Where Does Murray Stand On The Scale Of Greatness?

Following the comments on the article by CAS "Can Murray become great without a slam"

https://www.606v2.com/t33050-can-murray-become-a-great-without-a-slam

It appears we are living in an era of greatness inflation. If we don't want to run out of positive adjectives to describe Roger and Rafa the scale needs to be re-calibrated. We need to get back to old fashioned and realistic definitions of greatness.

So if Nadal and Federer are "great". The likes of McEnroe and Becker are "very good" and Djokovic is "good". How can Murray be described?



(Obviously this scale is for professional tennis players. It's still OK for motivation reasons to describe five year old beginners as "great" if they get the ball over the net more than three times.)

McEnroe and Becker 'very good'?

What a load of crap.

Let's gain perspective here. Your asking the same question that CAS posed. Why start another thread when this is already being discussed.

It is all a matter of English and how you see fit to use it.

Federer and Nadal are in the legends bracket for me with Djokovic vying to and could possibly join that legends club in the future.

As for Andy Murray well it is widely regarded by those in the know, those not tainted by a loathing and intense hatred and without bias that Andy Murray is one of the greatest players in the world at the moment. Couple that with his career achievements where he is amongst the top ten for most successful Masters Cup players of all-time, in the exclusive club of having reached the semis or better at all four slam events, has reached three different slam finals and has already amassed well over 20 ATP titles.

You can try to twist it anyway you like but facts are that Murray is a great player backed up by consistent and great stats across the board. I'd say that certainly makes him great.

legendkillarV2

This is a newly re-calibrated scale of greatness. Only Rafa and Roger can claim to have reached the very top of the scale ie "great". I know that on the old scale "very good" might not have appeared very high but on this new scale "very good" is close to the top. McEnroe or Becker should not be ashamed but feel very proud to have been ranked as high as "very good" on this new scale.

CaledonianCraig

Of course you are entitled to your view that Murray should top the newly calibrated greatness scale by being defined as "great" alongside Rafa and Roger. However don't you think that for descriptive purposes the scale would be rendered useless if all players who's achievements fall between Rafa & Roger and Murray are described as "great"?

CaledonianCraig wrote:It is all a matter of English and how you see fit to use it.

I think that is the sensible conclusion to come to in the debate on the other thread. How people understand the word and how they generally use it.

I think hawkeye is attempting to satirize some of the opinions on Cas's thread (including mine) and hold them up for ridicule, but I still have a vivid picture of H_E as a mischievous Rita Skeeter (Harry Potter) with her lap top at the ready, fingers quivering above the keyboards, bursting to provoke those who support Murray.

Becker and McEnroe are greats. Dress up the scale all you want, but they are greats.

When this whole greatest debate thing rages, personal preference will always come down to who people plump for.

As for Roger and Rafa being at the top, well Rafa is behind Sampras. So maybe let's not elevate Rafa just yet.

time please. I am not and would never try and "ridicule" anyone's opinions. I would be very sad to think that anyone would think that would be my aim. I'm always interested in other opinions otherwise why would I be interested in a debate. That's not to say I'm against trying to express mine!

Ha ha! Your description made me laugh despite thinking that most of Harry Potter was drivel...

So legendkillarV2. You put Roger and Sampras at the top as "great " (I can't argue either way about Sampras as he was way too boring for me to watch Zzzz...) So on your scale is Rafa now "very good" just like Becker and McEnroe? You still havn't said how you would describe Murray.

For me there is only 3 players who can claim 'The Greatest' mantle

Federer, Graff and Navratilova

Below that you have greats who just fall short of such a mantle

Nadal, Sampras, Borg, Laver, King, Court and Williams

That for me is some list when debating greats. The top 3 however with their accomplishments take some beating.

On the other thread Hawky I made my opinion on Murray and greatness very clear.

Okay Hawkeye gently poke fun at then? After all, the debate has really been had, has it not?

hawkeye wrote:legendkillarV2


CaledonianCraig

Of course you are entitled to your view that Murray should top the newly calibrated greatness scale by being defined as "great" alongside Rafa and Roger. However don't you think that for descriptive purposes the scale would be rendered useless if all players who's achievements fall between Rafa & Roger and Murray are described as "great"?

Err hold on a mo hawkeye. Where did I say I put Andy up alongside Rafa and Roger? On my scale I put Nadal and Federer in the legends bracket with Djokovic pending admission to that club and that could come very soon. If you cannot call a man with Murray's achievements in the sport as great then sorry but I am wasting my time (if I didn't already know that already).

Just do me a favour and go away and check how many men have reached the semis or better at all four slams, reached three out of the four slam finals and who have won more Masters Cups than Andy and you will find the answer is not very many.

Lets face it, until Murray wins a slam there is a serious question mark around his neck no matter what else he achieves. Rios won lots of things but he's remembered as the guy who never won a slam - Murray would be the same. That's just the way it is and even he knows that.

In terms of greatness questions - we should judge this when the players have hung up their racquets, surely?

Exactly lydian

Andy has a massive hole on the CV. No Slam. For a player to be even considered in a 'great' debate or category multiple Slam victories are essential. Yes he has shown remarkable consistency on the ATP in Masters and other ranking events, but it needs more than that.

lydian wrote:Lets face it, until Murray wins a slam there is a serious question mark around his neck...that's just the way it is and even he knows that.

In terms of greatness questions - we should judge this when the players have hung up their racquets, surely?

I'd agree on your latter point but on your first point I'd disagree. Greatness cannot purely be judged on slam wins but the whole bundle. The example here being is Del Potro better than Murray on the strength of his one slam win and I'd say definitely not. Just as in other sports you may get someone winning an ultimate title in that sport and doing nothing else of note in that sport ie Joe Johnson in snooker. He has one world title to none of Jimmy White but any snooker efficienado will tell you Johnson was not a great of the sport whereas Jimmy White was.

Oh great another hawkeye article about Murray, just what the world needs.

Yes but CC...Murray is weird in that he's in very secluded company to be on 8 Masters and no slams...and I think the next highest was 4 masters and no slams (Rios). It actually asks a bigger question mark than simply to judge him to be great because he's won lots of hardcourt titles but no slam.

The question would always be - so if he's good enough to win 8 HC Masters (over best of 3 format) why cant he win a slam? Their answer - because he wasnt good enough at the very pinnacle of the sport.

Infact, the more he wins without winning a slam the bigger the question mark gets. Whilst the "Big Boys" were preoccupied with winning slams - they dont need to win Masters as they arent the metric by which they're judged anymore, Murray continues to mop up the odd Master/500/250, etc.

Yes he's a very good player, obviously, but he cant be considered a true great until he wins at the very highest level of the sport. That doesnt mean Johannson, Korda are considered true greats either, but you need a slam to even begin to qualify for the "is he a true great?" discussion - then see what else they did.

Conversely, to call Murray "a great" of the sport at this point is actually to really cheapen that tag for all those that passed before him. Otherwise we might as well throw the tag around like confetti!

Lydian even you must realise the task facing Murray to win a slam. I'd whole-heartedly agree with you if his slam defeats had come against lesser players I'd expect him to beat. However, his aslam defeats have come against Federer (twice) - the greatest player of all-time, Nadal (once) - the greatest clay-court of all time and one of the all-time greats and Djokovic (once) who was just unbeatable by anyone around the time of that slam. Winning the first one is the key and all of the others Federer, Nadal and Djokovic had a nice comparitively easy starter for their slam wins (just look at their opening slam win opponents). And as for cheapening things then aren't others cheapening the achievement of reaching slam finals, reaching all four slam semis, reaching three different slam finals which are all highly commendable acvhievements as well which the majority of slam winners have never achieved.

Just to add on that Joe Johnson (1 world title) and Jimmy White (0 world title) comparison. White will always be seen as a great of the game but not Joe Johnson. White couldn't get the biggest prize in his sport due to two men - Steve Davis and Stephen Hendy (legends of snooker). And that is the comparison with Murray as he has been denied by legends of tennis.

I totally understand your point Craig, and I think that Murray will almost certainly be remembered 10 years from now in this country as a 'great' of British tennis for his achievements to date even without a slam victory. That is because he stands as a giant of British tennis, without equal for the last 70 odd years and he has set a very high standard (seemingly impossible atm) for future British players.

However, he has not enough on his CV to be considered 'a great' in world terms in the sense he is unlikely to be talked about in ten years time outside the UK by kids that never got to see him play.

I don't think he will be remembered by future tennis watching generations outside the UK 10 years after finishing playing unless he can scoop some majors. I think that is probably the yardstick of 'a great' whether you enter the annals of world tennis history for me at any rate.

But you are right with your first post - this has become an argument over semantics. What you call 'legend', I call 'a great of the game' which is subtly different from casually labelling someone 'a great player' as in 'Tsonga is a great player' when we dilute the original meaning of the word and we would be better using 'excellent' instead. However, we all understand what you mean by using the term in this way so I wouldn't argue with using it that way.
But some of us are just pointing out that it is distinct from 'a great of the game' which I think needs to be reserved for a select few: the giants of the sport. It's like Alexander the Great. I think we can probably say that you could safely use: Roger the Great, Rafa the Great, Bjorn the Great, Pete the Great in 20 years time and people would get it. Not sure that they would get Andy the Great atm, though I think they would in these shores, just not globally.

I do not think Murray is a great player. Yet. In my eyes before he can even think of being in that category he has to win at-least 5 Grand Slams.
At the moment in the current men's game I would say both Nadal and Federer are 'great' players while Djokovic could become great if he continues to do well.

However I must note that I observe that this argument has discrepancies (in the interpretation of the word great) from person to person and hence we are misinterpreting posts.

(Edit: TP also pointed this out while I was writing this post ) For example CC said Fed and Nadal are 'legends' while Murray is great. He clearly sees legend as the 'top tier' and 'great' below that. Meanwhile someone like HE feels that great is the top tier or it is devalued.

Hence from now on I think we should use 'top tier' 'second tier' 'third tier' etc.
As I said atm Fed and Nadal are top tier, and probably Djokovic quite soon. Murray, who has not won a slam should be in third tier, but looking at his Masters Record and consistency in Slams is promoted to second tier. Agree?

It Must be Love wrote:Hence from now on I think we should use 'top tier' 'second tier' 'third tier' etc.
As I said atm Fed and Nadal are top tier, and probably Djokovic quite soon. Murray, who has not won a slam should be in third tier, but looking at his Masters Record and consistency in Slams is promoted to second tier. Agree?

Nah, doesn't have the same ring at all. I think we all agree it is a matter of preference of language. Not much fun if we all start agreeing over everything

vive la difference, or is it le?

Yes IMBL has hit the nail on the head. Like I said earlier it is a matter of how great you see players. Federer and Nadal already have gone beyond great status and are into all-time greats status. However, the likes of Murray cannot be labelled anything less than a great player. Look at his achievements in the sport and he has stood as the 4th best ranked player in the WORLD for a long period now so sorry that is more than just being a good player.

Andy the Great it is then.

time please wrote:Andy the Great it is then.

What about my good old tier system!

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes IMBL has hit the nail on the head. Like I said earlier it is a matter of how great you see players. Federer and Nadal already have gone beyond great status and are into all-time greats status. However, the likes of Murray cannot be labelled anything less than a great player. Look at his achievements in the sport and he has stood as the 4th best ranked player in the WORLD for a long period now so sorry that is more than just being a good player.

Thanks CC.
I do not agree with you saying he cannot be labelled anything less than a great player- as I think only a few in tennis history should be called great. Then comes different interpretations:

Person 1 watching TV
Person 2 comes into room
Person 2: Who's playing?
Person 1: Andy Murray?
Person 2: Isn't he that British tennis player?
Player 1: Yes, absolutely, he's a great player!

And then we have:
TimePlease: And then Alexander the Great, took of his cape, and said 'Alas, Persia is mine.'
Person 3: Why is he called Alexander the great, oh master TimePlease?
TimePlease: Because my dear friend, he is a legend. Only very few can reach what he has done, and recreate the glory.
Person 3: Has it been repeated?
TimePlease: Yes indeed, the Roman Empire was also great. All powerful I tell you, all powerful.

Hence we can have two interpretations of 'great'
Now, let's get that tier system up and running.

Sorry but it all does just come down to what is perceived as greatness. And what or who qualifies as great in the eye of the beholder so I don't think we will ever come to agreement here.

I would very much like to bestow the title of great on Andy, but until he lines his pockets with some Slam titles, I think he will only be the greatest british player.

legendkillarV2 wrote:I would very much like to bestow the title of great on Andy, but until he lines his pockets with some Slam titles, I think he will only be the greatest british player.

That is all very well but isn't that just belittling Andy's other great achievements in the sport that many slam winners haven't achieved? Sure slams are the highest pinnacle but surely the whole picture has to be taken into account as in ALL aspects of a players career and achievements.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:I would very much like to bestow the title of great on Andy, but until he lines his pockets with some Slam titles, I think he will only be the greatest british player.

That is all very well but isn't that just belittling Andy's other great achievements in the sport that many slam winners haven't achieved? Sure slams are the highest pinnacle but surely the whole picture has to be taken into account as in ALL aspects of a players career and achievements.

Craig,

The Slams are without doubt that most important title in game of tennis. Yes it may not be the only title, but it is the benchmark of great players and has been that way ever since. Yes Andy has shown remarkable consistency at tour level, but still falls short at the Slams. If we then heighten Andy's current achievements doesn't it beg the question why could he not win in a BO5 format against the best when he can do it in a BO3? It then cheapens the Slams when we are saying that BO5 is an equal achievement to a BO3. He can win tournaments in 5-6 match stretch by not a 7 match tournament.

It is impressive what Andy has achieved, but not great. Is Monty from Golf remembered as a great despite no majors and finishing top in the Order of Merit 7 times in his career? No he isn't.

I agree with lkv2 - no slams and the epithet "great" in the context of the tennis world does not belong to Andy Murray or anyone in a similar position. He is probably the best player yet to win a slam, much better than many who have won slams before him, but he's not a great of the game and can't be without a slam, in fact he can't be a great of the game without several slams.

He can't be the greatest british male singles player since the 1930's because the word "greatest" has no meaning in that context - none of them have been great.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:I would very much like to bestow the title of great on Andy, but until he lines his pockets with some Slam titles, I think he will only be the greatest british player.

That is all very well but isn't that just belittling Andy's other great achievements in the sport that many slam winners haven't achieved? Sure slams are the highest pinnacle but surely the whole picture has to be taken into account as in ALL aspects of a players career and achievements.

Craig,

The Slams are without doubt that most important title in game of tennis. Yes it may not be the only title, but it is the benchmark of great players and has been that way ever since. Yes Andy has shown remarkable consistency at tour level, but still falls short at the Slams. If we then heighten Andy's current achievements doesn't it beg the question why could he not win in a BO5 format against the best when he can do it in a BO3? It then cheapens the Slams when we are saying that BO5 is an equal achievement to a BO3. He can win tournaments in 5-6 match stretch by not a 7 match tournament.

It is impressive what Andy has achieved, but not great. Is Monty from Golf remembered as a great despite no majors and finishing top in the Order of Merit 7 times in his career? No he isn't.

I have already proven in other instances though:-

Joe Johnson (1 world title) V Jimmy White (0 world titles). Ask snooker fans everywhere and they see White as a legend or great of the game but not Johnson.

In golf Colin Montgomerie (0 Majors) V Paul Lawrie (1 British Open) and yet I'd hazard a guess that Montgomerie would be placed above Lawrie in measures of greatness.

Boxing:- The late Sir Henry Cooper (0 world titles) v Herbie Hide (1 world title) and yet boxing experts would hold 'Enry in higher esteem of greatness than Hide.

Many more examples of such like cases as well. Of course slams are the ultimate goal but to use them alone to measure greatness gives a clouded picture in some cases - in my opinion.

All that discussion and we're back to Murray (perhaps) being a great player but certainly not a great of the game.

It would seem all hawkeye has to do is put "Murray" in the article title and you guys will jump all over it!

CaledonianCraig wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:I would very much like to bestow the title of great on Andy, but until he lines his pockets with some Slam titles, I think he will only be the greatest british player.

That is all very well but isn't that just belittling Andy's other great achievements in the sport that many slam winners haven't achieved? Sure slams are the highest pinnacle but surely the whole picture has to be taken into account as in ALL aspects of a players career and achievements.

Craig,

The Slams are without doubt that most important title in game of tennis. Yes it may not be the only title, but it is the benchmark of great players and has been that way ever since. Yes Andy has shown remarkable consistency at tour level, but still falls short at the Slams. If we then heighten Andy's current achievements doesn't it beg the question why could he not win in a BO5 format against the best when he can do it in a BO3? It then cheapens the Slams when we are saying that BO5 is an equal achievement to a BO3. He can win tournaments in 5-6 match stretch by not a 7 match tournament.

It is impressive what Andy has achieved, but not great. Is Monty from Golf remembered as a great despite no majors and finishing top in the Order of Merit 7 times in his career? No he isn't.

I have already proven in other instances though:-

Joe Johnson (1 world title) V Jimmy White (0 world titles). Ask snooker fans everywhere and they see White as a legend or great of the game but not Johnson.

In golf Colin Montgomerie (0 Majors) V Paul Lawrie (1 British Open) and yet I'd hazard a guess that Montgomerie would be placed above Lawrie in measures of greatness.

Boxing:- The late Sir Henry Cooper (0 world titles) v Herbie Hide (1 world title) and yet boxing experts would hold 'Enry in higher esteem of greatness than Hide.

Many more examples of such like cases as well. Of course slams are the ultimate goal but to use them alone to measure greatness gives a clouded picture in some cases - in my opinion.

We are talking multi winners Craig. The consensus here is that we are using multi-winners.

Let's use your metric.

Jimmy White v John Higgins - Who would you rate higher?

Colin Montgomerie v Padraig Harrington - Who would you rate higher?

Ricky Hatton v Sir Henry Cooper - Who would you rate higher?

This is the whole issue. It isn't 1 Slam and Murray is a great. He needs Slams and not Slam.

lkv2: unassailable logic.

In my eyes even Djokovic is not a great yet.
Once again this argument is a bit silly as it lies more on our interpretation of the word great rather than our opinion of Andy's game.

A debate needs one variable to debate on, not two. You can't solve simultaneous equations with two variables.

You don't have to stop at one title winner though as we could use the same argument over multiple title winners as well.

The whole argument here seems to be on use of English and how each of us see players. Federer and Nadal and almost Djokovic now - for me great doesn't do them justice. They are in the legend bracket for me. If you are asking is Murray one of the greats of the game then historically the answer is no but if we are talking of players in the here and now playing tennis at this present moment then I say yes he qualifies as a great player but not yet one of the greats.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:I would very much like to bestow the title of great on Andy, but until he lines his pockets with some Slam titles, I think he will only be the greatest british player.

That is all very well but isn't that just belittling Andy's other great achievements in the sport that many slam winners haven't achieved? Sure slams are the highest pinnacle but surely the whole picture has to be taken into account as in ALL aspects of a players career and achievements.

Craig,

The Slams are without doubt that most important title in game of tennis. Yes it may not be the only title, but it is the benchmark of great players and has been that way ever since. Yes Andy has shown remarkable consistency at tour level, but still falls short at the Slams. If we then heighten Andy's current achievements doesn't it beg the question why could he not win in a BO5 format against the best when he can do it in a BO3? It then cheapens the Slams when we are saying that BO5 is an equal achievement to a BO3. He can win tournaments in 5-6 match stretch by not a 7 match tournament.

It is impressive what Andy has achieved, but not great. Is Monty from Golf remembered as a great despite no majors and finishing top in the Order of Merit 7 times in his career? No he isn't.

I have already proven in other instances though:-

Joe Johnson (1 world title) V Jimmy White (0 world titles). Ask snooker fans everywhere and they see White as a legend or great of the game but not Johnson.

In golf Colin Montgomerie (0 Majors) V Paul Lawrie (1 British Open) and yet I'd hazard a guess that Montgomerie would be placed above Lawrie in measures of greatness.

Boxing:- The late Sir Henry Cooper (0 world titles) v Herbie Hide (1 world title) and yet boxing experts would hold 'Enry in higher esteem of greatness than Hide.

Many more examples of such like cases as well. Of course slams are the ultimate goal but to use them alone to measure greatness gives a clouded picture in some cases - in my opinion.

Just because tables have four legs, it doesn't mean everything with four legs is a table.

Murray is a far superior player to many who have won slams, just as Montgomerie was in his sport. Since not every slam winner is a 'great' of the game, being better than them does not make Murray a great.

Montgomerie, Johnson, and Murray are not 'greats' of their sport.

I don't know how Henry Cooper is regarded beyond these shores - but he is not a good comparison with a pro tennis player whose sport has a totally different structure to pro boxing in the 1960's.

Jimmy White is quite an interesting example on the face of it, but Snooker is set up differently to tennis with only one World Champship a year, whereas in tennis the players have 4 slams to aim at. Snooker has a much smaller pool of players too. In the modern era you've got to put Jimmy White behind the likes of O'Sullivan, Williams, and Higgins as well as behind Hendry and Davis and I'd argue also behind Griffiths and Higgins (A) who both did it twice and were clearly not flash-in-the-pans. Jimmy never made No. 1 and he did not win many ranking tournaments. He's a bit of a legend all right but not for being the best, but an exciting also ran. He even fluffed the big moment against John Parrot, and I don't think he makes your case for you in the very different context of Andy Murray's tennis career thus far. Murray would have to have played and lost in about 12+ slam finals at the end of his career to be equivalent I suggest.

I've got no problem with Murray - I'll be supporting him at the USO and every slam from now on in his career - but he's not yet a great of the game and suggesting otherwise is a misuse of that word.

Craig

Murray has long way to go before being considered a great. The point many have made is that he needs Slams to be able to put himself in that category. Many followers of Murray have said the same thing. There is a clear bias in your thinking if you feel that Murray qualifies for that consideration. Using 1 time winners isn't the way to go. Many multi winning greats of sports have often said that winning more than 1 title proves that it wasn't a fluke result.

If his career ended tomorrow the main question would be how did a guy with such consistency on the tour never win a Slam which I think would be the bigger talking point and the not titles he has won. There's no crime in that thinking, but he would be the first of his kind to win as many titles as he has without a Slam to his name.

I don't use the word"great" until a guy has at least 4-6 Slams, Depending on other achievements. Are Michael Stich, Richard Krajicek or even Michael Chang great? Not in my book, just really good.

I mean, fast forward 30 years and consider making a list of "greats". Will a guy with no Slams even make the conversation? Even Lleyton Hewitt wouldn't, and he won two. He's just really very good.

He stands inside a quagmire of miserability, desperately hoping that one day he can play an entire single game with a top 10 forehand, little known to him that he is cursed from Irn Bru and Fried Mars Bar consumption. Murrays aim should be to play like Tsonga, giving him a chance against a big player!

So back to the OP - what is the "Scale of Greatness" (SoG)

If the scale is metric and runs from 0-10, then lets say 0=Rios and 10=Federer. On this basis, Sampras may be 9-10, Nadal 9, Agassi may be 7-8, Becker would probably be 5-6 on the scale, Courier probably scores 3-4 and Rafter 2-3, Roddick 1-2 - then Murray is probably between 0-1!

hawkeye wrote:
So if Nadal and Federer are "great". The likes of McEnroe and Becker are "very good" and Djokovic is "good". How can Murray be described?

On that scale Murray is decent - i.e. he's not on it.

On Lydian's scale of 0-10 with Rios at 0 Murray is at about 0.4 and he can't get to 1 or above without a slam.

He is not on a Scale of "Greatness" - he is on a scale of ability - he's edging towards the top 100-150 of male players players ever to pick up a racquet, but the greats are all in the top 20-30.

Exactly barry..."Greatness" starts at 1.0

0-1 is "pre-greatness"...Murray is in that camp.

How tedious another debate about how people use a word.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:How tedious another debate about how people use a word.

How else are you going to approach the question? You've got to decide what it means.

It's already been shown to mean different things to different people. Some people consider it the very top and others have a few more adjectives. A better question may have been can he be on the same level as others that won slams without winning one himself.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:It's already been shown to mean different things to different people. Some people consider it the very top and others have a few more adjectives. A better question may have been can he be on the same level as others that won slams without winning one himself.

Nail. On. The. Head.

Exactly so IMBL

He's already some way ahead of a number of Slam winners in my book (and let's not forget he's got several more years on the tour still to come). One that springs instantly to mind is Pat Cash. But he's certainly not the only one .......

Murray gets knackered after winning a set off the top 2. I will say its a dissapointment if he doesnt end up with more slams than Johansson.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:It's already been shown to mean different things to different people. Some people consider it the very top and others have a few more adjectives. A better question may have been can he be on the same level as others that won slams without winning one himself.

In my view his career has been better than that of a few one-hit wonders like Gaudio, Johansson, or Krajicek - but not Goran though and probably not Stich either.

If someone has won at least one slam and been No. 1 then Murray is always going to struggle to match that unless he gets to No. 1 or wins a slam himself - i.e. Roddick or Ferrero or even Moya. I think it's a strength of the men's game that only Rios has been No. 1 without winning a slam and I would not like Murray to join his rank.

Without a slam I don't think he's going to match someone who has won two like Rafter, Hewitt, or Safin.

Can you please participate in my poll in the London Olympics section.

https://www.606v2.com/t33146-who-s-the-biggest-star-at-the-olympics



emancipator