Where Does Murray Stand On The Scale Of Greatness?

by hawkeye Mon Jul 30, 2012 7:31 am

First topic message reminder :

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.)

by Super D Boon Mon Jul 30, 2012 4:46 pm

Greatness can be defined in two ways. Greatness in terms of scale and greatness in terms of size.

I think you have to have a bit of one and a lot of another to be classed as a great. Or a lot of both.

I don't think Murray will ever become a Great without a slam but should he win just one, plus a massive bundle of other smaller titles then he could be classed as a Great in the way Muster is with a huge tally of 44 titles but only 1 slam.

Murray is not currently on any scale of greatness as far as I'm concerned. He needs a slam, but one might be enough to class him as a Great by the end of his career should he also continue to win plenty of smaller titles as he does now.

by bogbrush Mon Jul 30, 2012 7:25 pm

But Muster never comes up in a discussion of greats.

Kinda proves the point of how far off Murray is.

by barrystar Mon Jul 30, 2012 7:28 pm

bogbrush wrote:But Muster never comes up in a discussion of greats.

Kinda proves the point of how far off Murray is.

Claycourt great for sure, overall tennis great, think not.

by CAS Mon Jul 30, 2012 7:55 pm

Musters a strange one for me, he won many clay court titles but apart from his one French Open win he never really got close ever again. He should have won more in my opinion, unless injuries really affected him

by polished_man Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:10 pm

Murray's a good egg, but imo he doesn't come even close, as far as greatness is concerned.

by lydian Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:20 pm

Muster's come back from a knackered knee after being injured by a drunk driver is almost the stuff of legend in its own right. After progressing to the finals of Miami Masters in 1989 to play Lendl he was knocked down whilst putting racquets into his car rupturing cruciate ligaments in his knee.

But he came back...and what a recovery from an awful injury
http://sportsthenandnow.com/2010/08/12/thomas-muster-is-on-the-comeback-trail/

But it was an injury that would blight him later on with one doctor saying he should retire from tennis in 1998 http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1893&dat=19980301&id=oOowAAAAIBAJ&sjid=V90FAAAAIBAJ&pg=6056,86735

by Super D Boon Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:44 pm

lydian wrote:Muster's come back from a knackered knee after being injured by a drunk driver is almost the stuff of legend in its own right. After progressing to the finals of Miami Masters in 1989 to play Lendl he was knocked down whilst putting racquets into his car rupturing cruciate ligaments in his knee.

But he came back...and what a recovery from an awful injury
http://sportsthenandnow.com/2010/08/12/thomas-muster-is-on-the-comeback-trail/

But it was an injury that would blight him later on with one doctor saying he should retire from tennis in 1998 http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1893&dat=19980301&id=oOowAAAAIBAJ&sjid=V90FAAAAIBAJ&pg=6056,86735

Yeah indeed I forgot to mention the drunk driver accident which would have shattered most players' careers. Muster couldn't perform on other surfaces after the injury or so it is stated and so something like 40 of his titles are therefore on clay. I think he is a clay court great but that as I'm trying to suggest puts him somewhere on the "scale" of greatness, maybe not that high but somewhere on the lower end of Hawkeye's mythical scale. Murray I don't think can be on any such scale without a slam.

Muster deserves to be regarded as a great with a small "g" because of the amount of titles and his rise from misfortune.

by bogbrush Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:59 pm

Fair comment,I forgot about that.

by CaledonianCraig Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:02 pm

It is all very well only wanting to count slam wins in greatness debates - fair enough. However, look deeper at slam winners other stats compared to Murray's in other areas and they conversely don't come close to what he has achieved. Imagine each player's stats as the old Top Trumps cards if you will and you could easily come up with a different sets of ideas of greatness.

Looking at greatness and if we are talking about all-time greats then obviously Murray isn't at the races. Looking at todays current crop of players then Murray is one of the greatest players in the world and if he can manage to win a slam or two it will catapult him up in the list of all-time greats because of other achievements he already has such as Masters Cup wins, being a rare breed of players to have reached the semis or better at every slam, reached slam finals at three different slams, the amount of titles won and his win percentage is not to be sniffed at either.

by hawkeye Mon Jul 30, 2012 11:16 pm

lydian wrote: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!

CaladonianCraig

I think you have got a little sidetracked. I wasn't talking about the definition of the word "great" as such but more about were players can be placed on a scale of greatness. Lydian has got what I was trying to say with the quote above (Personally I would put both Federer AND Nadal at 10 but that is just a matter of opinion...) Instead of using numbers to describe positions I used words. Great was my "10" The next step down was "very good" and the step down from that was "good". It's the same principle though. Can you see that if you award too many players with differing achievements a 10 (or using my scale describe them as "great") then it is no longer useful as a scale?

Maybe you would be happier having a scale starting with Murray described as "great"? Then you would have to think of a word to describe the likes of Djokovic. Then another word to describe players such as McEnroe and Becker. By the time you had to describe Nadal and Federer how would you describe them? Remember it has to be a scale. You might start running out of adjectives...

It Must Be Love

Noticed your comment and I think it was unbiased...

by User 774433 Mon Jul 30, 2012 11:33 pm

hawkeye wrote:
It Must Be Love

Noticed your comment and I think it was unbiased...

That's your Times subscription cancelled then Laugh

by Super D Boon Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:13 am

Ah so the Scale of Greatness (SoG) is actually categorised in words and not numbers. You could maybe have the following:

1) Good
2) Very Good
3) Excellent
4) Great
5) All Time Great
6) Top 10 ever
7) Top 5 ever
8) Top 3 ever
9) Second best ever
10) GOAT

I would put Murray at 2-3 on my SoG chart!

by gboycottnut Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:35 am

What about Pencil Neck?

by CaledonianCraig Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:36 am

Super D Boon wrote:Ah so the Scale of Greatness (SoG) is actually categorised in words and not numbers. You could maybe have the following:

1) Good
2) Very Good
3) Excellent
4) Great
5) All Time Great
6) Top 10 ever
7) Top 5 ever
8) Top 3 ever
9) Second best ever
10) GOAT

I would put Murray at 2-3 on my SoG chart!

I would say that scale is fair enough Super D Boon.

by Guest Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:23 am

lydian wrote:Muster's come back from a knackered knee after being injured by a drunk driver is almost the stuff of legend in its own right. After progressing to the finals of Miami Masters in 1989 to play Lendl he was knocked down whilst putting racquets into his car rupturing cruciate ligaments in his knee.

But he came back...and what a recovery from an awful injury
http://sportsthenandnow.com/2010/08/12/thomas-muster-is-on-the-comeback-trail/

But it was an injury that would blight him later on with one doctor saying he should retire from tennis in 1998 http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1893&dat=19980301&id=oOowAAAAIBAJ&sjid=V90FAAAAIBAJ&pg=6056,86735

Taylor Dent's comeback for me is the stuff legends are made of. Fractured vertebrae left him unable to walk for a year and he came back to break into the top 100. Doctors even told him the operation he had to mend his back would end his tennis career.

http://blog.imgacademies.com/2010/01/15/taylor-dent-breaks-back-into-the-top-100/

It is always warms the heart to see such stories in the tennis world.

by hawkeye Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:35 am

Super D Boon

That is more like what I have in mind. But my criticism is that the top three positions only have one player in each, the 4th only two players and the 5th only 5 players. These divisions are too narrow. Also it looks like most players would fall into the bottom two or three categories. It doesn't differentiate enough between the many quality players that exist. For example there are 29 players who have won 5 slams or more

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Slam_men%27s_singles_champions#Most_Grand_Slam_singles_titles_.285_or_more.29

Most of these players would be bunched at the bottom of your scale along with Murray and many other players with between one and four slam titles and also many players with similar achievements to Murray... and also many players who have achieved less than Murray. Gasquet maybe or Nalbandian.

For the scale to have any useful descriptive purpose it really needs to spread these players out a little.

by CaledonianCraig Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:11 am

Gee whizz I don't believe it. Shocked

A post from hawkeye that I actually agree with.

by lags72 Tue Jul 31, 2012 10:28 am

A wondrous event indeed.

Just in case 606v2 is not archived for posterity, best take a screen grab CC Wink

by gboycottnut Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:04 pm

Super D Boon wrote:Ah so the Scale of Greatness (SoG) is actually categorised in words and not numbers. You could maybe have the following:

1) Good
2) Very Good
3) Excellent
4) Great
5) All Time Great
6) Top 10 ever
7) Top 5 ever
8) Top 3 ever
9) Second best ever
10) GOAT

What about Pencil Neck? Where on this scale would you place him?

I would put Murray at 2-3 on my SoG chart!

by lags72 Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:40 pm

What's happening here gboycotnutt ...??

Looks like you're quoting Super D Boon but editing his comments with your own, to imply he's said something he hasn't .... chin

by lydian Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:40 pm

Nice story LK.
In Muster's case what I liked what his proactive attitude to not be beaten by doing things like creating a special chair he could sit down and whack groundstrokes from whilst his knee was getting better.

Did Blake have a "body issue" too?

by Guest Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:47 pm

lydian wrote:Nice story LK.
In Muster's case what I liked what his proactive attitude to not be beaten by doing things like creating a special chair he could sit down and whack groundstrokes from whilst his knee was getting better.

Did Blake have a "body issue" too?

I know he suffered a few injuries, some career threatening ones too. I think is much more widely known that when he broke onto the tour his father had stomach cancer.

The thing I liked about Dent's story was how he was told his career was over and he made a miraculous recovery and was able to squeeze another 18 months out of his career and how much he treasured that period.

Agreed Muster's story is stunning in how his career was nearly ripped from him because of a terrible accident.

by lydian Tue Jul 31, 2012 1:14 pm

Loved Dent's serve, such a powerhouse and his attacking style of play was a delight to watch on song. Oh how we need more players like him...

by Guest Tue Jul 31, 2012 1:49 pm

Aye indeed. I think it was the US Open 2009 when he got to the 3rd round and lost to Murray. Remember how he thanked the crowd.

There is a massive hole in the game which can be filled by a heavy stoke maker.

by hawkeye Tue Jul 31, 2012 3:09 pm

hawkeye wrote:Super D Boon

That is more like what I have in mind. But my criticism is that the top three positions only have one player in each, the 4th only two players and the 5th only 5 players. These divisions are too narrow. Also it looks like most players would fall into the bottom two or three categories. It doesn't differentiate enough between the many quality players that exist. For example there are 29 players who have won 5 slams or more

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Slam_men%27s_singles_champions#Most_Grand_Slam_singles_titles_.285_or_more.29

Most of these players would be bunched at the bottom of your scale along with Murray and many other players with between one and four slam titles and also many players with similar achievements to Murray... and also many players who have achieved less than Murray. Gasquet maybe or Nalbandian.

For the scale to have any useful descriptive purpose it really needs to spread these players out a little.

CaladonianCraig. If you look at my reply you can see that although I say that Super D Boon's idea is more like what in mind I don't agree with it. It is not really useful for descriptive purposes as it doesn't spread the players out enough.

On my scale I would definitely bunch GOAT, 2nd best ever, 3rd best ever, top 5 ever and top 10 ever together and describe them all as "great". This would still make it an exclusive group as it would only contain about 10 or so players. Federer, Nadal, Borg, Sampras (If everyone insists Zzzz...), Laver, etc. The next group down would contain players like McEnroe, Becker, Lendl, Edberg ... players with a significant number of slams and other achievements but not quite up there at the top. On Super D Boon's scale these players would perhaps fill the 5th and 4th positions (Great and Excellent). I would call that group "very good" and would imagine it would contain 15 or so players.

Can you see the limitations of Super D Boons proposed scale now? Only about 25 players in history would be split over 7 positions of the scale. All the rest would be bunched together into 3 categories. Including like I said players that had won between 1 and 4 or so slams, Murray and players who have equal achievements to him... and players like say Gaquet, Nalbandian and also players with less achievements than them. For the scale to be useful and descriptive this group needs to be split into at least 5 or 6 categories.

Hope you still agree. If so have you any idea's how they should be split. As I said earlier the naming of each group is not really important so you can call the category containing Murray "great" and work from there.

by reckoner Tue Jul 31, 2012 3:16 pm

1) Whuh?
2) Whatevs
3) Whatever
4) OK
5) Chimichinga
6) Meh
7) Blah
8) Sorta alright
9) Kinda alright
10) Alright

by gboycottnut Tue Jul 31, 2012 3:29 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:
Super D Boon wrote:Ah so the Scale of Greatness (SoG) is actually categorised in words and not numbers. You could maybe have the following:

1) Good
2) Very Good
3) Excellent
4) Great
5) All Time Great
6) Top 10 ever
7) Top 5 ever
8) Top 3 ever
9) Second best ever
10) GOAT

I would put Murray at 2-3 on my SoG chart!

I would say that scale is fair enough Super D Boon.

What about Pencil Neck? Where would he stand in the halls of Tennis Greatness?

by CAS Tue Jul 31, 2012 3:31 pm

gboycottnut wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
Super D Boon wrote:Ah so the Scale of Greatness (SoG) is actually categorised in words and not numbers. You could maybe have the following:

1) Good
2) Very Good
3) Excellent
4) Great
5) All Time Great
6) Top 10 ever
7) Top 5 ever
8) Top 3 ever
9) Second best ever
10) GOAT

I would put Murray at 2-3 on my SoG chart!

I would say that scale is fair enough Super D Boon.

What about Pencil Neck? Where would he stand in the halls of Tennis Greatness?

I would say he is in-between 3 and 4 on that list

by reckoner Tue Jul 31, 2012 3:33 pm

reckoner wrote:1) Whuh?
2) Whatevs
3) Whatever
4) OK
5) Chimichinga
6) Meh
7) Blah
8) Sorta alright
9) Kinda alright
10) Alright

1) Great!!!
2) Great!!
3) Great!
4) Great
5) Great...
6) Great?
7) Great*
8) great
9) great?!
10) grate

by lags72 Tue Jul 31, 2012 3:50 pm

Think you've finally cracked it with that latest categorisation reckoner

I suggest we henceforth use it as the definitive scaleometer

I like the way it incorporates so much flexibility - enabling us to remove/add players, or periodically switch the order into which they've first been placed.

For active players, this flexibility will be useful as & when they decline or improve over the remainder of their career.

And as for retired players .. well we might just go off some of them, you never know (I mean ..that Rod Laver chap.. and also Borg .. were they really that great ... chin

)

by reckoner Tue Jul 31, 2012 4:07 pm

cheers lags! thumbsup

by CaledonianCraig Tue Jul 31, 2012 10:33 pm

hawkeye wrote:
hawkeye wrote:Super D Boon

That is more like what I have in mind. But my criticism is that the top three positions only have one player in each, the 4th only two players and the 5th only 5 players. These divisions are too narrow. Also it looks like most players would fall into the bottom two or three categories. It doesn't differentiate enough between the many quality players that exist. For example there are 29 players who have won 5 slams or more

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Slam_men%27s_singles_champions#Most_Grand_Slam_singles_titles_.285_or_more.29

Most of these players would be bunched at the bottom of your scale along with Murray and many other players with between one and four slam titles and also many players with similar achievements to Murray... and also many players who have achieved less than Murray. Gasquet maybe or Nalbandian.

For the scale to have any useful descriptive purpose it really needs to spread these players out a little.

CaladonianCraig. If you look at my reply you can see that although I say that Super D Boon's idea is more like what in mind I don't agree with it. It is not really useful for descriptive purposes as it doesn't spread the players out enough.

On my scale I would definitely bunch GOAT, 2nd best ever, 3rd best ever, top 5 ever and top 10 ever together and describe them all as "great". This would still make it an exclusive group as it would only contain about 10 or so players. Federer, Nadal, Borg, Sampras (If everyone insists Zzzz...), Laver, etc. The next group down would contain players like McEnroe, Becker, Lendl, Edberg ... players with a significant number of slams and other achievements but not quite up there at the top. On Super D Boon's scale these players would perhaps fill the 5th and 4th positions (Great and Excellent). I would call that group "very good" and would imagine it would contain 15 or so players.

Can you see the limitations of Super D Boons proposed scale now? Only about 25 players in history would be split over 7 positions of the scale. All the rest would be bunched together into 3 categories. Including like I said players that had won between 1 and 4 or so slams, Murray and players who have equal achievements to him... and players like say Gaquet, Nalbandian and also players with less achievements than them. For the scale to be useful and descriptive this group needs to be split into at least 5 or 6 categories.

Hope you still agree. If so have you any idea's how they should be split. As I said earlier the naming of each group is not really important so you can call the category containing Murray "great" and work from there.

Twice in one day. Shocked

I do agree with you. The problem is how do you categorize such scales. You could have many such scales such as:-

1. Players to break into the world top 100 in their careers and win at least one ATP title.

2. Players to break into the world top 50 in their careers and win at least five ATP titles.

3. Players to break into the world top ten in their careers and win at least ten ATP titles.

4. Players to break into the top ten in their careers and win at least ten ATP's and at least one slam.

5. Players to break into the top five in their careers and win twenty ATP titles and at least two slams.

6. Players to become world No.1'S in their career and won 20+ ATP titles and 2+ slams.

7. Players to have won 5 to 10 slams and 30+ ATP titles.

8. Players to have won 10 to 15 slams and 40+ ATP titles.

9. Players to have 15+ slams.

10. And finally the player seen as the GOAT.

However, even that scale is problematic because it doesn't allow for other notable achievements such as those Murray has without winning a slam.

by hawkeye Tue Jul 31, 2012 10:53 pm

CaladonianCraig. I really like your scale and even more than that I like the fact that we have gone from complete misunderstanding to agreement. You can't really ask for more than that in any debate.

by lags72 Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:18 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:

................................................................................................................................

You could have many such scales such as:-

1. Players to break into the world top 100 in their careers and win at least one ATP title.

2. Players to break into the world top 50 in their careers and win at least five ATP titles.

3. Players to break into the world top ten in their careers and win at least ten ATP titles.

4. Players to break into the top ten in their careers and win at least ten ATP's and at least one slam.

5. Players to break into the top five in their careers and win twenty ATP titles and at least two slams.

6. Players to become world No.1'S in their career and won 20+ ATP titles and 2+ slams.

7. Players to have won 5 to 10 slams and 30+ ATP titles.

8. Players to have won 10 to 15 slams and 40+ ATP titles.

9. Players to have 15+ slams.

10. And finally the player seen as the GOAT.

However, even that scale is problematic because it doesn't allow for other notable achievements such as those Murray has without winning a slam.

Well it all looks a tad over-complicated to me in all honesty, indeed "problematic" as you say yourself. Strengthening yet further the case (IMH0) of the wisdom of reckoner's scale, which I still maintain would be just perfect CC. It covers all possibilities, options and variables.

Howz about we all agree to adopt it without further ado, leaving us free to relax & get back to watching & enjoying live tennis ..... Cool

It really would make life so much easier.

by User 774433 Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:31 pm

So are we using my 'tier' system or not Tumbleweed

by lags72 Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:44 pm

Sadly, no

There's much to be said for it, I'll give you that IMBL.

But the inherent and near-foolproof flexibility provided by reckoner's scale (3.33pm) just gives it the edge.

by User 774433 Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:46 pm

Frankly ridiculous decision.
I'm calling my lawyers.

by lags72 Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:49 pm

Please don't sue.

I'm sure we can settle this out of court.

by User 774433 Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:58 pm

OK maybe, I will consider your offer. In the meantime I have concluded my 'tier/'league' system (with just 5 examples in each category but there are many more- consider this a 'preview'):

Premier League: Nadal, Federer, Sampras, Laver, Borg etc.
Championship: Wilander, Agassi, Djokovic, Lendl, Becker etc.
League 1: Roddick, Murray, Safin, Hewitt, Kuerten etc.
League 2: Del Potro, Muster, Stich, Chang, Cash etc.
Conference: Soderling, Tsonga, T.Martin, Pioline, Medvedev etc.

by lags72 Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:14 am

Sneak preview doesn't look bad but to be honest I'm ready for my bed so I'll leave others to judge. But do at least relegate Cash please - 7 titles across a whole career doesn't really cut it, even if one is a Slam. Del Potro in same tier has 11 and he's still only 23, and the others in League 2 have a LOT more .....

by User 774433 Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:19 am

Del P can be promoted if he has more success in the future thumbsup

Pat Cash can't be relegated to the conference, he won Wimpeldon Laugh

by CaledonianCraig Wed Aug 01, 2012 7:40 am

I do believe that scales of greatness should be assessed in different areas. As slam wins doesn't tell the whole story as there have been single or double slam winners who had terrible records at other slams other than their favourite slam. Also some slam winners overall ATP title haul may be mdiocre compared to others and the premier ATP titles (Masters Cups) elude them plus they may not scale the heights in rankings. So in my eyes EVERYTHING needs to be assessed when assessing greatness. Now Roger is fine as he ticks all the boxes as does Rafael Nadal and Novak also.

Point in fact:- Thomas Johansson

Going by pure slam wins he is above Murray on greatness due to his Australian Open win in 2002.

However, look deeper and you find:-

ATP Title Wins:-

Johansson 9 Murray 22

Masters Cup Wins:-

Johansson 0 Murray 6

Highest Ranking Achieved:-

Johansson 51 Murray 2

Slam Finals:-

Johansson 1 Murray 4

Slam Semis:-

Johansson 1 Murray 10

A reason clearly for me, why rating greatness merely on slams doesn't work as you cannot tell me Johansson is in the same league of greatness as Murray even though he has won a slam.

by dummy_half Wed Aug 01, 2012 9:31 am

CC
You've got Johansson's highest ranking wrong - he reached #7 in June 2002 on the back of his AO win, but even before that was a top 20 player. Doesn't hugely undermine your point, that he was no more than a solid player for most of his career, but that he did a great job of taking the one opportunity that came his way in a Slam (unlike Henman, who at one point was the highest ranked player left in the AO 02).

Clearly, winning a one-off slam does not demonstrate greatness, but similarly I wouldn't yet rate Murray as a Great - an excellent player with a record that 99% of the current pros would love to have, but so far falling a bit short in terms of legacy.

by hawkeye Wed Aug 01, 2012 9:49 am

I'm quite pleased that everyone is now discussing a "scale" of greatness because that is what this topic was meant to be about. But of course there are many ways of calibrating such a scale.

You could go purely on numbers. The simplest one would be the number of slams. Or you could go on ranking. Highest ranking and time spent at highest ranking. You could factor in tournaments lower than slams by some sort of trade off system. Maybe 3 masters wins equals 1 slam or 3 500 tournaments equals 1 masters win. (I think any player would jump at the chance to be able to do this for real Ha ha!)

But IMO a scale of greatness should facter in something that can't be so easily counted. That's why most people would place McEnroe above Lendl. This also explains why big wins like slams are disproportionately more important than many smaller wins. It is the big wins that are seen as the ultimate test and label the winner as "great". Even some slam wins perhaps bestow players with more "greatness" than others. For example Wimbledon 2008 and Wimbledon 1981 sprinkled a great deal of "greatness"

Murray is an interesting example. Because of his very high profile he has the ability to make a little greatness go a long, long way...

CaladonianCraig. I like the way you sneakily awarded Murray 6 masters CUP titles and not masters titles in your last comment. It didn't get past my eagle eyes though... Ha ha!

It Must Be Love. Good choice of titles for your categories. I've always thought football was good at disguising what league is the best. To an outside eye (like mine) "Premier league", "Championship" and "League 1" could all be the best. They all sound "great" this should make everyone happy. I'm not sure about your placement of Murray so I've decided to hold onto my subscription to the Times for the moment...

by CaledonianCraig Wed Aug 01, 2012 9:52 am

Well this is a thread about scales of greatness is it not? 'A great' is what exactly? An all-time great? No of course not until he wins slams. A great of the game today then yes I'd say he is whereas Federer is GOAT and Nadal is one of the all-time greats and Djokovic could join that category in the next few years.

by reckoner Wed Aug 01, 2012 10:13 am

Tsonga is now a great of the game - did anyone see his match yesterday?

by CaledonianCraig Wed Aug 01, 2012 10:26 am

reckoner wrote:Tsonga is now a great of the game - did anyone see his match yesterday?

I'd disagree as his achievements are not on par with Murray's just as Murray's aren't on a par with say Djokovic.

by reckoner Wed Aug 01, 2012 11:02 am

CaledonianCraig wrote:
reckoner wrote:Tsonga is now a great of the game - did anyone see his match yesterday?

I'd disagree as his achievements are not on par with Murray's just as Murray's aren't on a par with say Djokovic.

Don't see how you can disagree actually as the definition of great is entirely subjective.

by CaledonianCraig Wed Aug 01, 2012 11:12 am

I disagree from my point of view which is based on overall career achievements. Play it like a Top Trumps card:-

Most ATP Titles:- Murray

Most Masters wins:- Murray

Highest Ranking Achieved:- Murray

Most Slam Finals:- Murray

Most Slam Semis:- Murray

Throw in the fact that Murray is one of nine (I do believe) players of all-time to reach every slam semi in a calendar year and I think there is no contest - in my opinion.

by User 774433 Wed Aug 01, 2012 11:15 am

hawkeye wrote:
It Must Be Love. Good choice of titles for your categories. I've always thought football was good at disguising what league is the best. To an outside eye (like mine) "Premier league", "Championship" and "League 1" could all be the best. They all sound "great" this should make everyone happy. I'm not sure about your placement of Murray so I've decided to hold onto my subscription to the Times for the moment...

I am totally unbiased angel

btw check your inbox Cool

by Sponsored content