Do we have a Big 4 now?

[huntingyou]

For me it's not all about slams.

Murray it's twice the plaer Courier, Wilander and even Becker could ever be. It's a matter of place and time and Andy was dealt a very tough place and time.

That's just nonsense. You're falling for the hype. Let him prove himself a lot more on the big stage before denigrating all-timers...

both Wilander and Courier would be slamless in this era. Andy it's proving himself against the very best.

Can you tell me with a straight face that those two players produce greater tennis than Andy? He has been in 7 slams finals already....and what's the point of analysis if you are not even going to venture to make a prediction and instead wait in the sidelines.

I gave Murray no less than 5 slams when he his career is over.

 

[Ricardo]

For me it's not all about slams.

Murray it's twice the plaer Courier, Wilander and even Becker could ever be. It's a matter of place and time and Andy was dealt a very tough place and time.

That's just nonsense. You're falling for the hype. Let him prove himself a lot more on the big stage before denigrating all-timers...

well what goes around comes around, i remember you were also very much into the weak competition stuff Kieran....... so you would admit it's a tougher time to win, right?
can't have it both ways.

I never bought into that, and wouldn't argue against career results. Fair play to Andy, but he needs to work harder to be an all-timer.

 

[Kieran]

From here on out, I don't see Djokovic losing to Murray very often. The 2012 US Open win and especially today's Wimbledon victory were Murray's hard-won moments. But Djokovic is the more talented player and I really expect him to put some whippings on Murray in subsequent Slam encounters.

Why?

This doesn't make sense. You're still thinking 2011 Novak is his default. It isn't. It was a streak. So why can't Andy hold his own against him? Murray will only become stronger now, not weaker...

 

[calitennis127]

He's definitely answered a few questions, and that's necessary before anyone starts claiming he's better than true greats of the past. But he has more to do, and he needs to sustain these levels for a few years before he's there. he may do it.

But also, we've seen Novak settle after his streak of 2011/2012. Since the streak expired naturally at Oz in 2012, he's won a single slam out of the last 6 (Roger 1, Rafa 2 and Andy 2), and all the others have taken him down a peg. Last year at W, he looked like ole Novak of yore. Sometimes that guy isn't gone away. I wasn't overly impressed by him today...

Oh please, Kieran. It has been Murray's time of late. I will agree with you that Djokovic really should have and could have won the last two French Opens (especially this year's), but Murray was bound to win a Slam or two by continuing to knock at the door in Slams.

Djokovic has a bunch of Slams left in him. As I said in my earlier post, I really don't see him losing much to Murray from here on out. He is the more talented player and Murray's good fortune of having the moment on his side will expire. Djokovic will run off another streak of Slams; you can bank on it.

 

[Kieran]

well what goes around comes around, i remember you were also very much into the weak competition stuff Kieran....... so you would admit it's a tougher time to win, right?
can't have it both ways.

I never bought into that, and wouldn't argue against career results. Fair play to Andy, but he needs to work harder to be an all-timer.

By what measure can anybody say that Murray is an all-time greater player than Edberg or Becker? Or Wilander, as was said earlier?

Only somebody who didn't watch tennis back then could say this. We're seeing Murray in development, but they have their medals. They rose to the occasion much more than he has, and they were all at the pinnacle of the sport.

Maybe he'll get there, because he looked great today. But he's got more to do, so let's wait and see, eh?

 

[El Dude]

Bollock, how is he 'distanced' himself from Hewitt and Safin who also have two majors and have been number 1 while he hasn't? for a guy who is so into stats, you should be able to make smarter observations or at least be a little thoughtful. Even the numbers you love so much don't support such ridiculously silly claims.

That's too easy, ricardo. Hewitt and Safin were both #1 during a time of relatively weak competition. Also, while Slam wins are the most important matches to denote greatness, if you look beyond that level Andy's record shines more brightly. Just to compare those three, here are their Slam Wins/Runner's Up/SF/QF:

Murray: 2/5/6/3
Safin: 2/2/3/2
Hewitt: 2/2/4/7

Andy's played in almost twice as many finals (7) as Safin and Hewitt (4 each), all while playing at the same time as three of the greatest players ever. Safin and Hewitt were at their peak in that gap period between the reign of Sampras and the rise of Fedal.

 

[Kieran]

Oh please, Kieran....I will agree with you that Djokovic really should have and could have won the last two French Opens (especially this year's)

:laydownlaughing :clap

Did I ever say this? That'd be no. He set his cap at it this year and with Rafa taking 7 months off I was consistent: Nole might take him to five.

He was lucky he wasn't outta there in 4, but he took it to five.

And he lost...

 

[crystalfire]

I would agree that right now its more of big three. Fed has fallen off. I dont consider ferrer in the same group as djoker, murray, or nadal. I hope delpo keeps up because he can make it the big four since hes capable of beating any of the top 3.

 

[huntingyou]

well what goes around comes around, i remember you were also very much into the weak competition stuff Kieran....... so you would admit it's a tougher time to win, right?
can't have it both ways.

I never bought into that, and wouldn't argue against career results. Fair play to Andy, but he needs to work harder to be an all-timer.

By what measure can anybody say that Murray is an all-time greater player than Edberg or Becker? Or Wilander, as was said earlier?

Only somebody who didn't watch tennis back then could say this. We're seeing Murray in development, but they have their medals. They rose to the occasion much more than he has, and they were all at the pinnacle of the sport.

Maybe he'll get there, because he looked great today. But he's got more to do, so let's wait and see, eh?

Anday hasn't achieve more yet so he is not greater than those players. My point is he is a much better tennis player and his results eventually will show that...regardless of WHO he had to deal with and still has to to win his.

 

[calitennis127]

From here on out, I don't see Djokovic losing to Murray very often. The 2012 US Open win and especially today's Wimbledon victory were Murray's hard-won moments. But Djokovic is the more talented player and I really expect him to put some whippings on Murray in subsequent Slam encounters.

Why?

This doesn't make sense. You're still thinking 2011 Novak is his default. It isn't. It was a streak. So why can't Andy hold his own against him? Murray will only become stronger now, not weaker...

No, I completely disagree Kieran. Murray's struggles in Slams against Federer, Djokovic, and even Nadal have not been a bunch of accidents. Those losses happened for very clear reasons if you ask me. I saw last fall's US Open and this year's Wimbledon as Murray's moment, almost in the sense of fate. He had worked so hard for years and had put himself in position to win Slams time after time after time. He was bound to eventually pull out a Slam and eventually a Wimbledon.

Did you see my post late last night about why I thought Murray would be extremely tough to beat today?

The reasons I gave were that a) Djokovic could not possibly have the same hunger for winning this event given that he had already won it, and b) Murray was going to have the raw desperation and raw desire to fight to the death today, representing Britain. This was truly the match of his life. For Djokovic, it was a Slam final - still serious, but not as serious.

You always talk about psychology and psychological factors. It was very clear that all of that was clearly on Murray's side today. He had much more to offer effort-wise and in terms of desperation to win than Djokovic did.

As for the tennis, Djokovic has substantially more offensive pop in his game. If he isn't sloppy, Murray really struggles against him. Djokovic will rise again as a Slam champion and I think he will make the series against Murray rather one-sided from here on out.

 

[El Dude]

both Wilander and Courier would be slamless in this era. Andy it's proving himself against the very best.

Can you tell me with a straight face that those two players produce greater tennis than Andy? He has been in 7 slams finals already....and what's the point of analysis if you are not even going to venture to make a prediction and instead wait in the sidelines.

I gave Murray no less than 5 slams when he his career is over.

First of all, arguments about how players from different eras would fare in other eras are pointless because we simply cannot know. All we can do is look at how they played against their competition, and how deep the competition was.

Both Wilander and Courier were brief, but very bright, sparks who peaked early. They had short but great peaks without the kind of plateaus that greater players like Lendl, Sampras, and Federer have had. It looks like Andy will also have a longer plateau, although probably never attain the dominance of Wilander in 1988 or even Courier at his best. But I think he'll end up with a better overall career than Courier and close to Wilander.

Note also that Wilander won three Slams in 1988 when great players like Lendl, Becker, and Edberg were in their primes, and former greats McEnroe and Connors were still playing pretty well. We can hardly accuse him of winning those three Slams during a weak era.

 

[Kieran]

Anday hasn't achieve more yet so he is not greater than those players.

Glad you backed down from that one. It was touch and go there for a minute.

As for the rest of what you wrote: time will tell, but he's looking a lot more aggressive and clear under Lendl...

 

[Kieran]

For the record: Mats Wilander had seven slams by the age of 23, he beat McEnroe on grass in Australia and Lendl on grass, clay and hards in slams. The chap was no patsy.

And Murray is no Matsy.

Let's not get into too much hype here and celebrate what's before us, instead.

A Big 4.

Including Fedal...

 

[Ricardo]

Bollock, how is he 'distanced' himself from Hewitt and Safin who also have two majors and have been number 1 while he hasn't? for a guy who is so into stats, you should be able to make smarter observations or at least be a little thoughtful. Even the numbers you love so much don't support such ridiculously silly claims.

That's too easy, ricardo. Hewitt and Safin were both #1 during a time of relatively weak competition. Also, while Slam wins are the most important matches to denote greatness, if you look beyond that level Andy's record shines more brightly. Just to compare those three, here are their Slam Wins/Runner's Up/SF/QF:

Murray: 2/5/6/3
Safin: 2/2/3/2
Hewitt: 2/2/4/7

Andy's played in almost twice as many finals (7) as Safin and Hewitt (4 each), all while playing at the same time as three of the greatest players ever. Safin and Hewitt were at their peak in that gap period between the reign of Sampras and the rise of Fedal.

weak competition? i thought that kind of talk has long expired, weak competition theory is really for idiots who are set to denigrate great players. By that token, let's just devalue the majors won by Becker, Edber, Agassi, Sampras, Courier etc who all didn't play in a era like the current one, where Fed, Nadal, Djoker dominate the sport like never before..... so this is THE TOUGH competition, and their previous eras were all weaker (to different degrees)....

you know this, playing with numbers is easy but understanding the meaning is not so simple. You seem to have very little understanding of the game, (was that Serena would win a few games against Andy in a real match you suggested?), or much tennis-related common sense. I mean, seriously do you think Hewitt and Safin couldn't beat Djoker at their peak?

 

[rafanoy1992]

Yes, Andy Murray is definitely in the Big Four. Kieran, he is also a great player. Now do I think he is as great as the other three players, No just because of his accomplishments.

If Murray can win at least Five slam titles, win three out of the four slams, and be rank number one in the world, then I think his career would be complete.

 

[Correspondent Kiu]

We've had a big four for over a year!
Soon to be 5 as the two legends have loosened their grip.

 

[huntingyou]

both Wilander and Courier would be slamless in this era. Andy it's proving himself against the very best.

Can you tell me with a straight face that those two players produce greater tennis than Andy? He has been in 7 slams finals already....and what's the point of analysis if you are not even going to venture to make a prediction and instead wait in the sidelines.

I gave Murray no less than 5 slams when he his career is over.

First of all, arguments about how players from different eras would fare in other eras are pointless because we simply cannot know. All we can do is look at how they played against their competition, and how deep the competition was.

Both Wilander and Courier were brief, but very bright, sparks who peaked early. They had short but great peaks without the kind of plateaus that greater players like Lendl, Sampras, and Federer have had. It looks like Andy will also have a longer plateau, although probably never attain the dominance of Wilander in 1988 or even Courier at his best. But I think he'll end up with a better overall career than Courier and close to Wilander.

Note also that Wilander won three Slams in 1988 when great players like Lendl, Becker, and Edberg were in their primes, and former greats McEnroe and Connors were still playing pretty well. We can hardly accuse him of winning those three Slams during a weak era.

Courier made his mark before Sampras came to his own.

From tennis point of view, he had absolutely nothing in his game that would have allow him to win any slam in the era of Roger up to now (2004-Present)

Wilander had a greater career, a lot of tenacity and his 1988 was fantastic. His AO opens victories took place when most top players still didn't participate. Funny enough, one of his AO was played on grass still.

Anyways, I see Wilander like a Ferrer with more tennis IQ but less power........

Andy it's just a better tennis player than those two or are you going to argue that?

 

[Kieran]

weak competition? i thought that kind of talk has long expired, weak competition theory is really for idiots who are set to denigrate great players. By that token, let's just devalue the majors won by Becker, Edber, Agassi, Sampras, Courier etc who all didn't play in a era like the current one, where Fed, Nadal, Djoker dominate the sport like never before..... so this is THE TOUGH competition, and their previous eras were all weaker (to different degrees)....

You just called yourself an idiot...

 

[Ricardo]

well what goes around comes around, i remember you were also very much into the weak competition stuff Kieran....... so you would admit it's a tougher time to win, right?
can't have it both ways.

I never bought into that, and wouldn't argue against career results. Fair play to Andy, but he needs to work harder to be an all-timer.

By what measure can anybody say that Murray is an all-time greater player than Edberg or Becker? Or Wilander, as was said earlier?

Only somebody who didn't watch tennis back then could say this. We're seeing Murray in development, but they have their medals. They rose to the occasion much more than he has, and they were all at the pinnacle of the sport.

Maybe he'll get there, because he looked great today. But he's got more to do, so let's wait and see, eh?

Nobody said he is greater than Edberg or Becker, don't try a moot point. My point is, since you always bought the weak competition stuff, you can't just oppose what HuntingU said.... because you are actually on the same boat. How do you suddenly dismiss it just because you don't like him prop up Murray to be on par with the all timers? he uses the same weak competition theory you endorsed.

 

[huntingyou]

For the record: Mats Wilander had seven slams by the age of 23, he beat McEnroe on grass in Australia and Lendl on grass, clay and hards in slams. The chap was no patsy.

And Murray is no Matsy.

Let's not get into too much hype here and celebrate what's before us, instead.

A Big 4.

Including Fedal...

Please, over hyping a bit? You know, his matches are still available on youtube.

When did he beat JMac on grass? Exactly!

His grass slam was at the AO, please let's not forget that FACT. He had no chance at Wimbledon; never did.

I do think Wilander had a tough mentality; but most grinders that are successful need to have that tough mentality. I'm sure you are aware Murray has many options in his game. Greater tool set.