Can Murray Become The Greatest Also-Ran ? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Can Murray Become The Greatest Also-Ran ?

Backhand_Maestro
06-13-2012, 09:49 PM
Now, as paradoxical it sounds, this guy's remained in Fedalovak's shadows and the new generation is close


Australian Open: 2 Finals, 1 Semi-Final

French Open: 1 Semi-Final

Wimbledon: 3 Consecutive Semi-Finals

US Open: 1 Final, 1 Semi-Final

TigerTim
06-13-2012, 09:58 PM
The new generation is pretty rubbish, he still has a few more years. Good slam record mind.

Clay Death
06-13-2012, 10:01 PM
affirmative. he has time on his side. lets hope for the best.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
06-13-2012, 10:37 PM
he has had the best British tennis career for 50 years
and he's under achieved

TigerTim
06-13-2012, 10:39 PM
he has had the best British tennis career for 50 years
and he's under achieved

Virginia Wade ;)

But yes true. Although to say British men have been poor since Bunny Austin left the scene in the 1930s along with Fred Perry is a understatement.

Johnny Groove
06-13-2012, 10:52 PM
Murray is already the GAROAT without a doubt when we are talking Open Era. Pre-Open Era, there were a few guys that lost in 3 or more slam finals, guys like:

Frank Hunter- 3 slam finals, many SF and QF, though he did win the Gold Medal in 1924.
Harry Hopman- 3 slam finals, though he did win 2 slams in doubles and 5 slams in mixed doubles.
Bunny Austin- 3 slam finals, though he was a pivotal part of 2 Davis Cup titles in 1935-1936.
Frank Riseley- 3 slam finals, though he won 2 Wimbledon doubles titles.
Eric Sturgess- 3 slam finals, though he won 1 doubles title and 2 mixed doubles titles.

So basically, yeah, overall, counting doubles and mixed doubles, and counting Open Era and Pre-Open Era, yes, Andy Murray is the GAROAT, Greatest Also-Ran Of All Time.

Until he wins one at least.

TigerTim
06-13-2012, 10:53 PM
Murray is already the GAROAT without a doubt when we are talking Open Era. Pre-Open Era, there were a few guys that lost in 3 or more slam finals, guys like:

Frank Hunter- 4 slam finals
Harry Hopman- 3 slam finals
Bunny Austin- 3 slam finals
Frank Riseley- 3 slam finals
Eric Sturgess- 3 slam finals

he was also British, and failed to win a set in a final :D

Chase Visa
06-13-2012, 10:56 PM
He already is.

MuzzahLovah
06-13-2012, 11:12 PM
He already is.

Agreed- he might be a slam champ in his own right yet, but as of now, he's the GAROAT.

william_renshaw
06-13-2012, 11:20 PM
I don't think there are many people who can deny that Murray is already the greatest player never to win a slam.

ahadabans
06-13-2012, 11:21 PM
He already is.

This. And as a fan, I hope to God he wins a slam so he loses this distinction.

Someone mentioned he was an underachiever. And I second that to the power of 10.

Mountaindewslave
06-13-2012, 11:33 PM
I don't think there are many people who can deny that Murray is already the greatest player never to win a slam.

Rios/Nalbandian were better players than Murray, but accomplishment wise yeah

rafa_maniac
06-14-2012, 12:05 AM
What do people think his biggest near miss at those Slams was? I say Wimbledon 09 as he had just won Queens, Federer was very beatable in that final and he only needed to get through Roddick to face him.

Paylu2007
06-14-2012, 12:11 AM
Now, as paradoxical it sounds, this guy's remained in Fedalovak's shadows and the new generation is close


Australian Open: 2 Finals, 1 Semi-Final

French Open: 1 Semi-Final

Wimbledon: 3 Consecutive Semi-Finals

US Open: 1 Final, 1 Semi-Final

correct would be fedalOVIC.

He had bad results on clay, but now with grass season here, he will catch up and earn MANY points :D :p

Moozza
06-14-2012, 12:43 AM
Murray is already the best player to never win a slam by a long way. I still believe he will win one though.

Mark Lenders
06-14-2012, 12:47 AM
What do people think his biggest near miss at those Slams was? I say Wimbledon 09 as he had just won Queens, Federer was very beatable in that final and he only needed to get through Roddick to face him.

AO 2010.

The Australian Open's current courts are pushers/grinders' paradise. Playing 28 year-old Federer on those courts is the best chance he ever had at a Slam.

Losing in 3 was just bad, really bad. Federer can't hit through Nadal or Djokovic on that surface, and he shouldn't have hit through the far younger and fitter Murray either.

Fireballer
06-14-2012, 12:59 AM
Murray is already the best player to never win a slam by a long way. I still believe he will win one though.

no he is the greatest never to win not the best

ahadabans
06-14-2012, 01:05 AM
AO 2010.

The Australian Open's current courts are pushers/grinders' paradise. Playing 28 year-old Federer on those courts is the best chance he ever had at a Slam.

Losing in 3 was just bad, really bad. Federer can't hit through Nadal or Djokovic on that surface, and he shouldn't have hit through the far younger and fitter Murray either.

Definitely AO 2010. His performance in that was shameful. And it was even worse because he beat Nadal to get there. That could have been Nadal's calendar year grand slam. And Murray wasted it by not even showing up for the final.

I do agree AO is Murray's best chance for a slam because it does favor baseline players. Problem is Novak's ground game is so solid, I don't think he will be easily beaten there anytime soon. Nadal threw the kitchen sink at him this year and still came up short. Lot's of parallels with Agassi's game (Novak), and we know how dominant he was in Australia.

JediFed
06-14-2012, 06:11 AM
Murray is already the GAROAT without a doubt when we are talking Open Era. Pre-Open Era, there were a few guys that lost in 3 or more slam finals.

No. He's only got 87 GS wins. The record for a non slam holder is 104. Gottfried has 84.

He would need another 17 GS wins.

Clerc and Gottfried both have 25 titles - Murray has 22.

He's got 349 wins vs: Gottfried's 677.

Rios reach world number 1, Murray only has world number 2.

I'd say Gottfried is the GAROAT. Murray has a ways to go still. Davydenko's career is still greater than Murray's, so Murray's not yet the active GAROAT.


Brian Gottfried - 677
Roscoe Tanner - 585
Eddie Dibbs - 584
Harold Solomon - 567
Raul Ramirez - 520
Wojtek Fibak - 520
Brad Gilbert - 519
Tom Okker - 518
Wayne Ferreira - 512
Tim Henman - 496
Tommy Haas - 478
David Ferrer - 450
Thomas Enqvist - 448
Nico Davydenko - 447
Alex Corretja - 438
Jose Higueras - 438
Greg Rusedski - 436
Marc Rosset - 433
Ivan Ljubicic - 428
Emilio Sanchez - 428
M. Gustaffson - 415
Marcelo Rios - 391
Vijay Amritaj - 391
Balasz Taroczy - 385
Guy Forget - 380
Jose-Luis Clerc - 377
Dave Nalbandian - 371
Fena Gonzalez - 370

Currently Murray is the 29th GAROAT.

tripwires
06-14-2012, 06:27 AM
No. He's only got 87 GS wins. The record for a non slam holder is 104. Gottfried has 84.

He would need another 17 GS wins.

Clerc and Gottfried both have 25 titles - Murray has 22.

He's got 349 wins vs: Gottfried's 677.

I'd say Gottfried is the GAROAT. Murray has a ways to go still.

Poor Gottfried was thrown into jail by the Nazis though. :sad:

asmazif
06-14-2012, 08:40 AM
Murray is already the GAROAT without a doubt when we are talking Open Era. Pre-Open Era, there were a few guys that lost in 3 or more slam finals, guys like:

Frank Hunter- 3 slam finals, many SF and QF, though he did win the Gold Medal in 1924.
Harry Hopman- 3 slam finals, though he did win 2 slams in doubles and 5 slams in mixed doubles.
Bunny Austin- 3 slam finals, though he was a pivotal part of 2 Davis Cup titles in 1935-1936.
Frank Riseley- 3 slam finals, though he won 2 Wimbledon doubles titles.
Eric Sturgess- 3 slam finals, though he won 1 doubles title and 2 mixed doubles titles.

So basically, yeah, overall, counting doubles and mixed doubles, and counting Open Era and Pre-Open Era, yes, Andy Murray is the GAROAT, Greatest Also-Ran Of All Time.

Until he wins one at least.

I raise you Wilberforce Eaves, who reached 3 (all-comers) finals and one Challenge Round final.

It'll do.

Poor Gottfried was thrown into jail by the Nazis though. :sad:

Brian, not Von Cramm :p

tripwires
06-14-2012, 08:52 AM
Brian, not Von Cramm :p

Oh. Oops. :p Thanks.

Chris Kuerten
06-14-2012, 09:08 AM
He's pretty much on the same level as Tim Henman.

Chase Visa
06-14-2012, 09:19 AM
No. He's only got 87 GS wins. The record for a non slam holder is 104. Gottfried has 84.

He would need another 17 GS wins.

Clerc and Gottfried both have 25 titles - Murray has 22.

He's got 349 wins vs: Gottfried's 677.

Rios reach world number 1, Murray only has world number 2.

I'd say Gottfried is the GAROAT. Murray has a ways to go still. Davydenko's career is still greater than Murray's, so Murray's not yet the active GAROAT.


Brian Gottfried - 677
Roscoe Tanner - 585
Eddie Dibbs - 584
Harold Solomon - 567
Raul Ramirez - 520
Wojtek Fibak - 520
Brad Gilbert - 519
Tom Okker - 518
Wayne Ferreira - 512
Tim Henman - 496
Tommy Haas - 478
David Ferrer - 450
Thomas Enqvist - 448
Nico Davydenko - 447
Alex Corretja - 438
Jose Higueras - 438
Greg Rusedski - 436
Marc Rosset - 433
Ivan Ljubicic - 428
Emilio Sanchez - 428
M. Gustaffson - 415
Marcelo Rios - 391
Vijay Amritaj - 391
Balasz Taroczy - 385
Guy Forget - 380
Jose-Luis Clerc - 377
Dave Nalbandian - 371
Fena Gonzalez - 370

Currently Murray is the 29th GAROAT.

That's pretty dodgy given that Murray's career is only half-done.

EDIT: Didn't see your quote. Still, match wins aren't the best conclusion.

JediFed
06-14-2012, 10:15 AM
That's pretty dodgy given that Murray's career is only half-done.

I can't speculate on what he might do, only on what he has done up until now.


Still, match wins aren't the best conclusion.


Brian Gottfried has about the same number of GS wins (Murray just passed him at RG), has more titles overall, has about 2x the wins. Murray's just not in Gottfried's career class as of yet.

Put it another way, there isn't any player with as many SFs as he has already who failed to win a slam, save Tim Henman. His slam performance has been exceptional. I fully expect Murray to win at least one, which is why comparing him with the truly washed up folks doesn't make sense.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
06-14-2012, 10:24 AM
Virginia Wade ;)

.

yea sorry
meant men of course

sue and Virginia did great in a good era

TigerTim
06-14-2012, 10:34 AM
He's pretty much on the same level as Tim Henman.

:lol: Your Kidding right? What as Henman done better than Murray? Aside from winning a set in a French Open semi, a silver at the Olympics (doubles) and beating Federer at Wimbledon he has ziltch compared to Andy. Less titles, only one masters, no final appearance at GS etc etc

yea sorry
meant men of course

sue and Virginia did great in a good era

Indeed, to win the French (Sue), and 3 (Virginia) is a great achievement. I think they are slightly forgotten what with the lack of male winner and obsession of this in the Uk. Half the people watching BBC don't even know she was a tennis player!

bad gambler
06-14-2012, 11:04 AM
He is well on his way

2003
06-14-2012, 12:40 PM
Nope, title will forever go to Ivan Lendl.

Could have been the GOAT, now has been eclipsed by NADULL.

Ackms421
06-14-2012, 01:51 PM
The most interesting thing about Murray is his consistency at the top level and his record against the top players (outside of slams). There have been other talented players who failed to win a slam (Rios and Nalbandian have already been mentioned) but none of them were consistently a threat like Murray. Nalbandian wasn't making the semis of 3/4 slams a year at any point in his career, and nor was anyone else who might come up in this conversation. I don't think there has ever (open era) been a player who consistently put himself in the business end of slams and failed to win one. Normally the only players who go this consistently deep into slams are the ones who win them. He really should win at least one one day soon.

Moozza
06-14-2012, 02:04 PM
He's pretty much on the same level as Tim Henman.

Not sure if serious..

Macbrother
06-14-2012, 02:12 PM
I raise you Wilberforce Eaves, who reached 3 (all-comers) finals and one Challenge Round final.


:lol:

Really reaching into the barrel on that one aren't we?

Drugs Ruin Lives
06-14-2012, 03:18 PM
He's the male Dementieva :tape:

Allez
06-14-2012, 08:24 PM
Only a matter of time (maybe even 4 weeks) before Murray wins a slam...No concern here.

Roger the Dodger
06-14-2012, 08:30 PM
Nope, title will forever go to Ivan Lendl.

Could have been the GOAT, now has been eclipsed by NADULL.

Lendl was an also-ran?

kyleskywalker007
06-14-2012, 08:30 PM
Yes....he can become the greatest........bridesmaid ever to grace the sport :D

Hian-GOAT
06-14-2012, 08:34 PM
He's the male Dementieva :tape:

What an insult, for Elena.

He is the new Brie Whitehead.

asmazif
06-15-2012, 10:21 AM
:lol:

Really reaching into the barrel on that one aren't we?

:lol: nonsense, he was the only obvious pick :p

He'd be easy pickings for MTF in his day - clearly Muggerforce Eaves

Johnny Groove
07-07-2012, 08:18 PM
Hopefully he wins tomorrow and gets off this list.

No honor in being the GAROAT.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
07-07-2012, 09:35 PM
if he loses tomorrow i think hes up there with anyone

he has to have a slam in him- i hope fed wins but i would not mind terribly if andy wins

may the better man win

TheDiamond
07-08-2012, 12:00 AM
Murray is absolutely the best player to have not won a Slam.

A couple of people mentioned he's an underachiever. I could not disagree more! What he has achieved in his career so far is admirable. Especially in this golden era of the big three.

One thing does annoy me though. Now I like Murray and think he's a super player, but the British media referring to a "Big 4" seriously gets to me! To put him in the same league as three of the greatest ever is stretching it somewhat!

JediFed
07-08-2012, 02:48 AM
As I said, he's on the same career track as Lendl, who, at one point, had 6 slam finals, with only one win.

Federer4Everer
07-08-2012, 06:27 AM
Seems hard to argue that he is NOT the GAROAT but today will finish the argument one way or the other won't it?