Is Murray Now An All Time Great?

With Murray's amazing win over Federer to clinch what some describe as the ultimate prize in tennis... a shiny Olympic gold medal does this finally seal his place amongst the all time tennis greats? After all unlike a slam the Olympics come round only once every four years. Also Murray was playing for his country and for us. He is perhaps the ultimate "peoples" champion. Not only that but by defeating both Federer and Djokovic in his quest he has in all probability broken their spirits and at the same time gained the mental strength never to be beaten again. Of course Nadal was never the same sort of threat to Murray even when he was fully fit as Murray proved by crushing him in slam matches at both the US Open and the AO. Will Murray now be able to take his rightful place as a true tennis great?



I admit I didn't see the medal or watch the match as I was watching Louis Smith and Max Whitlock win silver and bronze in the dramatic final of the men's pommel horse. But even though I didn't watch I'm sure Murray's medal looked as shiny as a gold medal can look and that Federer played an amazing match but it still wasn't good enough for the mighty Murray.

you have to claim all 4 majors to be an all time great.

Nothing wrong with winning 2 or 3 of them, but you need all 4 to be all time great. Thats where Sampras (and so far Djokovic) are missing out.

No, Murray became GOAT when he took tennis racquet for the first time.

Josiah Maiestas

I don't think you understand just how shiny Murray's gold medal is! 100% of 606v2 members now agree that he is now an all time great.

Oh HE, I have to give you credit. Most of your articles are a bit repetitive but this one actually amused me a little.

No, of course he's not a great. Not until he is a slam winner.

Can I ask you if you are pleased that Murray won a gold and silver for GB, or does your hatred of him get in the way of being pleased for the country?

hawkeye wrote: Of course Nadal was never the same sort of threat to Murray even when he was fully fit as Murray proved by crushing him in slam matches at both the US Open and the AO. Will Murray now be able to take his rightful place as a true tennis great?

I admit I didn't see the medal or watch the match as I was watching Louis Smith and Max Whitlock win silver and bronze in the dramatic final of the men's pommel horse. But even though I didn't watch I'm sure Murray's medal looked as shiny as a gold medal can look and that Federer played an amazing match but it still wasn't good enough for the mighty Murray.

Nadal retired at the AO in 2012 albeit down two sets. A fully fit Nadal would not allow that to happen. At the USO 08 it was a four set match and very up and down. Nadal had won throughout the clay season and won Queens/Wimbledon before flying out to China for the Olympics which he won. In a few weeks he was in the US competing in the masters and then the USO. He was I think a bit spent.

Federer did not play an 'Amazing match'. Sorry to shatter the illusion. He was all over the place dumping routines shots into the net and making very poor errors. As Henman said, he was mistiming and misfiring his f/h shots too. Murray played very well. He didn't have to do much but continue in that form as Federer was the architect of his demise in this match. That match vs JMDP did play its part today as Fed was flat and slow and below his best.

Danny_1982 wrote:Can I ask you if you are pleased that Murray won a gold and silver for GB, or does your hatred of him get in the way of being pleased for the country?

Isn't it strange that when Hawkeye and Josaiah (I asked him a similar question, earlier) they are strangely mute

You may as well ask if Fed is now an all time great, neither of their statuses have changed. Murray was great all the way back in 2008.

Where's the option that says you need minimum 6-7 Slams to be an all-time great?

He doesn't need a slam, he has a super shiny gold medal which may or may not be ranked as high as a slam depending on what pundit you talk to.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:You may as well ask if Fed is now an all time great, neither of their statuses have changed. Murray was great all the way back in 2008.

How can Fed be an all time great? He has no Olympic (singles) gold, the man is a failure.

I hate fish wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:You may as well ask if Fed is now an all time great, neither of their statuses have changed. Murray was great all the way back in 2008.

How can Fed be an all time great? He has no Olympic (singles) gold, the man is a failure.

Absolutely.

Given current trajectory since last week, my calculations show that by a fortnight on Tuesday the Olympic Gold will be worth 5 Slams and by mid October anyone without one will be a worthless journeyman.

The last person to win a 'Grand' Slam is Laver. No one else is 'great', they are all journeyman in the Open Era.

laverfan

Ha ha! You try telling CaladonianCraig that Murray isn't "great". Go on I dare you...

Yes he is a great player. Not only that he is an Olympic Champion.

hawkeye wrote:Ha ha! You try telling CaladonianCraig that Murray isn't "great". Go on I dare you...

I have respect for all players, HE. Murray (same age as Djokovic) has been winning titles and has been a consistent presence in Top 4. By nitpicking a specific aspect of a players' title portfolio, I can always say that specific player is not great.

For example, Nadal does not have a WTF title so far, does it mean he should not be considered in such a list of 'greats'?

Federer does not have DC, is he not in this list either? Murray does not have a slam, is he not in this list either? Djokovic does not have an RG, and so on and so forth...?

Remember, all Olympic Gold Medals shine equally well?

Right on Laverfan, this all too ubiquitous calling a Major, a Grand Slam, doesn't alter the fact that a Grand Slam is, and only is, the winning of the same disipline in all four Major tournaments, in the same calendar year. The only other reference point to a "slam," is a player winning a career slam - Evert, Navratilova, Federer; a career Golden Slam, Graf, Nadal, Agassi - or winning a Double career Golden Slam - winning all four Majors in Singles, Doubles as well as Olympic gold in Singles AND doubles - All Hail Queen Serena - the ONLY one to accomplish this feat in the game's history.

Whilst I am at it, kudos to Pamela Howard Shriver, who refuses to join her incorrect commentating colleagues, and continues to call a Major, a Major, and NOT a Grand Slam.

laverfan wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Ha ha! You try telling CaladonianCraig that Murray isn't "great". Go on I dare you...

I have respect for all players, HE. Murray (same age as Djokovic) has been winning titles and has been a consistent presence in Top 4. By nitpicking a specific aspect of a players' title portfolio, I can always say that specific player is not great.

For example, Nadal does not have a WTF title so far, does it mean he should not be considered in such a list of 'greats'?

Federer does not have DC, is he not in this list either? Murray does not have a slam, is he not in this list either? Djokovic does not have an RG, and so on and so forth...?

Remember, all Olympic Gold Medals shine equally well?

laverfan wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Ha ha! You try telling CaladonianCraig that Murray isn't "great". Go on I dare you...

I have respect for all players, HE. Murray (same age as Djokovic) has been winning titles and has been a consistent presence in Top 4. By nitpicking a specific aspect of a players' title portfolio, I can always say that specific player is not great.

For example, Nadal does not have a WTF title so far, does it mean he should not be considered in such a list of 'greats'?

Federer does not have DC, is he not in this list either? Murray does not have a slam, is he not in this list either? Djokovic does not have an RG, and so on and so forth...?

Remember, all Olympic Gold Medals shine equally well?

laverfan

You have left me confused. First you say that only Laver is "great" and all other players are "journeymen". But then maybe out of fear of CaladonianCraig you appear to be trying to wriggle out of this statement by accusing me of saying that all players are not great. I certainly never said that!

I have to disagree about the shininess of gold medals too.

hawkeye wrote:I have to disagree about the shininess of gold medals too.

Beating the world No 1 and the world No 2 without dropping a set would rank very highly on the official 'shine grading' - unless it's the official 'hawkeye shine grading' presumably ?

As for the specifics of what makes an 'all-time great' and whether Murray fits into that category, there is, of course, no 100% objective criteria or definition. He's certainly the greatest player GB has produced since Fred Perry and he's certainly not as high on the list as his contemporaries - Djoko, Fed, Rafa. Does it really matter where exactly in between he is?

Really HE, would you sleep better at night if we all agreed he was 'very very good', but not an 'all-time great'? Even if you convinced everyone on this forum, what then?

hawkeye wrote:

laverfan wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Ha ha! You try telling CaladonianCraig that Murray isn't "great". Go on I dare you...

I have respect for all players, HE. Murray (same age as Djokovic) has been winning titles and has been a consistent presence in Top 4. By nitpicking a specific aspect of a players' title portfolio, I can always say that specific player is not great.

For example, Nadal does not have a WTF title so far, does it mean he should not be considered in such a list of 'greats'?

Federer does not have DC, is he not in this list either? Murray does not have a slam, is he not in this list either? Djokovic does not have an RG, and so on and so forth...?

Remember, all Olympic Gold Medals shine equally well?

laverfan

You have left me confused. First you say that only Laver is "great" and all other players are "journeymen". But then maybe out of fear of CaladonianCraig you appear to be trying to wriggle out of this statement by accusing me of saying that all players are not great. I certainly never said that!

I have to disagree about the shininess of gold medals too.

What confuses me more is your invincibility to sarcasm

Murray. Good? - yes. Very good? - yes. Great - no, or at least not yet. Greatness has, IMHO, to be reflected in multiple Slams and even Djoko is not yet there in my book. We can argue about the position in the game of, say, Edberg, who won six GS, but if we are unsure of somone's overall standing when they've won half a dozen majors it rather suggests that Andy has some way to go yet.
Gold Medal at Wimbledon in the London Games is a wonderful achievement, though, especially after beating the world's top two in straight sets.

In all serious is it not possible that the Olympic title could be recognised as a major in the future? McEnroe seemed to allude to that after the match. Afterall, the 4 Majors we all recognise today have not always been in place so that list can obviously evolve.

It seems possible to me that Murray could retrospectively become a major winner, possibly after retirement.

There's examples in other sports: e.g. The Ashes - players in the first ever series would not have been aware they were playing in such a contest but are now part of the records for it.

Marc Rosset certainly hopes so.

Not sure how many players would be over the moon about the prospects of 5 5 set tournaments in a calendar year. It is only in recent time that many of the tournaments were shrunk to a BO3 format. I don't see how the Olympics can be considered a future Slam given the participation restrictions.

Is Nicolas Massu a great? No.

Winning OG doesnt make any difference for me..."great" as it is for Murray.

Greatness is all about the slams...it has to be...and lots of them.

Oh...and OG is a 64 man draw...still no bigger than a Masters.

I say Slams > Masters > WTF > OG.

Infact I think winning a Davis Cup final is greater than OG.

And why is it becoming "more" important than before? Its been working the same way since Rosset or Agassi won it. 64 man draws...I dont see Murray's win as anymore special than Mecir's, Rosset's, Agassi's, Kafelnikov's, Massu's or Nadal's.

VTR

Wow! I did predict that the gold medal might explode with shininess if Murray won it but clearly I underestimated the effect being hung around Murray's neck would have on the medal. You reckon it could actually transform into a slam?

lydian

It's strange isn't it that the Olympic medals value can be affected by who wears it? Have you read my article about how shiny the Olympic gold would be after the Olympics?

https://www.606v2.com/t33033-how-shiny-is-the-gold-medal-now

Something confuses me though. Although Murray's Olympic gold is fast transforming into a slam. Nadal's gold medal hasn't increased in shininess at all.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:you have to claim all 4 majors to be an all time great.

Nothing wrong with winning 2 or 3 of them, but you need all 4 to be all time great. Thats where Sampras (and so far Djokovic) are missing out.

Moronic so borg, connors, and mac aren't all time greats and Nadal is JM. You been agreeing too much with BB lately it has given you a form of logical disconnect bordering on delusional.

VTR wrote:In all serious is it not possible that the Olympic title could be recognised as a major in the future? McEnroe seemed to allude to that after the match. Afterall, the 4 Majors we all recognise today have not always been in place so that list can obviously evolve.

It seems possible to me that Murray could retrospectively become a major winner, possibly after retirement.

There's examples in other sports: e.g. The Ashes - players in the first ever series would not have been aware they were playing in such a contest but are now part of the records for it.

Winning a mayor retrospectively, that must surely be the cleverest thing I've read for a while.

But why not consider other interesting candidates:

Could the DC also be considered a Slam at some stage?

And what about the WTF: it'd be a wonderful sixth major.

Some say that Miami is considered the little major (seven in total so far).

I'll leave it to you to determine who are the effective multi slam holders now that we have agreed there might be seven majors in the near future.

PS: John McEnroe seemed to allude to your post when he said: you cannot be serious!

hawkeye wrote:VTR


It's strange isn't it that the Olympic medals value can be affected by who wears it? Have you read my article about how shiny the Olympic gold would be after the Olympics?

Something confuses me though. Although Murray's Olympic gold is fast transforming into a slam. Nadal's gold medal hasn't increased in shininess at all.

No not at all hawkeye. Unless you hadn't realised you live in Britain which is hosting the Olympics so every gold medal won is greeted with extra delight and sense of importance and I'd imagine that Nadal's gold medal was celebrated in Spain four years ago. As much? Perhaps not but that would be purely because he already had the bigger prize of a slam win to his name. As for Murray's medal 'being shinier' than Nadal's? Well you are in Britain you know. If you wish British media to report Spain's success with equal glee then sorry it will never happen just as I am sure the Spanish media aren't too bothered by Murray's gold.

CaladonianCraig

If you are just talking about how shiny Murray's gold medal looks in this country alone then of course it looks more shiny than Nadals Olympic gold.

Likewise if you are talking about Murray being a "British" all time great it is a smaller club therefore he has a better chance of being admitted. I would say that his Olympic medal would gain him admittance. Of course he wouldn't be able to sit at the top table with Fred Perry, Virginia Wade, Sue Barker, Anne Jones and Christine Trueman. He would have to sit with Greg, John, Tim, Angela Buxton and Patricia Ward Hales. I would guess he would try and bag his seat quickly otherwise he might find himself sandwiched between his "buddies" Greg and John... but at least he wouldn't have to sit next to Virginia.

However this article wasn't specifically about Murray's standing amongst British players.

Hawkeye you really must stop trying to force words into my mouth. Since when on this forum or any other have I EVER said Andy was an all-time great? I haven't. I really do not like it so please refrain. You have done it before as well with myself so please give it up eh?

Just to clarify I'm not saying it should be a Slam because Murray won it. Just pointing out that the great John McEnroe mentioned it after the match. I could see it happening, it wont affect my life in any way if it does but I think its an interesting angle and has happened in other sports before.

You just don't know what you are talking about.

andy still needs to win a slam imo, im delighted he won gold on sunday. this hopefully will be a stepping stone to winning his first slam. it should be a turning point in his career. he is a great player atm but not an all time great player yet as e.g. fed, agassi, rafa who have won all 4 slams.

Yes I do thanks Jeremy. Its pointless trying to have a debate with some people on here. Its very blinkered to think the 4 Slams are set in stone forever, sport is always evolving. The Olympics, as John McEnroe (not me!) said could become a Major in the future.

In my opinion the Olympics will never become a fifth slam or seen as such. However, that doesn't negate its importance in my opinion. In tennis terms an Olympic Gold is not the ultimate prize but in sport it is much sought after and prestigious.

I agree CC. My original question was "is it possible"? Since then I've had about 3 or 4 posters putting words in my mouth saying I'm claiming its a Slam for Murray.

I was hoping to stimulate an interesting debate on here but have learned my lesson: most of the people on here (not you btw CC - your input has been good to read) are more interested in petty sniping so I don't think I'll bother with the Tennis section of this site again.

I think it's counted so much for Murray because it was his home Olympics and the only chance he'll ever get of winning a gold medal on Centre Court. It's not a major, it will probably never be a major, but it's something to tell the grandchildren in the future.

"Back in the day when we used racquets not made of superpolycatguts I won an Olympic Gold Medal on Centre Court...."

VTR wrote:Yes I do thanks Jeremy. Its pointless trying to have a debate with some people on here. Its very blinkered to think the 4 Slams are set in stone forever, sport is always evolving. The Olympics, as John McEnroe (not me!) said could become a Major in the future.

No you don't. When you claim that Murray may win a slam retrospectively you are missing the not irrelevant detail that even if the weird thing happen and yes the Olympics become a slam , this wouldn't work retrospectively.

Otherwise: would it be fair to say to players who won the Hamburg Master when it was a 1000 events, that alas they effectivly won an ATP 500 event as that tournament was downgraded few years after?

Also you seem to want to promote the Olympics not just once, thrice! From the actual 750 points ranking status, you don't even take in consideration the imvho wrong but not totally unreasonable option to upgrade it to a Master 1000 status. You double it up, surpass the WTA and finally make it none other than a Slam!!Well done.

Finally why should it become a Slam? Can't it become the Davis Cup? lol

Jeremy: remember my original question "is it possible".

Anyway, genuinely that's a good post as you are actually answering the question now. Its a no from you and you've given some good reasons why. That's what I was after all along! No hard feelings

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

VTR wrote:Yes I do thanks Jeremy. Its pointless trying to have a debate with some people on here. Its very blinkered to think the 4 Slams are set in stone forever, sport is always evolving. The Olympics, as John McEnroe (not me!) said could become a Major in the future.

No you don't. When you claim that Murray may win a slam retrospectively...

That was never claimed, as far as I can tell.

VTR wrote:In all serious is it not possible that the Olympic title could be recognised as a major in the future? McEnroe seemed to allude to that after the match. Afterall, the 4 Majors we all recognise today have not always been in place so that list can obviously evolve.

It seems possible to me that Murray could retrospectively become a major winner, possibly after retirement.

There's examples in other sports: e.g. The Ashes - players in the first ever series would not have been aware they were playing in such a contest but are now part of the records for it.

I am afraid it was.

Come on Jeremy this is just getting petty now. Trawling back through posts to prove your pedantry correct. What exactly do you get out of this?

Nothing special really. This was only in response of JuliusHMarx's incorrect remark, that's it.

Fair enough J_K. I have to say I can't imagine the Olympics ever becoming a 5th slam, and even if it did, nothing would be handed out retrospectively.

so it seems

No.

Question then: I believe the Aussie Open started in 1905 but wasn't recognised as a slam until 1924. So are the winners of the early years now recognised as slam winners or not? I can't find a definitive answer anywhere!

I'm not big on revisionism but it definitely does happen. Judging from this board there'd be big resistance to a 5th Major in the future, Olympics or anything else.