Taking another look at Andy Murray's Open Era ranking

[Front242]

You're completely missing the point. Other sports have the same rules in the Olympics, same length matches, races, etc. Olympic tennis has the same field as a Masters 500 and only best of 5 in the final as has already been discussed here so it's nowhere near the big deal you're trying to make it out to be. If it had a full field like a slam AND best of 5 the whole event it would be a different story but it doesn't.

 

[El Dude]

Actually, I don't care much for the Olympics and don't follow them, but that's beside the point that Front and I have been making.

But yeah, there is a historical prestige factor that non-Slams don't have, but it really only amounts to bragging rights.

Now if an Olympic gold medal was something that all or almost all greats have, that might be different. But the fact is that most greats don't have one. It's a nice accomplishment, but for most pro sports--not just tennis but baseball, basketball, soccer, etc--it doesn't have nearly the value and prestige it has for the more traditional athletics.

 

[Fiero425]

Actually, I don't care much for the Olympics and don't follow them, but that's beside the point that Front and I have been making.

But yeah, there is a historical prestige factor that non-Slams don't have, but it really only amounts to bragging rights.

Now if an Olympic gold medal was something that all or almost all greats have, that might be different. But the fact is that most greats don't have one. It's a nice accomplishment, but for most pro sports--not just tennis but baseball, basketball, soccer, etc--it doesn't have nearly the value and prestige it has for the more traditional athletics.

Thanks for the info! No Murray fan, but good stats will always make my blog! Meant to do it last nite:

- http://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2016/07/whats-up-topic-20-entries-816_27.html?showComment=1472950291100#c9047723436353900421 - :angel: :clap

 

[sid]

Andy Murray's next Slam title (#4) will be a big one, at least as far as all-time rankings and consideration goes, or to those nerdy types like myself who care about such things!

Anyhow, here's my reasoning. Andy has three Slams now, which ties him with Jan Kodes and Gustavo Kuerten, just behind four-Slam winners Guillermo Vilas and Jim Courier and ahead of the many two-Slam winners. Like so:

6 Slams: Becker, Edberg
4 Slams: Vilas, Courier
3 Slams: Andy Murray, Kuerten, Kodes, Ashe
2 Slams: Smith, Nastase, Kriek, Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Hewitt, Safin, Wawrinka

Slams titles aren't everything, but they are the main badge of greatness - I think that is pretty widely accepted. But everything else matters, especially, in rough order: year-end #1 and weeks at #1, other big titles like tour finals and Masters, as well as other rankings, Slam results, minor titles, etc.

For awhile now Andy has ranked as the best in his "Slam tier." When he won his first he was probably the best single-Slam winner, or among the very best. When he won his second he stood out above the rest, or at least close to Nastase who is certainly now (again) the greatest two-Slam winner of the Open Era. Among his current group of two-Slam winners, Andy and Ashe are close and they're both way ahead of Kodes and Kuerten, who aren't as good as some of the two-Slam guys (especially Kodes).

So here's the thing. If and when Andy wins his fourth, he not only surpasses everyone below him--both because of his four Slam titles but the strength and depth of the rest of his record--but I think he becomes the best of the four-Slam winners. Vilas ranks higher than Courier, in my view, with a much deeper resume. Courier has the #1, but Vilas has everything else (and should have a #1). Andy's overall record is superior to both, even though he doesn't have the #1.

So just one more Slam title and he not only separates himself from Ashe, but surpasses Courier and Vilas and puts himself as the best player of the Open Era with less than 6 Slams and, I think, possibly able to join the next group: Edberg, Becker, and Wilander (who despite winning one more Slam than the other two, has an overall lesser resume), what we could call the first tier of true greats. John Newcombe also belongs in his group, but is a bit harder to rank as he played in the 60s and 70s, but I'd probably rank him above Wilander but below Becker and Edberg.

What would Andy need to catch and surpass these three? Well, all three have something that Andy doesn't: a #1 ranking, even if only for a few weeks like Becker. Becker has three year-end titles and two WCT titles, and Edberg has the one year-end final and of course those two year-end #1. Wilander has a year-end #1, but no tour finals and overall inferior record. So to pass these guys, I'd say he needs to either:
Win 6 Slams or
Win 5 Slams and a WTF and get the #1 ranking, at least for a week

He probably doesn't have a chance of getting to the next tier: Agassi, McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, and Borg.

In summary, here is where I see Andy currently ranking among the greats of the Open Era. These include the entire careers of the players who played both before and during the Open Era, as well as Pro, Amateur, and Open Era Slams (understanding that the first two are not as potent as the last):

1. Laver (19)
2. Federer (17)
3. Rosewall (23)
4-6. Nadal (14), Sampras (14), and Djokovic (12) in some order (not wanting to touch this now
7. Borg (11)
8. McEnroe (7)
9. Lendl (8)
10. Connors (8)
11. Agassi (8)
12. Becker (6)
13. Edberg (6)
14. Newcombe (7)
15. Wilander (7)
16. Vilas (4)
17. Courier (4)
18. Murray (3)
19. Ashe (3)
20. Nastase (2)

Or something like that. I think it could be argued that he should be ahead of Courier (although not Vilas...yet), or behind Ashe.

Now if Andy wins #4, he jumps ahead of Courier and Vilas to #16. If he wins a 5th AND is #1 AND a year-end final, I'd probably put him ahead of Wilander and Newcombe to #14. If he wins a 6th (in addition to #1 and the WTF), I'd put him ahead of those two at #12. If he has 6 and only the #1, it will be hard to differentiate him from those two. If he only has 6 and not the #1 or WTF, I'd keep him at #14.

p.s. I'm re-working a system I use for ranking players, so once I get that settled I'll post an updated list with their point values.

11/ Andre Agassi admits: I took crystal meth and lied to escape a drugs ban btw should he be on this list???.

 

[Front242]

Crystal meth is not performance enhancing. Quite the opposite actually.

 

[Front242]

McEnroe on the other hand is a disgrace to tennis and I was a great fan of him when I was just a kid. It all makes sense now though, roid rage is clearly NOT a myth as his tantrums have proven. Since he took steroids for 6 years he shouldn't be on anyone's list ever. Oh but I forgot, he wasn't aware he was taking them LOL :cover My opinion of him went down the toilet after that. Great player but 6 years of steroids would make anyone great. The prick apparently kicked his wife down the stairs too.

"For six years I was unaware I was being given a form of steroid of the legal kind they used to give horses until they decided it was too strong even for horses" :nono

http://www.espn.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=1708055

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2002/jun/27/wimbledon2002.wimbledon

 

[El Dude]

No, six years of steroid would not make anyone great - that is a huge exaggeration. What steroids seem to do is take a player up a notch.

Anyhow, my list is based upon their career accomplishments; I don't take into account the possibility or reality of steroid use, drugs, attitude, etc. Given that we don't know every player that has used PEDs, I don't feel qualified to judge who is naughty and who is nice.

 

[Front242]

No, six years of steroid would not make anyone great - that is a huge exaggeration. What steroids seem to do is take a player up a notch.

Anyhow, my list is based upon their career accomplishments; I don't take into account the possibility or reality of steroid use, drugs, attitude, etc. Given that we don't know every player that has used PEDs, I don't feel qualified to judge who is naughty and who is nice.

I knew someone would respond to that comment Seriously though, it's not actually a huge exaggeration. The margins at the top are so small that on any given day a match won by Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, etc by a very close scoreline such as 7-6, 7-5, 7-6 could just as easily be won by their opponents with the reverse scoreline. Of course this is possible anytime by the opponent winning the big points, but give a guy who is already very good steroids for 6 years or some form of cardio boost such as EPO or other stuff such as *cough* a CVAC machine or Xenon/Argon gas (banned but there is no test :cover ) and they suddenly can run forever without getting tired, hit harder than the guy who has not taken steroids for 6 straight years and basically things will be a lot different then.

Even a 5% difference is absolutely MASSIVE and 6 straight years of steroids is guaranteed to make a hell of a lot more of an impact than 5% no doubt. Increased cardio through doping wins matches as you outlast your opponent when it gets to a 4th or 5th set. Check this out, specifically group 2.

This 10 week study took a group of 43 men of normal body weight between the ages of 19 and 40 who all had some degree of weight training experience. These men were then split up into 4 different groups:

Group 1 did NOT do any form of exercise, and did NOT receive any form of steroids or drugs. (Natural guys doing no weight training.)
Group 2 did NOT do any form of exercise, but they received weekly injections of 600 mg of testosterone enanthate. (Drug users doing no weight training.)
Group 3 DID exercise, but they did NOT receive any form of steroids or drugs. (Natural guys doing weight training.)
Group 4 DID exercise, and they also received weekly injections of 600 mg of testosterone enanthate. (Drug users doing weight training.)

The Results

So… guess what happened?

Group 1 (no exercise, natural) experienced no significant changes. No surprise there.
Group 2 (no exercise, drug use) was able to build about 7 pounds of muscle. That’s not a typo. The group receiving testosterone injections and NOT working out at all gained 7 pounds of muscle.
Group 3 (exercise, natural) was able to build about 4 pounds of muscle.
Group 4 (exercise, drug use) was able to build about 13 pounds of muscle.

http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/steroids-vs-natural/

 

[Front242]

Now, if you can build 7lbs of muscle in 10 weeks just by injecting testosterone and NOT DOING ANY EXERCISE, then imagine the results of 6 years of steroid use. It made a massive difference to McEnroe obviously.

 

[El Dude]

I don't think anyone would dispute that steroids help increase muscle mass. But muscle is just one aspect of performance, and while I think it is probable that they do improve performance, to what degree is questionable.

To put this another way, McEnroe was a very talented player that presumably beat Borg when he wasn't doing steroids. Also, he supposedly was taking steroids unwittingly for pain, so I don't know enough about what he was taking (prednisone) to say whether or not it enhanced his performance and, again, to what degree. I'm not going to write off his entire career just because of the dreaded word "steroid."

 

[Front242]

Tell that to Lance Armstrong. It wrote off his whole career. Ok, he was doing a lot more than steroids but 6 years of steroid use (McEnroe) is laughable too.

 

[sid]

Anyone who's used steroid's should not be on any list (My opinion) Jmac was always a fav of mine anyone on Roid's is a cheat.Marin Cilic is another & now a Slam winner.