When you're comparing them to Nadal, Federer and Djokovic of course they are underwhelming. I think expectations have been raised to unrealistic levels at times. They all have their issues but they all have pretty decent CVs (I'd add Medvedev to that list). All of them (apart from Berrettini) have reached at least one major final, won masters 1000 titles and or ATP tour finals and made multiple SFs at majors.
Okay, thought you meant different. Federer was best between
Hard to describe Andy Murray as holding his own against the big three when he is 11-14 against Federer (1-5 at Grand Slams), 11-25 against Djokovic (2-8 at Grand Slams), and 7-17 against Nadal (2-7 against Grand Slams).
Pretty funny to call them crap when the three grand slams this year have all had next Gen players in the final. Medvedev, Tsisipas and Berretini. If losing to djokovic in a GS final is what makes them underwhelming then like you said the expectations are unrealistic.
Roddick and Hewitt were worse players than Murray and Murray was a lot more competitive against Federer than they ever were but that still doesn't mean that Murray held his own against the Big Three in Grand Slams. Defining "holding his own" in terms of comparing Roddick/Hewitt to Murray makes little sense to me.
Fair enough but I'm not too sure he beat peak Djokovic in either of those Grand Slams. Djokovic was worse in 2012 than he was in 2011, and his 2013 Wimbledon Final performance was another level down from that as well.
Murray is top 10 in male major SF appearances. He was so far ahead of the others. I also think the fact he was ever present in the top 4 seed makes a valid case even if he has never been on a par. It's like how we refer to the big 4 or big 6 now in football despite there being a clear separation between some of those clubs. Top 5 in Masters 1000 titles and two times Olympic single gold medals.
Neh don’t agree with that. There was a decent period where those 4 were always the last in slams and only knocked each other out.
Murray was definitely the number 4 of that era, but the gap between 3 and 4 is infinitimes bigger than the gap between 1 and 3. Not saying Murray isnt a fantastic player. He is, however, mortal unlike Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.
Agassi is also nowhere near the same league as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. And neither is Murray.
Agassi appeared in 15 slam finals.
Was thinking 8 seemed low.
He has as many slams as Wawrinka.
And Olympic medals.
Yeah but he can't be "miles" ahead with the same number of slams. In terms of general level, sure but we all know that in tennis every other competition is miniscule in terms of importance compared to the slams. The "big 4" was always a joke. It's a big 3, Murray is not part of that company. He's part of "the rest" - more consistent and achieving a higher level than the others in the rest but still in that bucket.
Wawrinka and Murray did not get close to them. Roddick kept meeting Federer in finals, but it didn't mean he got close him. And nobody considered there to be a top 2 in Federer's peak era.
Agree with this.
He was also top 4 in the rankings for the whole of 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013 and 2016 and good chunks of 2008, 2011, 2014, 2015 and 2017.
You talk as if the last one isn't by far the most important of those statistics.
The unlucky bugger!Murray wasn't so good that you could say he would have been one of the GOATs in the absence of Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal. Fantastic defensive player, yes, but I'm not too sure you could look at his skillset and say that he had that many other historically great attributes. For instance, I'd argue Del Potro had more great attributes to his game than Murray, except that his career was blighted by injuries.Murray without question deserves that statement, without the 3 Greats, Murray would have dominated this Sport, possibly putting him at achieving over 10 Grand Slams which would have put him in the discussion as one of the greatest of all time!!……he’s just unlucky that he was competing in the same era as the 3 greatest of all time
Murray spent 41 weeks at the top from November 2016 until August 2017, which basically reflects his dominance in 2016. But when you look deeper, Nadal was knocked out in the 1st Round in the AO by Verdsaco, withdrew after the 2nd Round in the FO, didn't play at Wimbledon, and was knocked out in the 4th Round of the US Open by Pouille. Federer lost in the AO SF to Djokovic, didn't play in the FO due to injury, lost to Raonic in the Wimbeldon SF, and then missed the rest of the season due to injury. Even if you look at Djokovic, he wins the AO and the FO in 2016 but loses to Querrey in the Wimbledon 3rd Round and Wawrinka in the USO Final, so I don't think anyone would suggest that 2016 was Djokovic's best year (Especially the back half of the season). Yes, Murray was the best player back then but it wasn't a case of him defeating Prime Federer, Prime Nadal, or Prime Djokovic; it was more to do with him competing against a relatively weak field.
feck novaxx