Andy Murray - The World No 1

First topic message reminder :

With Milos Raonic pulling out injured of his semi against Andy in Paris it means Andy Murray has scaled the heights to reach the World No.1 ranking.

Andy has been at No 2 for so long and at last he is at the very top. All that hard graft, the hours of training, the years of toiling and competing, the big wins and hard losses but final Andy's moment has arrived.

His fellow pros are lining up to hail the new world No 1 after Djokovic. Great times Andy. Well done.

sirfredperry wrote:So where does this put Murray among the all-time greats of British sport ? Few, I guess, would argue that Andy is ONE of the greatest and it could be argued he is THE best.
  It's always difficult to compare eras and different sports. Some of those vying for the Brit GOAT would include Jack Hobbs, Stanley Matthews, Bobby Charlton and Ian Botham. Some might like to chuck the likes of Steve Redgrave and some of the more-recent Brit Olympians into the mix.
   Much of sport is of a domestic nature. But tennis players, in effect, are playing World Cups every week, with the GS being Super World Cups. Thus you're pitted against the world's best all the time. You can't sit on the bench for a match or two. If you're injured you lose points and ranking. The tour is relentless.
  Andy is now top of this particularly tough heap. He's set himself apart from his fellow players - and possibly apart from his fellow British sporting greats, past and present.

It shows how 'heated' such debates can be. I'd argue that Alistair Cook and Lewis Hamilton are easily as good as these - but I suppose as they haven't finished their careers, we can't judge

Before people say it's about the car with Hamilton. When he was at McLaren, he was pulling the equivalent of today's Ferrari to the current Mercedes around the track and still been in with a chance of the title at the last race of 2010.

As for Cook his achievements dwarf Botham, simply because the latter's achievements are always remembered but what is often forgotten is just how poor he was on occasions, i.e. against the then mighty West Indians. Greatness can only be achieved if you are consistently great or at least 90% of the time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ATP_number_1_ranked_singles_tennis_players#Weeks_at_No._1

List of ATP players who have reached number one.

In terms of tennis CV, I would without too much hesitation have the following ahead of Murray: the first nine on the list, Edberg, Courier, Nastase, Wliander, Becker (agree with a previous observation that Becker's mere 12 weeks at number one are a bit of an oddity) and Newcombe.

Equally, I would have him fairly comfortably ahead of the following: Rafter, Moya, Kafelnikov, Rios, Muster, Ferrero, Safin, Roddick. Simply put, Murray has more slams, more titles in general (and across more surfaces), a longer and more consistent career. I'd also have him ahead of Kuerten, who's only slams were on clay, and also for other reasons stated above.

Which leaves Hewitt. Somewhat trickier: Hewitt has the advantage of a long spell at number one, which regardless of talks of eras is an impressive reign. Murray has one more slam (same surface breakdown) and again, in terms of tournament performances, has been more consistent for longer. Would have Murray ahead, but not by much.

Of course, if Murray does go on to have a decent reign at number one, and wins more slams in the bargain, then he brings himself into the conversation with some of those I rank above him (for instance, probably wouldn't take much for him to overtake Courier in my view).

Banbro. Alistair Cook and Hamilton are superstars - no doubt about that. In singling out players for the Brit Sport GOAT inevitably one is going to overlook people with legit claims.
Praps it's better to compare Murray with other world tennis greats, as Mad for Chelsea has done so well above. The Hewitt comparison is interesting. The Aussie was one of the greatest fighters the sport has known. He was top for a good few weeks. But even if Andy is only top for two weeks, I would put him ahead of Lleyton in terms of tennis greatness.

I'd agree with that list bar Courier, Nastase and Hewitt:

Murray - 3 slams, 8 finals, 9 SF, 14 Masters, 43 titles, 2 OG

Courier - 4 slams, 3 finals, 4 SF, 5 Masters, 23 titles

Nastase - 2 slams, 3 finals, 1 SF, 7 Masters (equivalent), 4 WTF, 58 titles

Hewitt - 2 slams, 2 finals, 2 SF, 2 Masters, 2 WTF, 30 titles

To me, Murray is miles clear of Hewitt - more slams, more finals, more Masters, more titles.  

Courier has one more slam but everything else is considerably worse than Murray. One more slam in my view isn't sufficient to cover 20 more titles, including 9 more at Masters level. Murray again by a distance. 

As for Nastase, achievement comparisons are slightly harder given the time gap but I think he is probably closest to Andy. I'd give the edge to Andy based on more slams, more finals and more titles at Masters level or above. I could see that go either way though.

On the Brit sport GOAT, it's tough to compare across different sports. It's right to point out that tennis required you to be at your best or near it week after week. Personally I'd look at separating team and individual sports (also, no mention of England rugby, who did reach the pinnacle of sport?). I'd include cycling (even if it has a team element) and you could argue rowing in the individual category.

Anyway, in terms of individuals, Hamilton is certainly a worthy should. Farah definitely. If you count golf, then Faldo certainly. Then you have the more recent cyclists: too early to say with Froome, but track guys like Hoy, all-rounder Wiggins, and though he's not finished Jason Kenny's medal records put him right up there.

The issue with Hoy and Kenny is that they only really perform once every four years. Fair enough, that's what the track cycling program is all about (peaking for the Olympics), and they're very good at it. But if you look at their results throughout the years, they're not great (Kenny I think has only two world titles to six Olympic ones).

One worth watching for the future is swimmer Adam Peaty, who's ridiculously far ahead of the rest of the world in his discipline. Obviously he's very young still, and has only so far been dominant for three years but the level of dominance is amazing (Europeans 2014-2016, Worlds 2015, Commonwealth 2014, Olympics 2016, won them all, hasn't been beaten in a LC 100m breaststroke major meet since 2014). If he can carry on that level of performance, and maybe even move up to the 200 and compete there, then he could well feature in the discussion at some point in the future.

banbrotam wrote:Good article from The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2016/nov/05/andy-murray-mens-no1-tennis-compare

Yes a good article.  They raise a Nick Faldo as being possibly "better" and that is a fair point - golf having a similar structure to tennis.  I think Mo Farah and Jonny Wilkinson have been hard done by in the article and the British cyclists winning world titles, Olympic golds, Tour de Frances etc have been neglected.  I should also add horse racers, like Tony McCoy - who have to be semi starved, yet very strong, incredibly brave, often having 7 races a day on different race courses.

When you talk about greatness it's not just about success in your sport. It's about your legacy.

I would say that Jonny Wilkinson is the greatest Brit.

He's won basically everything he could in his sport. He's been ridiculously consistent.

Played in good teams and not so good teams yet has made a real difference.

Also he won over hearts and minds in France not just England.


Problem for Murray is he's been overshadowed by Federer, Hamilton still in the shadow of Schumacher.

Cook still not as consistent as someone like Tendulkar, his batting average though competent is not as high as it could be.

Jonny Wilkinson is as iconic in rugby as David Beckham is in football but was more successful because he won at the highest level.

Beckham though iconic will always suffer because of his lack of silverware at international level.

N. Staat. A mention of jockeying greats could also include Lester Piggott and, going further back, Gordon Richards. Widening it further, you could make a case for Stephen Hendry, or the legendary snooker player Joe Davis.
What is good is that we have some modern-day giants to compare with the sporting heroes of the past.

If Hamilton is in the shadow of Schumacher, then surely Wilkinson is in the shadow of Carter?

Mad for Chelsea wrote:... too early to say with Froome ...

Froome has won three Tour de Frances - that puts him up there with the greats of cycling history. The truly great sports people in the history of their sport or sports in general are those that break the mould - are somehow "bigger" than the sport itself. From that perspective Murray doesn't get in, but he does get in, in terms of achievement and longevity.

Intriguingly, the Raonic withdrawal in Paris meant Andy did not face a single top 10 player in his four autumn tournament triumphs. This is not to denigrate his achievement and indeed Verdasco, Berdych and Isner all played excellently against him in Paris.
But it also shows how you have to take your opportunities when they come in sport. Andy has stayed fit and focused for the whole year. His perseverance has been remarked upon by the current and former players who have sent messages of congratulation to the new number one.

This is rather lovely I think.

https://twitter.com/JudyMurray/status/795357364744556550

I don't think he is the greatest British sportsman. He would probably have to be a GOAT contender to be contending for that IMO.

Hamilton is arguably not the best driver of his generation, I'd argue Alonso is, and certainly not close to Schumacher.

Cook - agree as above, he's very good but not great.

Think one of the cyclists probably has that honour, certainly of recent times. Unless you include darts as a sport, in which case it is Phil Taylor.

sirfredperry wrote:Intriguingly, the Raonic withdrawal in Paris meant Andy did not face a single top 10 player in his four autumn tournament triumphs. This is not to denigrate his achievement and indeed Verdasco, Berdych and Isner all played excellently against him in Paris.
  But it also shows how you have to take your opportunities when they come in sport. Andy has stayed fit and focused for the whole year. His perseverance has been remarked upon by the current and former players who have sent messages of congratulation to the new number one.
   

He can only beat what is in front of him, but this Paris draw wouldn't have looked out of place in a 250/500.

His Wimbledon draw wasn't too demanding, considering it was to win the most prestigious trophy in tennis - Broady, Lu, Millman, Kyrgios, Tsonga, Berdych, Raonic.

That said, he's clearly the best player in the world and is making these tournaments seem easy. I actually rate Pouille as his toughest match in Paris and he had the easiest time against him.

Born slippy you can't be in someone's shadow if you were there first.

Now you could argue Carter moved out of Wilkinson's shadow but Wilkinson was around succeeding before Carter came on the scene. He had won a RWC, got to another final. Wilkinson was someone that Carter admired and looked up to.

You do make a fair point that Wilkinson would always be compared to Carter. It's hard to criticise Carter's record.

Chris Froome has not won an olympic gold. Now perhaps it seems overly harsh to criticise him for that, I feel that to be seen as the greatest British of all time he needs that under his belt.

As for Murray he's suffered from being around at the height of both Federer and Nadal's power, now that their time is over he is flourishing. Lendl's influence cannot be underestimated either.

The BBC have an article wondering whether Murray getting to number one is going to be the "start" of more success.  In the comments section there is one downvoted comment that I found amusing.  I suppose it depends on your humour whether you find it humorous or not:

"68.  Posted by "more than a full shilling"  
What other sport allows you to have frequent breaks, drinks, food, physio, people handing you towels? Just pampered little rich boys & girls, not real sports people."

But maybe there is more to this comment than meets the eye.  Tennis players are given servants for the match to hand them their towels and on demand tennis balls. Not sure whether this occurs at Futures level (the handing of towels between points).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/37882468

Courier's 4 slams ensure he's better than Murray. Also Courier the youngest man to reach all 4 finals. Courier also defended both his major championships.

NS - footballers get a 15-minute break after playing for just 45 mins as well as getting water bottles chucked on on hot days.
 A fast bowler in a cricket match may do nothing for as long for the first EIGHT OR NINE HOURS of a match. Water bottles abound at cricket matches these days, too. Boxers get to sit down every three minutes while cyclists and rowers sit down all the time!

sirfredperry wrote:NS - footballers get a 15-minute break after playing for just 45 mins as well as getting water bottles chucked on on hot days.
 A fast bowler in a cricket match may do nothing for as long for the first EIGHT OR NINE HOURS of a match. Water bottles abound at cricket matches these days, too. Boxers get to sit down every three minutes while cyclists and rowers sit down all the time!

Good response. Doff hat smiley goes here

Andy Murray cannot be the greatest British sportsman, since he is not even the greatest British tennis player.

Fred Perry won 8 great slams in an era when the pro tour was less developed, and the amatuer tour had the best players. Granted, Ellsworth Vines turned pro in 1934 and that perhaps helped Fred to get a couple more slams than he might have otherwise have done, but most of the best players at that moment were still on the amateur tour.

In fact, if Fred hadn't turned pro himself in 1937 he could have had more slams. By my estimation, in a fully open era, he would still have won at least 8 slams, or more.

Fred Perry was also the first man ever to win the career grand slam. Murray has not achieved this (yet).

If Murray can get to 6-7 slams you might have an argue in the context of his tough opponents, otherwise no chance.

As for best tennis players, I made a list of 25 players that I think would have won 7 or more slams in an open era. So, based on that, Murray easily ranks outside the top 25 of all time by a wide margin. Maybe 50th best ever at a very rough guess.

If we are talking open era, probably no chance of top 10, but maybe 11th-25th best.

Maybe 6th best since 1990?? Behind Agassi, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic. Courier is debatable as has one more slam, but as argued well above, Murray far ahead in other things. I'd give Murray the nod.

But this is if he retires tomorrow, so he could keep moving up my imaginary rankings.

HB. Far be it for me to denigrate my namesake Fred Perry in any way. His achievements were immense. He'll always be regarded as a sporting great. But surely the tour in the 1930s was a very limited affair compared with today's.

The best assessment I've seen of a greatest list has him 16th Open era and 33rd overall. Obviously it's very hard to compare to the pre-open era guys but I reckon 16th is about right Open era. I doubt he will get higher than that in all honesty. It would need him to win at least three more slams I would think.

16th Open era is probably about right based on the list of ATP world n°1s I'd have thought. You could probably quibble about one or two spots, but somewhere between 15-20 strikes me as a sensible enough starting place. He could conceivably move up a place or two by the end of his career, but agree with BS that to move up significantly (threaten the top 10) he'd need another handful of slams (completing the career set would certainly help!).

It's the 13 number 1s I agreed with above plus the two main cross-over players - Laver and Rosewall. That means that no player above him has less than 6 slams. The next player for him to catch would be Edberg:

- 6 slams;
- 5 finals;
- 8 SFs;
- 1 WTF;
- 5 Masters;
- 41 titles;
- 72 weeks at number 1;
- 801 match wins (74.8% win loss)

Green are those Murray has already achieved (albeit the w-l is likely to dip he has around 4% in hand).

How far back does British sport go? Football & rugby are 19th century inventions. Tennis was a French thing and started before the French revolution in the 18th century I guess. I suppose before the 19th century most young British men didn't have the time for sport or leisure. They would be working in the field or fighting and dying in various wars. Greek sport was I think mainly to keep soldiers busy and fit.

beshocked wrote:Born slippy you can't be in someone's shadow if you were there first.

Chris Froome has not won an olympic gold. Now perhaps it seems overly harsh to criticise him for that, I feel that to be seen as the greatest British of all time he needs that under his belt.

I don't think the lack of Olympic gold is an issue with Froome - his only really hope in that sense is the TT and he's reliant on the absolute specialists all being off form to do this. The road race is always going to be a little out of his skill-set. I think counting Froome out for lack of Olympic gold is a bit like counting Lewis Hamilton out for a lack of Olympic gold too.

But if he were to win a LBL or two, and maybe a Giro or a Vuelta or two to go with his TDF wins (perhaps with a couple more of those along the way) I reckon he's definitely in the GOAT hunt.

Didn't Fred Perry also win the world table tennis championship? That has to count for something.

A couple of things to say on this. Before measuring where a player stands in the greatness standings you first have o have a system. What counts most? Slam wins? ATP match wins? ATP title wins? Weeks at No 1? And you also need completed career. Murray isn't finished yet.

For the record I would go along with BS and MfC who place Murray around 16th.

Getting away a bit from the original thread ...

Murray as the greatest British tennis player ? Perry was before my time but I'd suggest the two are pretty close - you can only judge people in the context of their own era. By the time he has finished , Murray may well have put himself clearly in front ; but I'll wait a little.

Comparisons with other sports are tricky. But I will say that in the case of cricket - and as an admirer of Alastair Cook - that even he would certainly concede there have been a number of England players who deserve to be ranked ahead of him !

Might consider a poll on here across all sports on this theme ?

Congrats Caledonian and all the other Murray fans on Andy becoming world number one. Though always a djokovic fan since the beginning, Murray has been extremely consistent over the years and is deserving of the number one ranking.

While I have never been a Murray fan, I have great respect for his longevity among the top 4 and his ability to keep bouncing back from so many disappointments, particularly in slam finals. His run this year since Wimbledon has been very impressive even if the other top players have been missing but you can only beat what is in front of you.

As for Novak, he is certainly having his struggles and motivation does seem a big issue. However, I am still confident that he will come back strong (perhaps not as much as 2011 and 2015 Novak) and he has more slams still left in him. He just needs to get that inner belief back. The tour finals next week will be tough and I don't expect him to win there but the Australian open tends to bring the best out of him and that could be just what he needs to get his hunger back if he was to win there next year.

One thing is for sure is that Murray will be a big obstacle on that journey. Djokovic has a great record against Murray but he needs to build his confidence back if he can expect to get back to number one.

Again, congrats Andy Murray and all his fans. It has made things very interesting and hopefully it will give Djokovic the kick he needs to get back challenging for big titles, plenty of motivation to get back to number one with his long time rival there.

Hard to know where to place Murray among the top 50 players of all time. Would have to think he is close to top 20. Off the top of my head, those definitely ahead of him would be:

Federer, Sampras, Nadal, Djokovic, Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Becker, Wilander, Agassi, Edberg, Laver, Lendl, Emerson, Budge.

To me he has moved ahead of Hewitt, Safin, Rafter and a number of other multi slam winners due to the amount of other tournaments he has won like masters series and total titles and consistency at slams. Obviously it is hard to compare with other eras but with only 3 slams, I think he needs to lift that tally (which he surely will) to be considered in top 15. Hard to see him getting in the top 10 unless he goes crazy winning slams between now and retirement but he isn't getting any younger.

I think an interesting one will be who will be considered greatest between Nadal, Djokovic and Sampras assuming Federer stays out ahead on 17 slams. Djokovic currently just 2 slams behind Nadal and has won more masters series and almost equal in terms of total ATP victories. Will all depend on how Nadal and Djokovic finish their careers but I can see Djokovic pushing Nadal very close in terms of overall legacy and achievements in tennis.

slashermcguirk wrote:Hard to know where to place Murray among the top 50 players of all time. Would have to think he is close to top 20. Off the top of my head, those definitely ahead of him would be:

Federer, Sampras, Nadal, Djokovic, Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Becker, Wilander, Agassi, Edberg, Laver, Lendl, Emerson, Budge.

To me he has moved ahead of Hewitt, Safin, Rafter and a number of other multi slam winners due to the amount of other tournaments he has won like masters series and total titles and consistency at slams. Obviously it is hard to compare with other eras but with only 3 slams, I think he needs to lift that tally (which he surely will) to be considered in top 15. Hard to see him getting in the top 10 unless he goes crazy winning slams between now and retirement but he isn't getting any younger.

I think an interesting one will be who will be considered greatest between Nadal, Djokovic and Sampras assuming Federer stays out ahead on 17 slams. Djokovic currently just 2 slams behind Nadal and has won more masters series and almost equal in terms of total ATP victories. Will all depend on how Nadal and Djokovic finish their careers but I can see Djokovic pushing Nadal very close in terms of overall legacy and achievements in tennis.

I think the non-calendar year slam is a massive achievement from Djokovic and shouldn't be overlooked. I'd actually have him ahead of Nadal for that reason. Plus Djokovic has a better spread of GS titles.

Both ahead of Sampras due to career slam.

Obviously both Djokovic and Nadal have a chance to increase their achievements.

What better spread?? Djoko has 8 HC slams, 3 grass and only 1 clay slam. Nadal has 9 clay slams, 3 HC and 2 grass slams. I don't see either having any edge over the other where 'spread' is concerned.

I feel Nadal and Djoko are close in their achievements; Djoko has the edge at the WTF, Nadal at the Olympics and Davis Cup where he helped Spain to four of its five DC titles.

slashermcguirk wrote:Congrats Caledonian and all the other Murray fans on Andy becoming world number one. Though always a djokovic fan since the beginning, Murray has been extremely consistent over the years and is deserving of the number one ranking.

While I have never been a Murray fan, I have great respect for his longevity among the top 4 and his ability to keep bouncing back from so many disappointments, particularly in slam finals. His run this year since Wimbledon has been very impressive even if the other top players have been missing but you can only beat what is in front of you.

As for Novak, he is certainly having his struggles and motivation does seem a big issue. However, I am still confident that he will come back strong (perhaps not as much as 2011 and 2015 Novak) and he has more slams still left in him. He just needs to get that inner belief back. The tour finals next week will be tough and I don't expect him to win there but the Australian open tends to bring the best out of him and that could be just what he needs to get his hunger back if he was to win there next year.

One thing is for sure is that Murray will be a big obstacle on that journey. Djokovic has a great record against Murray but he needs to build his confidence back if he can expect to get back to number one.

Again, congrats Andy Murray and all his fans. It has made things very interesting and hopefully it will give Djokovic the kick he needs to get back challenging for big titles, plenty of motivation to get back to number one with his long time rival there.

Good post.

I have no doubt Novak's issue is motivational. He has said so himself mentioning his need to get back to enjoying his tennis and him confessing he felt flat after the euphoria of RG wore off. For me he really needs to set himself a new goal such as surpassing Nadal's slam total, and thereafter Federer's. They may be unachievable but at least it acts as a motivational drive. Failing that he needs something to spark him up. Perhaps a fellow pro or a pundit berating him or his achievements which will bring him back to life. The longer he carries on in the current vein then the more his confidence gets knocked and the harder it becomes. I reckon he'll be back amongst the slam wins in 2017 though.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:What better spread??  Djoko has 8 HC slams, 3 grass and only 1 clay slam. Nadal has 9 clay slams, 3 HC and 2 grass slams. I don't see either having any edge over the other where 'spread' is concerned.

I feel Nadal and Djoko are close in their achievements; Djoko has the edge at the WTF, Nadal at the Olympics and Davis Cup  where he helped Spain to four of its five DC titles.

Djokovic - 6 x AO, 3 x W, 2 x US, 1 x RG.
Nadal - 9 x RG, 2 x W, 2 x US, 1 x AO.

64% of Nadals slams are RG. 50% of Djokovic are AO. We are splitting hairs a bit, but Nadal has clearly dominated RG and not done so well elsewhere.

Has Djokovic dominated anywhere else other than the AO??

JuliusHMarx wrote:Didn't Fred Perry also win the world table tennis championship? That has to count for something.

Wow, I did not know this about him.  Pretty cool.

I suppose it means he played single handed BH?

Belovedluckyboy wrote:What better spread??  Djoko has 8 HC slams, 3 grass and only 1 clay slam. Nadal has 9 clay slams, 3 HC and 2 grass slams. I don't see either having any edge over the other where 'spread' is concerned.

I feel Nadal and Djoko are close in their achievements; Djoko has the edge at the WTF, Nadal at the Olympics and Davis Cup  where he helped Spain to four of its five DC titles.

But there are two HC slams and only one on clay.  So the most even spread would give 50% HC, 25% grass,  25% clay.

Djoko is 67% HC, 25% grass, 8% clay.
Rafa is 21% HC, 14% grass, 64% clay.

Djoko is quite clearly closer to the most "even" spread I would say.

That said, I do not hold it against Rafa.  It is not clear to me while an "even" spread is preferable to a lopsided one.  At this point, Rafa is still ahead of Djoko for me.  If Rafa fails to win any more slams and Djoko wins two more, then I would probably put Djoko ahead (and even if Djoko wins one more only, I would have them quite close, as Djoko is a bit superior in other critical metrics - most notably weeks at No 1).  But not now.  Rafa still ahead for me.

It's an interesting question. Is it better to be a great all-rounder, but not the greatest on any single surface*, or to be unquestionably the best on one surface**, and while still excellent on the others not quite to the same extent?

*You could argue that Djokovic is the greatest HC player ever rather than Federer, but I think at the moment Feds still just about has the edge.

**You could also argue Federer fails the "unquestionably greatest on one surface" criteria, though he's at least in the discussion for both hard (up against Djokovic) and grass (up against Sampras).

summerblues wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Didn't Fred Perry also win the world table tennis championship? That has to count for something.

Wow, I did not know this about him.  Pretty cool.

I suppose it means he played single handed BH?

Yes. And back then table tennis bats didn't have Luxilon strings.

Why hold it against someone for being excellent on one particular surface while still good enough to win on the others? AO and USO they're both HCs, so effectively Djoko has won eight on the HCs, and so Nadal and Djoko each has three slams on their next best surface but Nadal has one more than Djoko on the least favorite surface.

Djoko has two chances each year to win on the HCs whilst Nadal has one on his fav i.e. Clay. Looking at Nadal's wins on non clay slams, he had won five, one short of Becker's or Edberg's six slams in total each, Nadal is really not bad off clay.

I don't really get why a topic about Andy Murray the world No 1 has morphed into a topic about the standing of Rafa Nadal in the sport? Surely, that's for another topic.

Yeah but this thread has morphed into what's Murray's standing among the greats in the sport and somebody mentioned Djoko and Nadal and comparing the two.....

Belovedluckyboy wrote:Yeah but this thread has morphed into what's Murray's standing among the greats in the sport and somebody mentioned Djoko and Nadal and comparing the two.....

Realize it wasn't you Blb.

I also think the non-calendar year grand slam is a massive achievement,
I value that as greater than anything even Federer has achieved. Obviously in the scheme of things Fed still ranks above Djokovic in the GOAT list, but holding all four at once, time at no 1 plus better spread (imo) puts Nole ahead of Rafa.

I guess what we are hypothetically saying is who is the overall better player...whilst Rafa is clearly the clay GOAT his other achievements aren't as good as some others.

Fred Perry obituary interesting read for those that are interested, includes mention of table tennis prowess
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9384431/Obituary-Fred-Perry-1909-1995.html

A nice way to finish the year...defeating Djokovic to settle the number one ranking rather takes care of any asterisks , no ?

Next year will be an interesting contest . For now - well done Andy

Well, looking at the complete year, Djokovic won one more slam and one more masters. What seems to have won it for Murray was obviously the world tour finals and also consistent performance at the 500s, winning 3, while Djokovic only entered one. That is what made up that difference.

Entering Vienna and Basel looks like a good decision now. He just had enough to come through the world tour finals and now he will need a big rest. Cut things fine with the long matches at the WTF but just had enough physically.

Just looking at the live EU race. It seems that Murray is set to win the year end no 1 by almost 1,000 points, whereas had Djokovic won today he would have just sneaked the ranking by a much smaller margin.

Another argument in favour of Murray deserving the year end no 1 is that he didn't get any points for the Olympics, which to me are a bigger tournament than a Masters and therefore worth more points.

Another possible argument is that Murray is really the current no 1 on recent form, Djokovic gets the same points for things that happened nearly a year ago as Murray gets for things that happened yesterday.

Looking ahead, I would assume with all the points Murray has banked from Wimbledon onwards, and the huge amount Djokovic has to defend from now on, Murray seems extremely likely to be number 1 from here through to Wimbledon. I assume off season weeks counts to weeks at no 1, Murray ought to be no 1 now for around 33 weeks (approx weeks from now until the rankings are released after Wimbledon) plus about 2 already achieved.

I haven't crunched any numbers but I assume it would take either a really poor run of form for Murray in the first half of the year, or spectacular dominance from someone else, for that to NOT be the case.