning three slams in a year. If Murray is not considered a great then there have been few greats in the history of the game.

great means slams winner ma'am!

Where's Murray's slam you tell me, I can find no one.

Great = slams

Not great = slamless.

PLease do not overegg.

PM

Andy is a great.

Lleyton is an all-time great.

Boris, Andre and Stephane are mega legends with magical powers.

Ivan, John and Jimmy are splendiferous legendary sub-deities.

Pete, Bjorn and Rafa are actual Gods who spit greatness from every orifice and command the loyalty of billions.

Roger creates Universes to celebrate every time he wins a slam. He is now the All-Father of 17 realities.


I'm just trying to keep up with the updated classifications of players.

I agree with BB - I guess we all use 'great' carelessly as in 'he is a great player' when actually what we really mean is 'he is an excellent player' or he is a top class player at the pinnacle of his sport.

If you use the word in its literal and original sense you can only confer it, at present, on Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal because they bestride their age and given the breadth of their accomplishments and the way they play,(both looking invincible in some of their most famous victories) it's fairly safe to assume that they would have graced any age and set themselves apart from their opposition.

For me, Djokovic hasn't done enough yet to be considered a 'great' until he can prove that he can continue to scoop majors over the next 2 to 3 years. But of course in Serbia, I think his achievements to date would be enough to confer 'greatness' on him because he is standing head and shoulders above his fellow Serbian sportsmen in what he has accomplished.

So no, Murray is an excellent player. He is first class. He's brilliant at his best, but he is not a great. However, if he had won Wimbledon, I think we would, quite rightly, have gone on through the decades to consider him 'a great' because he would have set himself far, far apart, way up onto a lofty pedestal, from British players in the past and, very probably, from British players in the conceivable future - however, I don't think the rest of the world would confer this kind of greatness on him for such a feat!

It is a word that should immediately make clear that one's achievements will stand the test of time and still be judged as 'great'.

Many of the contributions generated by the OP's article could be described as good, first class, even excellent in one or two cases. And overall, the thread has been rather more constructive than I myself expected, given the subject matter's potential for descending to tiresome confrontation rather than reasoned debate.

But timeplease, I'm tempted to say that - out of of all contributions to date - it is your own which stands out from the others as a 'great'

lags72 wrote:Many of the contributions generated by the OP's article could be described as good, first class, even excellent in one or two cases. And overall, the thread has been rather more constructive than I myself expected, given the subject matter's potential for descending to tiresome confrontation rather than reasoned debate.

But timeplease, I'm tempted to say that - out of of all contributions to date - it is your own which stands out from the others as a 'great'

Phew! I nearly responded to the question with "Ha ha! Of course not!" Good thing I didn't as this reply clearly wouldn't have been up to the expected high and sensitive standard.

Just for the record tp (with all the sarcasm floating around...) I should make it clear that I was being totally honest about your well though-out contribution (7.59am). Great post

Hawkeye : yep, just as well you didn't risk it. Tp has now set a very high standard.

bogbrush : I do like your categorisations and assessments. They finally bring much-needed reality and definitive clarification. Wondered if you could help on a purely personal matter ? Some years ago (it was around the Becker era), I reached the semi-finals of the fiercely-contested mixed doubles of the annual season-ending championships at the Budaiya Country & Sports Club in Bahrain. This received much favourable comment in all local print media. Into which of your groupings do you feel such an achievement could/should be placed ....? Please be as frank as you wish bb - I can handle the truth .....

Bolliks: lost my comment before I could post it.

No further meaningful debate is possible until terms of reference are agreed.

To start it off here is my attempt:
Cross Generation Great who "changed the sport".
Cross Generation Great.
Generation Great.
Shooting Star Great (dominant for one or two years before rapid fade).
Exceptional Player of his generation.
Excellent Player of his generation.
Top ten player of his generation.
Top twenty player of his generation.

>So Murray would probably qualify as Exceptional Player grade.
>Ferrer between Top Ten & excellent player grade.
>Del Potro probably injury affected Excellent Player grade with brief shooting star period.
>Djokovic currently shooting star great grade.
>Federer cross generation great grade.
>Nadal probably between cross generation great and generation great grade, but I think he has also "changed the sport" more than Federer : but this is highly debatable.

the is over

lags72 wrote:Just for the record tp (with all the sarcasm floating around...) I should make it clear that I was being totally honest about your well though-out contribution (7.59am). Great post

Hawkeye : yep, just as well you didn't risk it. Tp has now set a very high standard.

bogbrush : I do like your categorisations and assessments. They finally bring much-needed reality and definitive clarification. Wondered if you could help on a purely personal matter ? Some years ago (it was around the Becker era), I reached the semi-finals of the fiercely-contested mixed doubles of the annual season-ending championships at the Budaiya Country & Sports Club in Bahrain. This received much favourable comment in all local print media. Into which of your groupings do you feel such an achievement could/should be placed ....? Please be as frank as you wish bb - I can handle the truth .....

Certainly, happy to help.

Sadly I'm consulting my scaleometer and it keeps returning a message saying ** error : hit and giggle input **

I'm terribly sorry.

Good article, I like it.
It encourages debate.
CAS well done.
I don't agree with the title though.


IMBL

OK, the debate has been slightly one sided; but that's not CAS's fault, this articles a good idea

The fact is in this day and age Slams are required to measure greatness, hence Murray does not have much of an argument, yet.

Perhaps you can include another player who you think is less talented and has won 1 (or2?) slams; and then we can have a fiery debate about who is 'greater.'
To be fair CAS has already done this, but when you have a long list of names who have all won around 1 slam it is very easy to quickly say a Slam is essential. Also many can dismiss the list and say even those in there are not great, forget Andy Murray.

Ok, bogbrush, fair enough, I have little option but to accept the verdict of your scaleometer, harsh though it seems

I should have added, when seeking your view, that the match was played in arduous conditions (intense heat and humidity) and we only went out after a tight 3 set battle against the defending champs. But I guess that's just how it often is in tennis, and a plea for mitigation would have no effect on that ** error message

Thanks for the help anyway

Ah just noticed that it was during the Becker era. I've input that and it says "borderline Era of Lions - automatic great rating".

I bought this 2nd hand off Wise_Analyst, dunno if he reprogrammed it or anything.

Congratulations!

bogbrush wrote:Andy is a great.

Lleyton is an all-time great.

Boris, Andre and Stephane are mega legends with magical powers.

Ivan, John and Jimmy are splendiferous legendary sub-deities.

Pete, Bjorn and Rafa are actual Gods who spit greatness from every orifice and command the loyalty of billions.

Roger creates Universes to celebrate every time he wins a slam. He is now the All-Father of 17 realities.


I'm just trying to keep up with the updated classifications of players.

Or you could just put Murray on the same level as some of the others and save the need for all the creative categories. Maybe slams aren't the be all and end all in judging a great player. If Nadal had only got his Monte Carlo record but no slams then he'd still be a great player.

Thanks for your comment lags - I have to say though I think BB's contribution is post of the thread

break_in_the_fifth wrote:If Nadal had only got his Monte Carlo record but no slams then he'd still be a great player.

For me he wouldn't. He would be a wonderful player, an exceptional player a player for his generation but MC, wonderful tournament though it is, is bo3 nowadays and non mandatory.

Don't get me wrong, I think it is an immense achievement and he would obviously be great in terms of Monte Carlo tennis tournament history but if it was his sole record then he wouldn't have legendary status in the game because he wouldn't be building history elsewhere and then would fall short of the adjective great.

I suppose what I am saying is that we no longer use the word in the classical sense and bogbrush makes the brilliant point that by overusing it or applying it too freely, we thereby dilute the compliment.

He would have done something involving winning which no other player has done. He could claim that on that court no player in history could beat him whatever form they brought. How many players can say that there's somewhere where no one can beat them?

I take BBs point about overuse of the word great as in, for example, when Fed is describing a run of the mill opponent but with certain players you can just see their greatness. What the player achieves or not is for them to worry about, as a fan you can see who is great or special without always having to go by specific achievements.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:If Nadal had only got his Monte Carlo record but no slams then he'd still be a great player.

Take away everything else Nadal has achieved and just leave him with his 8 Monte Carlo titles in a row and he would still be great. It's almost beyond belief to win a tournament in 8 successive years. How impressive was it for him to withstand the pressure and turn around a 7 final loss streak to Djokovic and win it again this year? Nadal with 8 wins in a row like this is breaking records that were set up when tennis still had a challenge round (the winner from previous year went directly to the next years final). Compared with winning a slam this is a much more difficult and hence rarer achievement. When I see things like that to me it is obvious that I'm witnessing greatness.

Of course that is only one of Nadal's many achievements. He has demonstrated his greatness in a variety of ways. Murray by some standards can be described as great. But he is in a whole different category of greatness to Nadal. Anyone trying to compare Murray with Nadal in terms of "greatness" IMO has no respect for what Nadal has achieved.

Sigh... On 606v2 I always feel like I have to say how great Nadal is. I think the same way about Federer but he has plenty of fans here...

Just in case there's a misunderstanding HE I was saying the same thing as you.

The long format of slams is still the true test of players' ability.
Guys with Open Era final slam count of:

10+ --> all time tennis legends (and have influence beyond their sport)
6-9 --> all time greats of tennis
2-5 --> a leading player of their era
1 --> very good player

Murray has the potential for 1-4 slams IMHO but he's had the misfortune to be in the same era as 3 guys who are likely legends of the game (I expect Novak to get to 10+ eventually). No other player has had to contend with this so he's a tad unlucky. That said his Masters count shows he's better at short format tennis - or does it mean he sneaks Masters titles when the Big3 are focusing on slams instead?