Andy Murray.. on a path to greatness?

First topic message reminder :

In the last 12 months, Andy Murray has done something most of us would not have thought possible (even us Murray fans).

He has become a multi slam winner with a shinny gold olympics medal too.

Wow

On top of that he has reached every major final in the last 12 months (except the French where he was injured) and moved himself to number 2 in the world

With all the negative comments that follow him around, I really just wanted to give him a shout out to say well done for the last 12(ish) months

3 Slam finals in a row
2 Slam wims
One Olympic Gold
Number 2 in the world

Impressive in anyones book

Now, does this mean he is destined to be a all time great? - not yet imo - but if he can keep going like he is, and gets to 5 or 6 slams, he truly will be one of the greats of tennis (not up there with Nadal or Federer, but still a great)

So well done Andy Murray and I keep my fingers crossed you can keep going

This is only dragging on because OG is being touted as a significant score on Andys greatness chart.

It's really a case, to paraphrase Captain Red Rum of Blackadder II fame "Opinion is divided; all the other posters say it isn't, Caledonian Craig says it is".

Nope I agree with dummy_half's stance on this.

Greatness is measured on slams alone.

The other titles on the CV are like icing on the cake.

And weeks at #1. Probably coincident, since if you win loads of Slams you make #1, but you can't be a great player unless at some point you sit stop the ranking of your port.
It doesn't make you a great, but it sure disqualifies you if you don't do it.

HM Murdoch wrote:
"Sorry sir, you may have won each of the four biggest prizes in our sport but I'm afraid that's not the pinnacle anymore. You didn't win that 6 round, BO3 event with a reduced field that was held 2 years ago"

"But I was injured 2 years ago"

"Sorry sir, I don't write the rules. Everyone loves the Olympics, so we had to pimp up the Career Slam"

"I guess I'll have to wait another two years then. Winning the Olympics sounds tough though, I bet only the best players win it".

"That correct sir. Nadal, Agassi, Murray... Rosset...erm.. Massu... Mecir... well, maybe not always the best players. But the Olympics has great heritage. It's been held for over a century"

"When did tennis become part of it?"

"1988. But everyone loves the Olympics, sir. You should see the players' faces, it means so much"

"They must get a shed load of ranking points for winning?"

"Oh yes sir, it's one of the great events in our sport. The only events you get more points for are the four slams. Oh, and the Tour Finals. And the nine masters tournaments. But everyone loves the Olympics, sir. You should see the faces."

"So let me get this straight. Despite winning all the slams in a calendar year, that's not the ultimate achievement because I didn't win an event that a) wasn't held this year, b) has a reduced field c) is BO3, d) is only six rounds e) is a lesser event that tournaments I did win?"

"But the faces, sir. You should see them"

Brilliant!  

Yes of course there is that as well and all counts on the end CV.

I feel for Laver and Pancho, who never won an OG. I am going to start crying in my pillow.

The Olympic gold means a lot in prestige and money, and since all the best players contest the event nowadays it does matter in one's CV. It doesn't mean that if you don't win the Olympic gold that you should be dinged as Murdoch pointed out there are limited opportunities for success. ATP points are important no one questions that. But to seriously think that winning a gold medal doesn't impact your CV or the regard that you gain as an athlete and national hero is not worth something is I think going a bit far. Murdoch as usual is pithy, intelligent, and humorous with his commentary. And his taste in whiskey and tennis players is of the first quality. But even he can't sell the concept I am afraid that becoming a gold medalist is not a relevant and valuable addition to a CV. It doesn't detract from player's who don't have it because of the once every 4 year aspect. Still it probably means more in terms of cold hard cash than winning Cincy or Monte Carlo that is for sure. For those of you who claim Master's wins are superior ask yourself when you have seen Master's winner Ivan Ljubicic and Tommy Robredo on the cover of national news and sports publications for their successes or when billboards and cereal boxes became adorned with their likeness due to their master's success. The title of Olympic gold medalist outside of patriotism for a top athlete has bigger PR and marketing clout than Master's events, that alone makes it important beyond a mere call to silly patriotism.

Interesting views, particularly Murdoch's very amusing piece.

I still agree with socal though, and I still wouldn't swap Murrays Olympic gold with WTF win or any masters event win. I suspect if you offered one time masters winners (Ferrer for example) if he'd swap, I'm guessing he'd bite your hand off for the gold.

I don't feel hugely passionately about it to try and convince people, it's just my view. No right or wrong, just different opinions. And as I always say, each to their own.

In honesty, although I mock it in this context, if I were a tennis player I'd choose Olympic gold over a Masters and a WTF any day. It has a grandeur to it in popular perception that only the slams can trump. And it must be fantastic to be part of the Olympics.

But in the very serious and vital matter of assessing a player's greatness on a tennis forum, it doesn't carry much weight.

It's 10/10 as a life experience.

But probably only about 6/10 as measure of greatness.

time please wrote:
Anyway, I fully agree with Lydian that comparing the OG and the WTF is like comparing apples to oranges, but I simply can't let you get away with your assertion that the WTF is little more than an exhibition (look at how hard fought some of those finals are at the end of a long season), nor the inference that most top players can't be bothered to really try for 1,500 ranking points and £1,000,000 ++ in prize money because they are a little fatigued!   

Thats the trouble I'm having trying to exemplify how the Olympics is seen as a must have entry on your CV.

The Masters Grand Prix began as an exhibition event in 1970 and was deemed such as it didn't attract any ranking points. The fact that they award double ranking points now for an undefeated champion still personifies the exhibition status it originally had, a player still has to drop an admittance fee to play and they still play RR matches, a throw back to times when tennis was played in trousers and shirts. As far as I can tell, ranking points have only been awarded from 1990 onwards when the ATP took over the tour and the Grand Prix Event (or maybe the current system of ranking points began then ?)

Thing is, its grown in stature as has the prize money and ranking wise is now second to a slam. Prestige has grown through sponsorship deals and promotion and is gaining more exposure to more fans around the world. Ranking points have meandered between being as much as a slam to half it and to what it is now, 3 Q's of a slam win.

Tennis in the Olympics has continued to grow in the public's perception through much the same vehicle as the WTF in recent times, also because nationalism is still strong in our fragmented society today and routinely rears its head at events like this or at Wimbledon. Other countries have different structures and values but still retain the patriotism that expounds their need to participate as a crowd watching their gladiators fight to the death. It will always be like this. Both events are completely different as Lydian has pointed out, they are both derived from not only different formats but different ideology, but the Olympics are seen as one individual fighting for his corner, for his country, under his flag. The WTF is a pageant of talent fighting their corner for their own prestige and reputation under their own banner. Not that many miles different from the Olympic paragon, its just that the Olympics is on a bigger stage broadcast to almost every home in the world.

So where does it sit in CV status ? about the same IMO taking into account the inherent differences and lets not forget that they have only earned ranking points in the games since 2000AD and if standards and prestige continue their upward curve, then those points will increase. Massu got 400 in 2004 it now stands at 750 for Gold in the mens side.

(correct at time of writing :p wiki sourced mostly)

Is perhaps part of the problem of that every era, only 1 or 2 players will have an Olympics singles gold? So, say we'll have Murray and Nadal with their golds, but from the same group of players Federer and Djokovic, unarguably greats of their times without, and if someone like Massu he is neither great, nor can you argue against the stars of that era not being greats based on one tournament.

That's a hell of a rubbish post! Totally and utterly wrong, from beginning to end, disregarding the reality, biased, and superficial.
 
The WTF, which was originally "The Masters", has always been, since the beginning of the modern era, the most important event outside the slams ----> fact.
 
It awards the most ranking points and the most prize money than any, outside the 4 slams, though very close to them in fairness.
 
In term of prestige and history; it is simply huge. Lendl became famous and respected because he won the Masters, even before he started to win slams.
 
All the biggest and most important payers of the modern era (except Nadal) have won the masters/WTF at least one time in some of the greatest and most spectacular matches ever played.
 
On the other hand Olympics tournament doesn't have a big tennis tradition at all. It was snubbed by the best players since few years ago. it doesn't award big money and big ranking points. All facts, not just fanboys fantasies!

Of all the posts on this thread that latest attempt to undermine the WTF is the most ridiculous.

JK summed it up.

More than ridiculous, I honestly think it's outrageous.

ryan86 wrote:Is perhaps part of the problem of that every era, only 1 or 2 players will have an Olympics singles gold? So, say we'll have Murray and Nadal with their golds, but from the same group of players Federer and Djokovic, unarguably greats of their times without, and if someone like Massu he is neither great, nor can you argue against the stars of that era not being greats based on one tournament.

Interesting and can I say an unbiased and un-superficial comment ryan.

That may explain the allure of the Olympics, 3 or 4 games is the most a player may get to attend, with 3 being a realistic number of chances to win Gold for any normal player, for someone like Federer et al, it may be 4/5 chances. As a 17 yr old, he/she would have 4 more chances to win a G medal, but would have to be an exceptional player to do so. Murray may be one of an elite member of a Gold Medal circle who has a chance to defend and win it again in Rio.

But I presume Rio will be clay ? so its more likely a Nadal or Djokovic could get one or any decent good clay court player at that time.

Jubba, aren't you confusing the titanic TV audience for the Olympics with the TV audience for the tennis Olympics. It's really all about Athletics you know, the rest are sideshows.

Over here in Canada I couldn't get one semi-final live.

Strange to spend so long evaluating the points etc for the WTF, rating it as 5th to a Slam (agree, by the way), then promoting an event with fewer points than a normal Masters to the same rank. Illogical, Captain.

Excellent post Jubba. Very fair and balanced. The ATP awards the WTF high ranking points and price money because its the ATP'S flagship event. Given its place in the tennis calendar not doing so would risk players simply not bothering to turn up.

At present, the feeling is the Olympics is more special to the players and has more impact on their legacy (though not to the extent of the slams). Will be interesting to see if that continues or if future players will have less interest in the event. I would currently regard winning the olympics as equal to the WTF.

 

Born Slippy wrote:Excellent post Jubba. Very fair and balanced. The ATP awards the WTF high ranking points and price money because its the ATP'S flagship event. Given its place in the tennis calendar not doing so would risk players simply not bothering to turn up.

At present, the feeling is the Olympics is more special to the players and has more impact on their legacy (though not to the extent of the slams). Will be interesting to see if that continues or if future players will have less interest in the event. I would currently regard winning the olympics as equal to the WTF.

I wasn't going to comment again on this thread because I'd expressed all the thoughts I wanted to.........but, just had to say BS that if the Australian Open didn't have ranking points or decent prize money (copy that for any of the slams), I doubt the players would rock up for that either.

They are no longer playing to jump the net and shout 'jolly well played old man' at the other guy!

Each individual win, is unique and has it's own merit.

Trying to put a scale on it, for a relative merit may not do justice to a specific win.

WTF is played annually, while Olympics is not. As Jubba says, Olympics is nationalistic, while WTF is individualistic.

For example, Fedrinka won doubles gold, which is still a gold medal. In some cases, team events (or doubles) require better team play, than singles.

Players may also value what they win differently, as do their respective fans. DC is similar in nature. WTF (with it's RR format) may be considered tougher than Olympics.

Trading one win/prize for another is fraught with subjective interpretations, like the value of real estate. A piece of earth in Manhattan vs the same size in Sudan or Syria have different perceived values.

Think of WTF being played on Clay vs W being played on Clay vs RG on Grass. W still has tradition on it's side.

Does anyone recall Verdasco beating Nadal on Blue clay? I am sure KingRaf does.

time please wrote:
I wasn't going to comment again on this thread because I'd expressed all the thoughts I wanted to.........but, just had to say BS that if the Australian Open didn't have ranking points or decent prize money (copy that for any of the slams), I doubt the players would rock up for that either.

They are no longer playing to jump the net and shout 'jolly well played old man' at the other guy!

TP. Hamburg Clay Masters is a prime example of that situation.

I agree but that's not really relevant to my point. There have been a number of comments above essentially on the point that the WTF must be more important because it awards more points. That's a circular argument because the ATP wants to incentivise attendance at the WTF and has less incentive to big up the Olympics. Its a factor to consider but its not the crucial factor. If you awarded the Olympics 1,500 points and held it in direct competition to the WTF which event do you reckon the players would play?

time please wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Excellent post Jubba. Very fair and balanced. The ATP awards the WTF high ranking points and price money because its the ATP'S flagship event. Given its place in the tennis calendar not doing so would risk players simply not bothering to turn up.

At present, the feeling is the Olympics is more special to the players and has more impact on their legacy (though not to the extent of the slams). Will be interesting to see if that continues or if future players will have less interest in the event. I would currently regard winning the olympics as equal to the WTF.

I wasn't going to comment again on this thread because I'd expressed all the thoughts I wanted to.........but, just had to say BS that if the Australian Open didn't have ranking points or decent prize money (copy that for any of the slams), I doubt the players would rock up for that either.

They are no longer playing to jump the net and shout 'jolly well played old man' at the other guy!

Quite.

Apparently the huge ranking points and money at the WTF are now a bribe to attend this second rate event.

They do that all the time don't they, pay the least money for the most important, and visa versa.

Sometimes   just doesn't say it.

bogbrush - your comments (and likewise those of time please) on this make the point better than any

Nicely put

banbrotam wrote:To me, it's quite simply due to sports science, which has boomed in recent years (look at the cyclists)

 

Maybe better not look there.

Born Slippy wrote:I agree but that's not really relevant to my point. There have been a number of comments above essentially on the point that the WTF must be more important because it awards more points. That's a circular argument because the ATP wants to incentivise attendance at the WTF and has less incentive to big up the Olympics. Its a factor to consider but its not the crucial factor. If you awarded the Olympics 1,500 points and held it in direct competition to the WTF which event do you reckon the players would play?

You can award 2000 points at Olympics, which may not be relevant.

The WTF rewards players who have been consistent for the past 52-weeks, while Olympics rewards the arbitrary lines within which a player was born (or in Zola Budd's case, the country you choose).  

It is logically impossible to run it in direct competition for 3 out of 4 years anyway.

OG is a win to be lauded, but an objective comparison is logically impossible, even if the points were the same between WTF and O.

I am glad that Murray has an OG and a W. It does not devalue any other player who does or does not have one, whether it is Rosset or Nadal or Djokovic.

BTW, ITF runs Olympics, DC and Slams. ATP/WTA run the rest. If ITF has the incentive to ask respective Slam controllers (TA, FFT, AELTC and USTA) to increase slam prize money, why would they want disincentives to stand in the way of Olympics.

There is no prize money at O but there is at WTF. Does that mean WTF is better than O? Similar argument in reverse to the points point. After all, everyone at O Tennis is a professional earning a living from Tennis, but they do not make any prize money. The country Federations may compensate them to take part at O.

I think the whole debate on WTF and O is done and really moves away from the orginal point of my article :-)

Riskysports wrote:I think the whole debate on WTF and O is done and really moves away from the orginal point of my article :-)

Quite agree. Subjective glorification of titles is a fans perspective, nothing more. Let Murray's racquet establish his greatness, subject to less subjectivity.

Another thing to add to your list Risky......

https://twitter.com/royalmailnews/status/357788915891056640

Oh dear some people will NOT like that.  

Gives people a chance to lick his backside literally.  

Some people WILL like that.

Sure beats listening to 10 years of collective backside licking of Federer though does it not? Nothing like a change after all.

"Our stamps to celebrate @andy_murray’s amazing @Wimbledon win (which is more exciting, although slightly less value in tennis terms that the WTF) will be on sale from August 8th. Order them here: http://buzz.mw/b8zt5_f

Fixed it for them

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sure beats listening to 10 years of collective backside licking of Federer though does it not? Nothing like a change after all.

No, crap comeback.

Take it like a man.

Riskysports wrote:"Our stamps to celebrate @andy_murray’s amazing @Wimbledon win (which is more exciting, although slightly less value in tennis terms that the WTF) will be on sale from August 8th. Order them here:  http://buzz.mw/b8zt5_f

Fixed it for them

Wimbledon < WTF?

What thread are you reading?

bogbrush wrote:Gives people a chance to lick his backside literally.  

Some people WILL like that.

But will the stamps work in England? Or will they make your letter go to anywhere but England  

Riskysports wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Gives people a chance to lick his backside literally.  

Some people WILL like that.

But will the stamps work in England? Or will they make your letter go to anywhere but England  

They get there, it'll just take a very long time, result in numerous misdeliveries and stress you out.

For Gods sake don't use the 2nd class service, it's absurdly slow.

Riskysports wrote:I think the whole debate on WTF and O is done and really moves away from the orginal point of my article :-)

Back on topic, the next 2-3 years will obviously define Murray's standing in the game overall. Right now he's as good as anyone (or close to at least) but will need a few more slams at least if he wants to be talked about as one of the greats.

Is it possible for him to win 4-6 slams over the next 3 years? Difficult but possible. Over the last 12 months he's won 2 so if he keeps that form up he'll do alright.

If I had to guess on his final count right now I'd go for 4, maybe 5. That's because you have to assume that at the age of 29 he probably won't be quite as good an athlete, same as Novak. Question is will there be any good enough players coming through to expose that slight dip?

I suspect the younger players like Tomic, Dimitrov, JJ and the like may have a similar evolution to Murray, and come into potential slam winning peak in their mid 20's.

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sure beats listening to 10 years of collective backside licking of Federer though does it not? Nothing like a change after all.

No, crap comeback.

Take it like a man.

Nah Roger needs that skin to grow back on his backside now after all the licking it has taken.

As for the stamps well the letters may get their late but look at FedEx and their stuff could get stranded on a desert island (as seen in Castaway film).

Pity this stamp news didn't go on a new thread, would have been fun!  

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sure beats listening to 10 years of collective backside licking of Federer though does it not? Nothing like a change after all.

That was different though Craig. It was Federer.

They should sanitise the whole site to only allow backside licking for Federer.

They could run a script every hour, something like.... Delete from 606v2 where member_comment = 'adulation' or 'backside licking' or 'positive feedback' and tennis_player != 'Federer'

Be such a nicer forum then....

Danny_1982 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sure beats listening to 10 years of collective backside licking of Federer though does it not? Nothing like a change after all.

That was different though Craig. It was Federer.

They should sanitise the whole site to only allow backside licking for Federer.

They could run a script every hour, something like.... Delete from 606v2 where member_comment = 'adulation' or 'backside licking' or 'positive feedback' and tennis_player != 'Federer'

Be such a nicer forum then....

Such a sour and humourless attitude.

The backside licking comment was a riposte to Craig having a light dig about brave Andy's stamp honour.

I'd have thought you guys would have sobered up by now.

Maybe the stamps are those pre-sticky-back ones - no backside licking required. However, when I place the stamp on the envelope I might end up rubbing Andy's.....racket.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Maybe the stamps are those pre-sticky-back ones - no backside licking required. However, when I place the stamp on the envelope I might end up rubbing Andy's.....racket.

There would be can outcry.

I've already written to the Royal Mail suggesting they reverse print for this very purpose.

The relative greatness debate will never be over.

We should ask Juliet the cow.

As HB says, all articles on v2 seem to lead to GOAT debate (aka Rome).

@BB, CC... take it easy. Both are wonderful players, as are many others.

Danny_1982 wrote:Is it possible for him to win 4-6 slams over the next 3 years? Difficult but possible. Over the last 12 months he's won 2 so if he keeps that form up he'll do alright.

Djokovic is a tough competitor, and form-of-the-day can determine the outcome. Consistency of 2-a-year would be wonderful for Murray.

bogbrush wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sure beats listening to 10 years of collective backside licking of Federer though does it not? Nothing like a change after all.

That was different though Craig. It was Federer.

They should sanitise the whole site to only allow backside licking for Federer.

They could run a script every hour, something like.... Delete from 606v2 where member_comment = 'adulation' or 'backside licking' or 'positive feedback' and tennis_player != 'Federer'

Be such a nicer forum then....

Such a sour and humourless attitude.

The backside licking comment was a riposte to Craig having a light dig about brave Andy's stamp honour.

I'd have thought you guys would have sobered up by now.

Err, ok.... Your last post seems to be the only one lacking humour.

Chill out! Nobody else is going in a strop. If you give it you've gotta take it.

Danny_1982 wrote:If you give it you've gotta take it.

Ah... the beautiful trenches of Gallipoli.

laverfan wrote:The relative greatness debate will never be over.

We should ask Juliet the cow.

As HB says, all articles on v2 seem to lead to GOAT debate (aka Rome).

@BB, CC... take it easy. Both are wonderful players, as are many others.

Danny_1982 wrote:Is it possible for him to win 4-6 slams over the next 3 years? Difficult but possible. Over the last 12 months he's won 2 so if he keeps that form up he'll do alright.

Djokovic is a tough competitor, and form-of-the-day can determine the outcome. Consistency of 2-a-year would be wonderful for Murray.

Yeah LF, it would be amazing.... I think 1 a year for the next 3 years is more realistic, hence my guess of 4 or 5. Not that reaching that amount will be easy of course, with competitors like Novak and Rafa around.

laverfan wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:If you give it you've gotta take it.

Ah... the beautiful trenches of Gallipoli.

Yeah, maybe you can help me spot the joke in Danny's post.

Danny_1982 wrote:

Riskysports wrote:I think the whole debate on WTF and O is done and really moves away from the orginal point of my article :-)

Back on topic, the next 2-3 years will obviously define Murray's standing in the game overall. Right now he's as good as anyone (or close to at least) but will need a few more slams at least if he wants to be talked about as one of the greats.

Is it possible for him to win 4-6 slams over the next 3 years? Difficult but possible. Over the last 12 months he's won 2 so if he keeps that form up he'll do alright.

If I had to guess on his final count right now I'd go for 4, maybe 5. That's because you have to assume that at the age of 29 he probably won't be quite as good an athlete, same as Novak. Question is will there be any good enough players coming through to expose that slight dip?

I suspect the younger players like Tomic, Dimitrov, JJ and the like may have a similar evolution to Murray, and come into potential slam winning peak in their mid 20's.

This is the interesting question - my suspicion is that these guys are not as good and not as driven as Murray (+ Djoko and Rafa). Looking at career progression, Andy and Djoko were top 10 while still teenagers and winning MS events at 20, reaching their first slam finals at 21 and 20 respsctively. OK, it took another few years for Andy to make the final step up to GS champion, but he was getting results consistent with being absolutely world class 6 or 7 years ago (only Nadal had a better record against Federer at and near his peak). I just don't see this group of 22-24 year old players (other than del Potro) as being of that pedigree. It's not just that these guys aren't regularly challenging Murray and Djoko, but that they aren't even getting many wins against the lower half of the top 10, which is dominated by players between about 26 and 30*.

Of course they may be some real talent in the 17 and 18 year olds coming through, which could develop rapidly into threats to the top players in 2 or 3 years time if they follow the same developement route as Djoko and Andy.

* I accept that playing style and conditions has had some influence as well in making the game harder for really young players to break through, but it hasn't changed all that much since 2006-7 when Andy and Djoko surged up the rankings. I still think an outstanding 21 year old would emerge from the field to challenge the elite, but just that there hasn't been one since Del Potro.

When debates/discussions are treated like boxing rings, it is always unpleasant, with a lot of blood and gore, and fangs and handbags on show.

There is no battle to be won, so use the pre-frontal cortex. It is a bloodless sport so far (unless one is named Youzhny).

Cleaning up blood-soaked floors is a PITA. Please do not spill anymore, I am out of IV feeds.