- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 10,130
- Reactions
- 5,779
- Points
- 113
Andy Murray has a rather distinctive "statistical signature." What stands out most to me is his 3-8 record at Slam finals. On first blush you might think, "Wow, he really can't win when it most matters." But we can also turn that around and say, "he's made the most Slam finals of any 3-Slam winner." In a similar way that I don't think we can penalize Ivan Lendl (8-11) for playing during one of the most competitive eras, with a career that spans three eras of greats (Connors/Borg/Vilas/McEnroe, Wilander/Edberg/Becker, Sampras/Agassi/Courier), similarly I don't think we can penalize Andy for playing alongside three of the five or so greatest players of the Open Era.
Consider:
*His 11 Slam finals are tied with McEnroe (7-4), Wilander (7-4), Edberg (6-5), and more than Becker (6-4).
*He's just 4 Slam finals behind Agassi and Connors, and 5 behind Borg
*He's beaten a top 10 opponent 94 times, good for 9th in the Open Era and more than Connors, McEnroe, Borg, and Wilander
*His title in Shanghai ties him with Boris Becker with 13 Masters, 10th most in the Open Era. He's got a legit chance of passing Borg (15), Connors and Agassi (17 each), and even McEnroe (19), which would get him into the top 5.
*His 41 overall titles ties him with Edberg at #15 in the Open Era. Up next is Thomas Muster and Rod Laver (44 each; although Laver won 200 including pre-Open Era, most in tennis history), and Becker (49). Chances are he won't catch Nastase (58) but it's possible.
Here are the men with at least 10 Slam finals in the Open Era, ordered by wins first and then total finals, to put it in context:
17-10 Federer
14-6 Nadal
14-4 Sampras
12-9 Djokovic
11-4 Borg
8-11 Lendl
8-7 Connors
8-7 Agassi
7-4 McEnroe
7-4 Wilander
6-5 Edberg
6-4 Becker
3-8 Murray
No other player in the Open Era has been in more than 8 Slam finals, so the above group is somewhat separate from the rest of the pack (this counts only the Open Era finals of Newcombe, Rosewall, and Laver, all of whom had 10+ finals including pre-Open Era).
Anyhow, not much to conclude except that Andy really seems to fit historically where he has during his career: worst of the best or the best of the rest, depending upon how you look at it. I think that right now he's neck-and-neck with four-Slam winners Guillermo Vilas and Jim Courier, and three-Slam winner Arthur Ashe, in that category, but assuming another good year or two will surpass those guys and be on his own.
Where it gets interesting is if he wins a couple more Slams and ends his career with 5-6 Slam titles and 14-15 finals, 50+ titles. Given the depth of his resume, you might have to start considering him ahead of Wilander, Becker and Edberg....but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
Consider:
*His 11 Slam finals are tied with McEnroe (7-4), Wilander (7-4), Edberg (6-5), and more than Becker (6-4).
*He's just 4 Slam finals behind Agassi and Connors, and 5 behind Borg
*He's beaten a top 10 opponent 94 times, good for 9th in the Open Era and more than Connors, McEnroe, Borg, and Wilander
*His title in Shanghai ties him with Boris Becker with 13 Masters, 10th most in the Open Era. He's got a legit chance of passing Borg (15), Connors and Agassi (17 each), and even McEnroe (19), which would get him into the top 5.
*His 41 overall titles ties him with Edberg at #15 in the Open Era. Up next is Thomas Muster and Rod Laver (44 each; although Laver won 200 including pre-Open Era, most in tennis history), and Becker (49). Chances are he won't catch Nastase (58) but it's possible.
Here are the men with at least 10 Slam finals in the Open Era, ordered by wins first and then total finals, to put it in context:
17-10 Federer
14-6 Nadal
14-4 Sampras
12-9 Djokovic
11-4 Borg
8-11 Lendl
8-7 Connors
8-7 Agassi
7-4 McEnroe
7-4 Wilander
6-5 Edberg
6-4 Becker
3-8 Murray
No other player in the Open Era has been in more than 8 Slam finals, so the above group is somewhat separate from the rest of the pack (this counts only the Open Era finals of Newcombe, Rosewall, and Laver, all of whom had 10+ finals including pre-Open Era).
Anyhow, not much to conclude except that Andy really seems to fit historically where he has during his career: worst of the best or the best of the rest, depending upon how you look at it. I think that right now he's neck-and-neck with four-Slam winners Guillermo Vilas and Jim Courier, and three-Slam winner Arthur Ashe, in that category, but assuming another good year or two will surpass those guys and be on his own.
Where it gets interesting is if he wins a couple more Slams and ends his career with 5-6 Slam titles and 14-15 finals, 50+ titles. Given the depth of his resume, you might have to start considering him ahead of Wilander, Becker and Edberg....but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
:cover 
