I like that. Too many chirpy feckwits about. Something genuine about him.
Also his wife is hot.
Andy Murray to retire after Wimbledon 2019
- Thread starter Bojan11
- Start date
I like that. Too many chirpy feckwits about. Something genuine about him.
Also his wife is hot.
Not big 4 imo.. but best of the rest.
Wasn't a huge fan, but sad it has come to this. Great player and deserves to retire on his own terms.
Wasn't a huge fan, but sad it has come to this. Great player and deserves to retire on his own terms.
You'd be miserable too if you had to share the planet with a miserable cnut like esmufc07. lol
Big 4. Nonsense to suggest otherwise. It doesn’t matter how many times he beat them in finals, he was always there and before every tournament it was one of those four guys winning it. That puts him there.
Fantastic player. The fact that he managed to win 3 grand slams, and reach 11 grand slam finals in the era of the 3 best players to have ever played tennis is a fantastic achievement.
This.
Such a shame (or not?) he was in an era with 3 legends - he would have won much more if they weren't around.
It's not just the 'British' media. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Four_(tennis)
Statistically though some of his achievements in the top 10:
21 Grand Slam semi-finals: 9th most of all time
His longest streak of consecutive semi-final reach is 6.
30 Grand Slam quarter-finals: 8th most of all time
His longest streak of conecutive quarter-finals reach is 9 (on two occasions)
189 Grand Slam match wins: 9th most of all time
5 Australian Open finals: 6th most of all time
I'll leave it at that but his record in Masters 1000 events is similar if not better and then 2 Olympic gold medals.
Clearly not the same level as the other three, but there was definitely a big four as he has been consistently there or there abouts with them in all the major tournaments like no other player in this generation and has comfortablty trumpedprevious number ones such as Roddick and Hewitt in a tougher field.
Last edited:
I remember when everyone called Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool the big four. Yet two of those teams never really looked winning the league besides the odd time. Wanna know why? Because they were miles better than the rest.
Murray was miles better and more consistent than the rest. Was he better than the other three? Of course not. But he was much closer to them then he was to the other players.
It wasn’t just the British media calling it big four. Journalists all over the world called it the big four.
Murray was miles better and more consistent than the rest. Was he better than the other three? Of course not. But he was much closer to them then he was to the other players.
It wasn’t just the British media calling it big four. Journalists all over the world called it the big four.
How can you not call it a big 4 when it was always literally contested by the 4 of them and no one else?
Hell he was ranked No1 for the best part of a year, and has always been ranked in the top 3 pretty much.
Arsenal and Liverpool ain't won shit in years, but they were right part of the big 4, because they were better than the rest.
Mind boggling people don't get this.
Hell he was ranked No1 for the best part of a year, and has always been ranked in the top 3 pretty much.
Arsenal and Liverpool ain't won shit in years, but they were right part of the big 4, because they were better than the rest.
Mind boggling people don't get this.
Wawrinka says hi.
Murray himself is of the opinion that there's no big 4, so it's probably not as outlandish as you seem to think it is.
The fact of the matter is that the bridge between 3 and 14 Slams is much bigger than the one between 3 and 14 Masters 1000. If you use the latter as proof of him being better than Wawrinka then the same applies regarding him and the 3 amigos.
Yes that's why it's a big three and not a big four. Murray isn't in the same galaxy as the others.
But this is extremely sad news. To have to retire at his age when he probably felt he had a good 2-3 years contending for slams and 6-7 years playing the sport he loves, is a real shame.
Let's be fair now. The reason including Liverpool and Arsenal in that four without it sounding daft is acceptable (even though you couldn't compare those teams with us), is because it is Arsenal and Liverpool, two of the most successful clubs in English football.
I watched him last year at the Australian Open.
Alas, he never did become the big yin.
You gave him a sore jaw?
No the ankle. He withdrew from a tournament years later citing an old football injury, always wondered if it was me.
Good player aswell.
I'll never forget him winning Wimbledon first time, was brilliant. Didn't realise how much I wanted a British winner until it happened. All those years of watching Tim I don't think I ever believed it could happen!
He's anything but by all accounts. I like his attitude actually, doesn't see it as his role to please the media. Slowly but surely his true personality came through though and now everyone loves him!
they filled the CL spots. And the CL creates a massive divide between the haves and have nots. Was nothing to do with historical regard of the clubs.
---
This retirement has been coming - he's already a shadow of himself. It's sad that he can't do what he loves doing anymore.
Some of the headlines I was reading this morning i thought he had died, "tributes pour in for Andy Murray", not just he "might" retire.
Wawrinka is closer to Murray than Murray to the big 3 IMO. Murray was very good, but no one sane would put him in top 10 of all time. On the other hand, the other three from the forced 'big 4' are arguably the greatest 3 players of all time.
I agree with your last point though. He would have won more trophies if he didn't have to compete with those 3 monsters.
@Revan I don’t disagree, in a follow up post I have already said the gap between his 3 Slams to Djoker’s 14 is much bigger than the gap between his 14 Masters 1000 and Wawrinka’s 3.
As for all time ranking, top 20 is very harsh. I think he’d be just outside of top 10, with his low Slams count precluding him from ever being involved in the proper discussion.
As for all time ranking, top 20 is very harsh. I think he’d be just outside of top 10, with his low Slams count precluding him from ever being involved in the proper discussion.
BBC really went to town on this .Must be a slow news day.
He was in the top 4 but not part of a big 4 IMO. He was just the fourth best player in the world.
Its interesting actually, has there ever been a more clearly defined 4th best at something, like ever? We can barely agree on 1 and 2 in most things. Murray was the fourth best player for 80% of his career!
Its interesting actually, has there ever been a more clearly defined 4th best at something, like ever? We can barely agree on 1 and 2 in most things. Murray was the fourth best player for 80% of his career!
Well meaning idiots are the worst kind of idiots.
Legend.
In a sport in which the top players are about as relatable as a Tory MP Murray has been a brilliant ambassador for the sport. I’m biased. From the age of 14 I’ve been staying up until the early hours to watch him play tennis. I’ve watched just about every big event he’s won. Watching him play tennis was like watching a football match with United, or England, but worse. Tennis being one of the ultimate spectator sports in terms of tension.
He’s had a phenomenal career. The ultimate grafter (which has always done a disservice to his touch and brain, actually). And while I don’t want to get too roped into this tedious debate around the Big 3/4, it’s certain that Murray’s slam count is the outlier in comparison to the rest of his achievements. Career wins, win percentage, career titles, Masters events, Tour Championship, Olympic wins, Davis Cup, career earnings, weeks spent in the top ten, weeks spent in the top five, world number one. They’re achievements usually associated with players with six or more slams. The Slam count, on paper, will hurt his standing in the game from a numerical point of view. He’ll be the first to acknowledge that he should have more. But that was part of his journey, in the end. It was never easy and I think that’s why, in part, he became so relatable.
On a separate note, I think tennis is a sport that needs to look at itself. The injuries to top players are shocking and the season never really ends. It’s not fecking snooker.
He’s had a phenomenal career. The ultimate grafter (which has always done a disservice to his touch and brain, actually). And while I don’t want to get too roped into this tedious debate around the Big 3/4, it’s certain that Murray’s slam count is the outlier in comparison to the rest of his achievements. Career wins, win percentage, career titles, Masters events, Tour Championship, Olympic wins, Davis Cup, career earnings, weeks spent in the top ten, weeks spent in the top five, world number one. They’re achievements usually associated with players with six or more slams. The Slam count, on paper, will hurt his standing in the game from a numerical point of view. He’ll be the first to acknowledge that he should have more. But that was part of his journey, in the end. It was never easy and I think that’s why, in part, he became so relatable.
On a separate note, I think tennis is a sport that needs to look at itself. The injuries to top players are shocking and the season never really ends. It’s not fecking snooker.
He's absolutely miles ahead of Stan, Del Potro and Cilic.....get real pretending he isn't.
77% - 71%(JMdP) - 66%(Cilic) - 64%(Stan) .... Says enough, regardless of him and Stan having the same number of Slams, it's not irrelevant, but you don't put Stan on the same level of him because of that, yes he usurps Cilic and delPo no doubt. But he's no way near Murray on a career level. He's further ahead of them then he is behind Novak-Nadal-Federer.
Seen someone else write he's one of the better tactical players, which I completely agree with - talent wise, he's probably behind a fair few of his generation, but he put himself in the "Big Four" due to tactical awareness of the game changing and dedication to the game and the training required.
Came a long way in other aspects too - I'd never thought he'd learn to get to grips with being in front of the camera but he did, I never thought he'd get over his Big 3 hump, but he did. Well done to him.
Top 10 contender? Probably not. But that's only because he's probably at to put with....well the top 3. So maybe he really is a top 10 contender. I'm not sure how I'd rank the modern guys after Fed, Nadal, Novak, Borg and Sampras - it's a right bunch up, the only certs of the next 5 for me are Connors, Mac and Lendl, so 2 spots well and truly up for grabs.
77% - 71%(JMdP) - 66%(Cilic) - 64%(Stan) .... Says enough, regardless of him and Stan having the same number of Slams, it's not irrelevant, but you don't put Stan on the same level of him because of that, yes he usurps Cilic and delPo no doubt. But he's no way near Murray on a career level. He's further ahead of them then he is behind Novak-Nadal-Federer.
Seen someone else write he's one of the better tactical players, which I completely agree with - talent wise, he's probably behind a fair few of his generation, but he put himself in the "Big Four" due to tactical awareness of the game changing and dedication to the game and the training required.
Came a long way in other aspects too - I'd never thought he'd learn to get to grips with being in front of the camera but he did, I never thought he'd get over his Big 3 hump, but he did. Well done to him.
Top 10 contender? Probably not. But that's only because he's probably at to put with....well the top 3. So maybe he really is a top 10 contender. I'm not sure how I'd rank the modern guys after Fed, Nadal, Novak, Borg and Sampras - it's a right bunch up, the only certs of the next 5 for me are Connors, Mac and Lendl, so 2 spots well and truly up for grabs.
German cnut
Used to think he was a prick but like some have mentioned above he's just a normal bloke who is exceptional at tennis. Nothing pretentious about him and has a dry sense of humour.
I can see why he is put in the 'Top 4' bracket; but it is a bit of a disservice to the other 3 who are at least a level above.
I can see why he is put in the 'Top 4' bracket; but it is a bit of a disservice to the other 3 who are at least a level above.
Literally no one would give 2 shits.
Also top 4 = CL spots, so that cutoff made sense.
Watched the full press conference and have no hope of him making Wimbledon. The way he describes it i’d be surprised if he made it through his first game at the AO.
Massive shame. Great memories of his Olympic and Wimbledon success. 2012 was just so brilliant as a British sports fan.
Massive shame. Great memories of his Olympic and Wimbledon success. 2012 was just so brilliant as a British sports fan.
Only player to defeat Federer in a grass court final, Nadal in a clay court final and Djokovic in a hard court final.
Hes only alright though.