At present the Connors, Lendl, McEnroe and Borg era remains the strongest and most dominant in tennis history. This current age is the second best. Sure, Murray only got three slams, but the fact that Stanimal also has three suggests that Murray could certainly have won more than he did. Connors would have won more than 7 if he had gone to Oz.
Hi folks, As a huge Federer fan, I am incredibly happy that he finally won his 100th title :) and I think he can easily get to 105, maybe over that. But anyway, even if he does not reach Connor's number, I am a bit tired at reading many comments about Connors' 109 titles :| Believe me, I did...
Yeah right ever heard of Kelly Evernden?
Amazingly, Evernden played pro tennis with only one lung, having had a lung removed as the result of an injury sustained in an accident at the age of 16. He was hit by a car and his heart stopped twice in five days (once for one minute and once for 45 seconds). In addition to puncturing a lung which had to be removed, he also had a broken arm, leg and ribs [Wikipedia]
Ended up winning 3 ATP titles, with one lung missng, what a strong era it was
All this to say, so called records achieved by Connors mean nothing compared to Federer's 103 titles. And I stand by my opinion, Murray is in absolute terms a better player than Connors.