Can Murray become a 'great' without a slam?

First topic message reminder :

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?

Fed playing awful had nothing to do with Roddick getting that close in 09...

Yeah, how much effort did it peak fed to demolish peak roddick during Roddick's supposed golden age of 20 years old? The fearsome Roddick of 2003 was really more fortunate than fearsome, nalby got rid of the rog for him and he capitalized. Credit to him for it. He was a much more well rounded player in 09 than in 2003.

Why do you harp on about the fearsome Roddick of USO 2003 and dismiss the Roddick who was a set and a break up against Fed in the W final of 04? We're discussing Roddick at W so compare like with like.

Roddick in 2009 couldn't beat the worst version of Federer to ever turn up in a W final, and you're telling me this was a better Roddick than the one that almost beat Federer in 2004, when he was winning three slams a year. The best that can be said about the Roddick of 2009/10 is that he had a mini resurgence.

It's patently absurd to suggest that short period (lasting a few months) constituted his peak as a player - but then why am I not surprised by anything you say.



emancipator

Look, all this seems incredibly weird until you find the key. The "Rosetta Stone" is simply "what makes Djokovic look better"?

Once you use that key you can easily decrypt every strange post.

So it becomes obvious why;

* Roddick is simultaneously a grass maestro (he's drawn Djokovic), and a useless frat boy (he was a rival of Federer).
* Said Roddick reached his peak in 2009, not when he was #1 and winning a Slam way back.
* why Isner is easy meat today (lost to Federer)
* why it's a disadvantage to have to play right before a final, and have 4 days off.

And all the rest of the guff.

It's also why there's no point debating; you're all missing the actual point of every discussion - it is "does this make Djokovic look better?".

I just observe logical knots this ties without ever requiring a response; indeed a response is redundant because I know it's all code for the one and only point that is ever being made.

hawkeye wrote:CaladonianCraig

I haven't been watching much tennis but had to say something in Nalbandians defence. One of the way's of judging "greatness" is to look at how high the peaks are. Watching the 2012 Nalbandian it's easy to forget just how good he could be.

Of course like Murray his peak doesn't include a slam but it does include the next best thing a masters cup. This involved a final win in a 5 set match over a 2005 Federer (A Federer that was at his almost invincible big match peak... well apart from being able to beat that pesky Nadal).

Murray does have 6 (I think) masters titles but does he have anything to match Nalbandian's back to back wins in the 2007 Madrid indoor and Paris indoor masters? I remember it being impressive and there was talk that he may go onto win a few slams if he could continue at that level. I have just looked and the Madrid masters involved wins over Nadal, Djokovic and Federer. He then went on to beat Federer and Nadal in Paris.

Nalbandian also spent a while ranked at three. Not sure who out of Murray and Nalbandian was ranked highest the longest.

Sorry but has Nalby done what Andy has as in reached all four slam semis in a year? No. Has Nalby won has many ATP titles as Andy even though he is older? No. Has Nalby won as many Masters Cups as Andy? No.

In Nalby's defence all he has that Andy doesn't have is a WTF win. Weigh up all those stats and if you still feel Nalby is above Murray as the greatest player not to have won a slam then sorry but that is akin to me trying to place Murray up alongside multiple slam winners which just cannot be done.

Federer has even said he he 'hopes' Murray can do it, thats quite a statement and I really doubt he would say that about many players. You can say its for the press but its feels genuine to me, must mean he's quite the player

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Sorry but has Nalby done what Andy has as in reached all four slam semis in a year? No. Has Nalby won has many ATP titles as Andy even though he is older? No. Has Nalby won as many Masters Cups as Andy? No.

In Nalby's defence all he has that Andy doesn't have is a WTF win. Weigh up all those stats and if you still feel Nalby is above Murray as the greatest player not to have won a slam then sorry but that is akin to me trying to place Murray up alongside multiple slam winners which just cannot be done.

CaledonianCraig

If you look at a comment that I made later than the one you quoted you will see that I said that Murray would clearly win if both he and Nalbandian were judged on consistancy. This is my 4.37pm comment from yesterday (I haven't figured out to "quote" multiple comments in one post...) I also made it clear that this was not what I was judging.

Of course as far as consistency goes there is no contest as Murray is clearly the more consistent player by far. But I was talking about career peaks.

Any player that has won a slam will have that as their career peak. Many dismiss the likes of Cash but with his Wimbledon win he has experienced the ultimate prize in tennis. If players had to put forward one match as a demonstration of their "greatness" then Cash would triumph over any player no matter how consistent with that one "great" win. Anyone with more than one slam would be in the nice (or tricky) position of being able to choose their greatest.

For players who don't have a slam what match would they put forward to demonstrate their greatness? For Nalbandian it would be easy. It would be that impressive win in a 5 set match over peak Federer to lift the Masters cup. What would Murray's peak match be? His loss to Federer in the Wimbledon final? If so Nalbandian wins...

Can you see I'm using a different measure of "greatness". One were players are judged on peak performance. I don't mean a subjective assessment of when they were playing well but their actual peak performance in terms of achievement at the highest level. IMO this is a valid measurement of "greatness".

CAS wrote:Federer has even said he he 'hopes' Murray can do it, thats quite a statement and I really doubt he would say that about many players. You can say its for the press but its feels genuine to me, must mean he's quite the player

Ha ha! Everyone in the locker room is desperate for Andy to win a slam. It is because he is so nice. In fact they all vie to be counted as his best buddy... Seriously this has little to do with Federer or Murray it is all about the media. Although one or two players have not been scared to say what they really think recently.

hawkeye wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Sorry but has Nalby done what Andy has as in reached all four slam semis in a year? No. Has Nalby won has many ATP titles as Andy even though he is older? No. Has Nalby won as many Masters Cups as Andy? No.

In Nalby's defence all he has that Andy doesn't have is a WTF win. Weigh up all those stats and if you still feel Nalby is above Murray as the greatest player not to have won a slam then sorry but that is akin to me trying to place Murray up alongside multiple slam winners which just cannot be done.

CaledonianCraig

If you look at a comment that I made later than the one you quoted you will see that I said that Murray would clearly win if both he and Nalbandian were judged on consistancy. This is my 4.37pm comment from yesterday (I haven't figured out to "quote" multiple comments in one post...) I also made it clear that this was not what I was judging.

Of course as far as consistency goes there is no contest as Murray is clearly the more consistent player by far. But I was talking about career peaks.

Any player that has won a slam will have that as their career peak. Many dismiss the likes of Cash but with his Wimbledon win he has experienced the ultimate prize in tennis. If players had to put forward one match as a demonstration of their "greatness" then Cash would triumph over any player no matter how consistent with that one "great" win. Anyone with more than one slam would be in the nice (or tricky) position of being able to choose their greatest.

For players who don't have a slam what match would they put forward to demonstrate their greatness? For Nalbandian it would be easy. It would be that impressive win in a 5 set match over peak Federer to lift the Masters cup. What would Murray's peak match be? His loss to Federer in the Wimbledon final? If so Nalbandian wins...

Can you see I'm using a different measure of "greatness". One were players are judged on peak performance. I don't mean a subjective assessment of when they were playing well but their actual peak performance in terms of achievement at the highest level. IMO this is a valid measurement of "greatness".

You are treading on dangerous grounds there. After all aren't 'greatest of all-time' tags basically based on nothing more than consistency. After all Federer has consistently won slams hence he has bagged the most and is regarded as GOAT. Going by your way of looking at things then you are negating widescale achievements and consistency.

"dangerous ground" That sounds exciting...

I don't think recognising peaks negates Federer's achievements. Think of Federer's career like a Himalaya like mountain range with quite a few Everests jutting into the clouds. Pat Cash's career doesn't form much of a mountain range but it does have one Everest like peak. Murray's career could be represented by a mountain range but with no significant peaks above say... mmm 18,000ft? Most people are more impressed by the height of a mountain rather than the length of a range.


I hope reckoner isn't around as I know I would get trapped into explaining this further...

Well if we are talking mountain ranges with lots of high mountains then Murray's range is more impressive than Nalbandian due to the consistent heights he has reached. Sorry but all things considered I don't even think it is up for debate. I mean come on look at all stats and they all weigh immeasurably in Murray's favour. But hey ho if you aren't gracious or man enough to concede that then that is your weakness. It is akin to me trying to paint Andy as an all-time great even though he hasn't won a slam - you are trying to elevate Nalby above Murray for far lesser achievements than Andy has.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well if we are talking mountain ranges with lots of high mountains then Murray's range is more impressive than Nalbandian due to the consistent heights he has reached. Sorry but all things considered I don't even think it is up for debate. I mean come on look at all stats and they all weigh immeasurably in Murray's favour. But hey ho if you aren't gracious or man enough to concede that then that is your weakness. It is akin to me trying to paint Andy as an all-time great even though he hasn't won a slam - you are trying to elevate Nalby above Murray for far lesser achievements than Andy has.

I will try and explain further so please bear with me...

Imagine the careers of tennis players represented by mountain ranges and mountains. A slam would be represented by an Everest height of about 24,000 ft (I think thats about right... ) Pat Cash's career doesn't form much of a mountain range but his Wimbledon win does form an impressive mountain of 24,000 ft. Federer's career forms a pretty impressive mountain range and there are a number (almost too many to count...) of 24,000 mountains within it. Murray's career can be represented by an impressive mountain range but no peaks above 18,000 ft.

Now imagine the world is flooded to 19,000 ft. Murrays career is now hidden. Pat Cash's career is represented by a solitary peak and of course Federer's career is represented by lots of mountains (too many to count.. ) But also standing not quite as high as Everest but still visible is a smaller mountain that represents Nalbandians impressive Masters Cup win. This flooding represents the sands of time or the minimum level required to enter the public consciousness or the minimum level required to be considered great.

Anyway these are exciting times for Murray fans. On Sunday Murray has a chance of winning a gold medal. How important will this be in defining his "greatness"? Will it be on par with a masters win, a masters cup, a slam.... or it may even be considered to be more important than a slam. After all the Olympic games is only played every four years and Murray is not playing for himself but for his country and for us. He could become a true peoples champion.... I can almost imagine this argument. Maybe I am physic.

Ooh almost forgot. I admit that I'm not "man" enough for anything. I am much, much stronger than that.... (cough)

You can use mountains, leagues or whatever system you want but if you are still trying to claim Nalbandian is the greatest player never to have won a slam (ahead of Murray) then sorry but that is plain tosh. Stats tell you and even tennis efficienados and experts wouldn't back up your side of the argument. Until Nalbandan can back up one random success with more success and slam semis and finals then sorry he wouldn't even be in my top ten of greats never to win a slam.

Plus Olympic champion

Nalby has won a WTF beating Fed in the Bo5 from 2 sets down, tats the prime Fed we are talking about.

That was not prime Fed. It was Fed who hadn't played for two months due to his ankle injury. He was running on empty after the first two sets and David still nearly managed to lose the 5th. David's peak displays were the back to back wins in Madrid and Paris in 07.

Murray has won 8 masters series, 23 titles and an olympic gold medal, he had outdone Nalbandian in terms of achievment by 2009. Ridiculous comparison, Nalbandian was great on his day but even then he managed to choke matches away. Even when he beat Federer in the Masters cup, Federer played with an injury that had made his participation in the event doubtful.

Born Slippy wrote:That was not prime Fed. It was Fed who hadn't played for two months due to his back injury. He was running on empty after the first two sets and David still nearly managed to lose the 5th. David's peak displays were the back to back wins in Madrid and Paris in 07.

Back injury - I thought Fed had turned his ankle on a tennis ball? He certainly blubbed like a baby when he won the Aus Open 2006 because he realised how close he had been to a career ender.

barrystar wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:That was not prime Fed. It was Fed who hadn't played for two months due to his back injury. He was running on empty after the first two sets and David still nearly managed to lose the 5th. David's peak displays were the back to back wins in Madrid and Paris in 07.

Back injury - I thought Fed had turned his ankle on a tennis ball? He certainly blubbed like a baby when he won the Aus Open 2006 because he realised how close he had been to a career ender.

Yes, he'd stood on a ball and done his ankle.

I still think of that when I see how careful he is with the balls during knock-ups.

emancipator wrote:How convenient that Roddick should miraculously be at his peak in 09/10 when Djokovic was also playing

Peak Roddick was 03-06, particularly on grass. He gave peak Federer a run for for his money at W during those years.

By 09/10 Roddick had lost the potency of his FH. He didn't know whether to play as an attacker or a retriever.

As for Murray beating him at the USO - it could happen but peak vs peak Roddick would start as favourite. Not only did he win the title in 2003 but he also reached the final in 2006 and iirc took a set of Federer (and that was the best year for Fed on tour).

In addition Roddick has been world number 1 and overall has more titles than Murray. How on earth does Murray get ahead of him?

For a start Roddick has won so many tincup tournaments it's unreal, he's only actually won 6 masters titles and the US Open. Secondly he is five years older than Murray and even then the quality of Murray's victories over superior opposition is much higher than Roddick, there is no doubt Murray will have considerably more by the end of his career. Roddick won his US Open in 2003, when the game was in a transitional phase, even then he only won due to a complete Nalbandian choke and then facing a clay courter in the final. Roddick also lost to Murray when Andy was 18 and lost to him at Wimbledon in the same year. Murray is a terrible matchup for Roddick, he returns great, moves well and passes very well, Roddick never had a good forehand after Oz 2005. He's just a big serving grinder who almost always get's found out at the top level,i have no problem with people who make the slam argument but Murray is a much better player than Roddick ever was.

I have to agree Roddick wins a lot of garbage tourneys in the US indoor season that none of the best european guys bother to show up. There are so many tournaments in the states at the ATP level that pretty much guaranetees the top American 1-3 titles a year no matter what. Atlanta, LA, DC, Indianpolis, hartford(moved to NC), Vegas, USO, IW, Miami, Cincy, Memphis, San Jose, Newport, and Del Ray beach. Roddick's numbers are not as impressive as the european based top guys who only enter the best events globally and maybe a couple of lesser events in europe asia. I value masters titles more than total titles count in distinguishing between players.

Murray is a far better athlete and tennis talent than Roddick. I agree with main premise I would take murray over most 1 and 2 slam winners. Safin I don't know about, at his best he was a lot more gifted and powerful than Murray. He just was highly inconsistent and didn't work as hard as Murray. On his day Safin at his best is better than Murray at his best.

Safin was a wonderful player. Power and technique, and what a great fiery enigmatic character.

The comparison with Murray is an interesting one, and one safin currently wins as he has 2 slams. I honestly expect Murray to beat that though. Or I certainly think he has a good chance of beating it.

It's very difficult to compare different generations though, and it can only really be done when both have finished.

Wouldn't say he was a lot more powerful than Murray, he was just naturally more agressive and a great ball striker at his best. Murray can hit the ball as hard as anyone when he goes for it.

monty junior wrote:Wouldn't say he was a lot more powerful than Murray, he was just naturally more agressive and a great ball striker at his best. Murray can hit the ball as hard as anyone when he goes for it.

Mj and Danny, i think Safin had the edge with a bigger serve and flatter shots. He could hit through any court when he was on and his speed for six foot four 200 pound guy at his peak was really tremendous. Again Murray probably wins the majority of matches against Marat because Marat was not always fit enough, healthy enough, or focused enough. But on those days that he would be clicking I would take Marat on most surfaces over Murray. That is just my opinion. I mean Murray wouldn't have a clear edge backhand to backhand and although Marat's forehand had its ups and downs it was mostly up and I don't think I would favor murray in forehand to forehand exchange either. No shame in that Marat on his best day probably beats a lot of guys with more slams than him. Murray certainly has been the more consistent of the two marat more brilliant and awe inspiring with his power and attack game when he was clicking and hitting his top gear.