Andy Murray - The best player in history never to win a slam?

I used to give this title to David Nalbandian but Andy Murray has certainly surpassed him now for me. 2 finals at the Australian Open, 1 US Open Final 3 Wimbledon Semis, 1 French Open Semi, 6 Masters 1000s and has been as high as World Number 2.

Marcelo Rios has a claim to it for being World Number 1 but Murray has proven how solid he is on all surfaces and has the game to win any tournament he plays in. I do not buy into 'he is mentally weak.' Out of all the big matches he has lost only the 2009 Wimbledon Semi-Final against Andy Roddick in my opinion he should have one but we all saw how well A-Rod played in the final 2 days later. Federer at he US Open 08 and Aus Open 10 was majestic, Nadal at both Wimbledons was flawless and after Novak beat Murray in the Australian Open final he went on to beat Federer 3 times in a row and Nadal 4 times in a row in final and two on clay! He has just been outplayed by the better player.

I think he needs a bit of luck, I think had he had Nadals US Open 2010 draw he could have won that, had he had Federer's 2009 Wimbledon draw he may have won that. There is no way in my mind Murray is any worse than slam champions such as Andy Roddick, Michael Chang, Thomas Johansson or even Jim Courier and Yevgeny Kafelnikov.

Roger Federer said "you are too good of a player not to win a slam so don't worry about" and I for one am inclined to agree with him.

Andy Murray certainly has the all-round game to win a slam and I'd be more inclined to write him off if his slam record was deteriorating and he had lost in say 4th Round or Quarter-Finals etc but he hasn't. Alongside Novak Djokovic he is the only player in the world to have reached the semis or better in all three slam events this year. He just needs to keep hammering on the door and I am sure one day it will open. But if it doesn't open nobody can deny that he has had a mightily impressive career already.

I think Andy being only 24, it is a harsh tag to bestow on him. He still has 5-6 years of high level tennis in him. Cedric Pioline and Todd Martin were players that possibly should've won Slam titles. They made Semi Final appearances too.

Time will be the ultimate judge on Andy.

Legendkillar, its not exactly a tag a player wants but its just another example of how good he is that he has that tag at just 24

CAS in a way it is a tag, like the tag of a champion or GOAT. The mere point I was making is that he does have time to have the tag of a Slam champion.

Murray in my mind is a player that is good enough to win grandslams, and I think really even still that it is a matter more of when he will win it and not whether if he will win one. I think you can definetly say that right now he is the best player to have never won a grandslam. But CAS, the only part of your thread I don't agree with is where you claim that murray is as good as jim courier. Jim courier is much better tennis player than Andy murray. Courier not only won 4 slams and was two times year end #1, he also played in the finals of all 4 grand slams.

Legendkillar, I totally agree my point was I was sticking up for him by saying how good he is and at 24 he can already be considered to have that title, which shows what a ridiculous era he is in. USO 08 for e.g he beat Del Potro and Nadal but still had to play Federer! Its crazy

Socal I said he is no worse, just my opinion

Jim Courier better than Murray? I think that is a bit far fetched. Courier was the best from the baseline and didn't have nearly enough the variation that Murray has. I think it is a bit of bold statement to claim otherwise. Agassi didn't rate Courier's game in his book. That speaks great volumes.

Another example, Jim Courier a 4 time major winner and former World Number 1 in and era with Sampras, Agassi, Edberg did not have as much variety as a slamless Murray.

That era of Sampras, Agassi and Courier was nowhere near as strong as the current one. Here we have Federer rated by many as the greatest player of all-time, Rafael Nadal tipped by many to surpass Federer's achievements and Djokovic also a multiple slam winner who will win more slams before he has finished. Put Agassi and Courier in this era and they'd be bamboozled by the variety needed to succeed.

CAS wrote:Another example, Jim Courier a 4 time major winner and former World Number 1 in and era with Sampras, Agassi, Edberg did not have as much variety as a slamless Murray.

Jim Courier was the world #1 in a very difficult era, Becker, Edberg, Agassi, and Sampras. If anything the early 90s was a strong era for tennis. Nadal and Djokovic don't have as much variety as Murray either but they sure win more than murray. Jim Courier has in my opinion one of the best forehands of all time. He was a dominant server. And he was a great returner of serve as well. And he was one of the fittest guys on tour, he would play a 5 set match and then go run a few miles on the treadmill. Andre didn't have a high opinion of Jim's game because him and Andre grew up at the same academy and for a few years Andre was seen as unfulfilled potential while courier was reigning as world #1. I'll take Jim Courier's one two punch of monster serve, backed by great forehand over Murray's little drop shots and lobs anyday of the week and twice on sunday.

But again the courts are so much different in the days of Courier and in the present days that Murray plays on. He more than overachieved in an error that boasted Agassi, Sampras and Becker. But if I was to look at the depth in someone's game, I would certainly want Murray's game. Watching Courier and Sampras matches were literally power stroke fest's!! It was literally one guy trying to out-hit the other. Courier was never really renowned for a plan B.

PM for you consigliare.

On Jim Courier then how would he have fared against Federer, Nadal, Djokovic etc. I can confidently say he would not have won four slams.

The strength of the current era is thus:-

Rafael Nadal widely regarded as the greatest clay court player of all-time.

Roger Federer is seen as possibly the best grass court player ever.

Which leaves the hard court circuit which all of the top seeds are very accomplished.

legendkillar wrote:Jim Courier better than Murray? I think that is a bit far fetched. Courier was the best from the baseline and didn't have nearly enough the variation that Murray has. I think it is a bit of bold statement to claim otherwise. Agassi didn't rate Courier's game in his book. That speaks great volumes.

Agree there as Jim Courier when he was at the very top of the men's game in 1992 having won both the Australian and French Opens, got knocked out by the unheralded Russian Alexander Olhovsky in a Wimbledon second round match in what was a huge shock/upset result in that year's tournament.

Yes and when Courier was playing we had Sampras and Agassi, not to mention the still capable edberg and becker. I would say if anything the competition now is marginally stronger but I would say that the greatest grass court player of the bunch Caledonian is one Pete Sampras who was in his heyday during the Courier years. I think Courier would be like a better version of del potro, courier had the luxlon forehand before the luxlon strings came out. I don't even want to think about what JC forehand in his prime would look like with the modern strings. I'd take courier over murray, not much of an argument here. He was #1 during a really strong era.

All great players you mention but not spoken as the greatest player of all-time like Roger Federer is and Rafa Nadal is tipped to be.

socal1976 wrote:Yes and when Courier was playing we had Sampras and Agassi, not to mention the still capable edberg and becker. I would say if anything the competition now is marginally stronger but I would say that the greatest grass court player of the bunch Caledonian is one Pete Sampras who was in his heyday during the Courier years. I think Courier would be like a better version of del potro, courier had the luxlon forehand before the luxlon strings came out. I don't even want to think about what JC forehand in his prime would look like with the modern strings. I'd take courier over murray, not much of an argument here. He was #1 during a really strong era.

Courier's game is very similar to Andy Roddick's and I'm sure that had Roddick been playing in Courier's decade of the early 1990's when grass was still very fast, he Roddick would have won at least 1 Wimbledon.

The current era IS stronger than the era Courier played in of that I am sure. If you do a comparison of say:-

Federer V Sampras

Nadal V Agassi

Djokovic V Courier

I would back today's players to beat those from the mid to late 90's. In my opinion that is.

CaledonianCraig wrote:The current era IS stronger than the era Courier played in of that I am sure. If you do a comparison of say:-

Federer V Sampras

Nadal V Agassi

Djokovic V Courier

I would back today's players to beat those from the mid to late 90's. In my opinion that is.

Probably Sampras in his prime from 1993 to 1995 could have matched Federer of today. As for the other 2 matches, Nadal and Djokovic must win both of them. Courier was more like the Nadal of the 1990's in terms of fittness, commitment to the physical preparation aspects needed to compete well, whilst Agassi was like what Djokovic was last year or so ago, i.e. an enigma tennis player who could be a world beater one day but another average tennis pro on the many bad days he had then.

As I said earlier as well today we have:-

Rafael Nadal - the greatest clay court player of all-time (so the French Open is out of the question for Murray)

Roger Federer (now Rafael Nadal to some extent) - seen as one of the best grass court players of all-time so expecting Murray to win Wimbledon is asking a lot.

Also you have Djokovic who in this same era put on a record-breaking unbeaten run surpassing anything achieved in the late 90's era.

For Andy to win a Slam the way the draws pan out just now he conceivably is having to beat Federer (Greatest of all-time) AND Nadal (seen as the possibly a future greatest of all-time). That is one massive ask and so that tells you how strong this era is.

CaledonianCraig wrote:As I said earlier as well today we have:-

Rafael Nadal - the greatest clay court player of all-time (so the French Open is out of the question for Murray)

Roger Federer (now Rafael Nadal to some extent) - seen as one of the best grass court players of all-time so expecting Murray to win Wimbledon is asking a lot.

Also you have Djokovic who in this same era put on a record-breaking unbeaten run surpassing anything achieved in the late 90's era.

For Andy to win a Slam the way the draws pan out just now he conceivably is having to beat Federer (Greatest of all-time) AND Nadal (seen as the possibly a future greatest of all-time). That is one massive ask and so that tells you how strong this era is.

It may be now but wait until Federer retires, and that leaves just Nadal and Djokovic who are up until now seen of as better players than Andy is.

Nah I don't think he is. Players who can take control of a match and do the dictating against some of the high calibre players are more deserving.

Davydenko, Nalbandian, David Ferrer, Gasquet are better players to have not won a slam imo.

Courier was not like Roddick, he moved better than Andy Roddick although not known as a mover. And where Roddick is one of the worst returners on tour courier was always one of the best. I'd take courier's backhand over roddick's anyday. As for those hypothetical matchups if Pete and Roger, both in their primes played on a grass court I would take Pete 6 or 7 times out of ten. As for the Agassi-Nadal hypothetical again depends, if it is a peak agassi, well on a hardcourt I would take Andre. On clay or Grass would take Nadal. Courier v. Djoko I think Novak is a hair better.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Nah I don't think he is. Players who can take control of a match and do the dictating against some of the high calibre players are more deserving.

Davydenko, Nalbandian, David Ferrer, Gasquet are better players to have not won a slam imo.

Murray has been in more slam finals than that lot combined !

erictheblueuk wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Nah I don't think he is. Players who can take control of a match and do the dictating against some of the high calibre players are more deserving.

Davydenko, Nalbandian, David Ferrer, Gasquet are better players to have not won a slam imo.

Murray has been in more slam finals than that lot combined !

But did you really think Murray had a chance of winning any of his finals?

I certainly didn't, but I feel Nalbandian, Davydenko, Ferrer and Gasquet would have a better chance.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

erictheblueuk wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Nah I don't think he is. Players who can take control of a match and do the dictating against some of the high calibre players are more deserving.

Davydenko, Nalbandian, David Ferrer, Gasquet are better players to have not won a slam imo.

Murray has been in more slam finals than that lot combined !

But did you really think Murray had a chance of winning any of his finals?

I certainly didn't, but I feel Nalbandian, Davydenko, Ferrer and Gasquet would have a better chance.

Before you win a slam final you've got to get to the final. Apart from maybe "Diddy David" at RG, I don't see any of them doing that in the near future.

I can see them causing an upset like Tsonga, Soderling, Berdych etc but I can't see any of them beating more than one of the top 4 players back to back. Which is what they may have to do to win a slam.

"Andy Murray - The-best-player-in-history-never-to-win-a-slam"

Why not wait until his career is finished as he has quite a few years left as he is only 24!

Same applies to Lee Westwood in golf who has still to win his first Major!!

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

erictheblueuk wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Nah I don't think he is. Players who can take control of a match and do the dictating against some of the high calibre players are more deserving.

Davydenko, Nalbandian, David Ferrer, Gasquet are better players to have not won a slam imo.

Murray has been in more slam finals than that lot combined !

But did you really think Murray had a chance of winning any of his finals?

I certainly didn't, but I feel Nalbandian, Davydenko, Ferrer and Gasquet would have a better chance.

Would you mind if I prefer to take the opinion of greats of the sport Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal who openly laud Andy Murray rather than your view as someone clearly with an agenda against him.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

erictheblueuk wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Nah I don't think he is. Players who can take control of a match and do the dictating against some of the high calibre players are more deserving.

Davydenko, Nalbandian, David Ferrer, Gasquet are better players to have not won a slam imo.

Murray has been in more slam finals than that lot combined !

But did you really think Murray had a chance of winning any of his finals?

I certainly didn't, but I feel Nalbandian, Davydenko, Ferrer and Gasquet would have a better chance.

Would you mind if I prefer to take the opinion of greats of the sport Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal who openly laud Andy Murray rather than your view as someone clearly with an agenda against him.

- A tough one to call, does he have an upmarket PC keyboard when posting or is it just a Playstation!

sportslover

Murray is still improving, can you honestly say that about "Nalbandian, Davydenko, Ferrer and Gasquet" ?

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Nah I don't think he is. Players who can take control of a match and do the dictating against some of the high calibre players are more deserving.

Davydenko, Nalbandian, David Ferrer, Gasquet are better players to have not won a slam imo.

I needed a good laugh this morning. Thanks for that.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

erictheblueuk wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Nah I don't think he is. Players who can take control of a match and do the dictating against some of the high calibre players are more deserving.

Davydenko, Nalbandian, David Ferrer, Gasquet are better players to have not won a slam imo.

Murray has been in more slam finals than that lot combined !

But did you really think Murray had a chance of winning any of his finals?

I certainly didn't, but I feel Nalbandian, Davydenko, Ferrer and Gasquet would have a better chance.

It is strange what bitterness does to ones opinion.

It's funny, I was just saying that Murray is the best not to win a major (so far) ever the other day. It'll come either at the US or Aussie Opens. He will never win RG whilst Nadal and Ferrer (yes, Ferrer) and I can't see him winning Wimby whilst the ridiculous British Press keep hyping him up then tearing him apart when he gets beaten in the semis.

We love Murray!!!

erictheblueuk wrote:sportslover

Murray is still improving, can you honestly say that about "Nalbandian, Davydenko, Ferrer and Gasquet" ?

I think you know that my answer would be a big NO

But I was replying to Caledonians post!

Clearing up any confusion here I certainly DO NOT think Nalbandian, Davydenko, Ferrer and Gasquet are improving and they have never been in the same league for a sustained period of time as Murray has or have achieved what he has in the game.

Murray lost against Nadal after playing excellent tennis in the first set. He missed a sitter early in the second set to go two break points up and after that he capitulated. This is the reason he can't win a slam - he just isn't quite good enough on the biggest occassions.

Super D Boon wrote:Murray choked against Nadal after playing excellent tennis in the first set. He missed a sitter early in the second set to go two break points up and after that he capitulated. This is the reason he can't win a slam - he just isn't quite good enough on the biggest occassions.

Sorry I disagree as he has won many crunch matches in the past against the likes of Nadal in slams that more than proves he is good enough. Obviously, areas of his game to work on are his mental fragilities but Novak mastered that (as we are seeing today) so no reason (with the right help) that Andy can't manage it either.

Shall I start an *I Hate Murray* thread for the convenience of
those concerned ?

yummymummy wrote:Shall I start an *I Hate Murray* thread for the convenience of
those concerned ?

If you do I'll dig out the newspaper article where the Daily Mail reporter and Tim Henman admit to stitching up Murray over World Cup comments.

Maybe giving credit where credit is due Super D. Nadal played lights out tennis. Not like Murray gave it to him.

My *cough* spoof article is now ready for viewing

(Cringes and runs away from LK)

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Super D Boon wrote:Murray choked against Nadal after playing excellent tennis in the first set. He missed a sitter early in the second set to go two break points up and after that he capitulated. This is the reason he can't win a slam - he just isn't quite good enough on the biggest occassions.

Sorry I disagree as he has won many crunch matches in the past against the likes of Nadal in slams that more than proves he is good enough. Obviously, areas of his game to work on are his mental fragilities but Novak mastered that (as we are seeing today) so no reason (with the right help) that Andy can't manage it either.

Andy can't really on Rafa being injured EVERY time. Also not sure you can get away with spinning 2 as "many"

Yet more of that dismissive disrespect to champions such as Novak, and unjustified praise for slamless Murray by suggesting the only difference between the two of them is purely mental...when quite clearly Novak's game is currently superior.

Er sorry but the only one disrespecting any players here are you sunshine.

I openly congratulated Novak on the appropriate threads following his win yesterday and tipped him to possibly get to double figures in slam wins. Did you? I guess not. You chose to post on every Andy Murray thread available to vent your spleen. Now I know you hate the bloke so forgive me if I take your views as warped by hatred and ignore them. After all Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, Boris Becker, Tim Henman, Bjorn Borg etc etc etc all say Andy is superb enough to win a slam so blows your views out of the water. He may win a slam and there again he may not but whatever happens he has already achieved so much more on his career than around 99.99% of current tennis players in the world and around 90% of past players achieved in the sport. Does that hurt does it?

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Super D Boon wrote:Murray choked against Nadal after playing excellent tennis in the first set. He missed a sitter early in the second set to go two break points up and after that he capitulated. This is the reason he can't win a slam - he just isn't quite good enough on the biggest occassions.

Sorry I disagree as he has won many crunch matches in the past against the likes of Nadal in slams that more than proves he is good enough. Obviously, areas of his game to work on are his mental fragilities but Novak mastered that (as we are seeing today) so no reason (with the right help) that Andy can't manage it either.

Murray's problem is that he cannot let things go out on the court. That point at 15-30 was the turning point. For Rafa, Fed or Novak, they would've cursed themselves, shook their heads and gone after the next point but Murray can't let it drop. You can see the anguish in him as he replays the point over in his head. Until he finds a way to overcome this he's going to struggle to beat them.

Yes Clarke James that is HIS weakness and what is stopping him from winning slams. Nothing to do with talent. If he can address that (it is possible) then he will be an even more complete player than he is now. I see no Murray fans (with common sense) claiming he is the finished article - there is room for improvement - not bad for someone with his already impressive career stats.

Murray (my 2nd favourite player) will imo struggle to win a Slam now, and if any young players come through (where are they??!!) that could be terminal.

However I still give the unwanted accolade to Nalbandian. He won a y/e Masters.

I don't get how you can say he won't win a slam, Murray can go toe-to-toe with Rafa, Fed and Djoko.

Look at the stats from the semi, he hit 56 winners, that was MORE than Nadal. His problem was he hit 37 unforced errors to Nadal's 6, and the majority of them came after that shot.

If he cuts that side of his game out he'll win a slam. He just needs to find a coach that can help him. I've heard Connors name banded around over the last 2 weeks, but i'm not convinced.

The winners and u/es are two sides of a coin. You may just as well ask him to hit more 2nd serve aces but cut out the double faults.