[BLOG] Andy Murray - Legacy
- Thread starter Rational National
- Start date
kskate2 said:
There is no real debate about whether there is/was a big 4 - it was a given based on the amount of airtime and attention he gets here both on the BBC and Sky.
The question about what his legacy is likely to be here, is actually very different from how we would see it in tennis circles - in that the legacy he (and his family)will leave is significant both for tennis and sport in general (in the UK but especially in Scotland). He truly is Scotland's only genuine world class athlete and the uptake in tennis participation and infrastructure improvements here has been quite significant (though by no means perfect) and really attributable to the success of him and his family.
There is no real discussion in regards to comparisons (with Courier, Villas, Wilander, Edberg, etc) because in that insular nationalistic way there is no way any of them have done more for the game than Murray. But how he is viewed outside of these shores will likely be one of either perceived under-achievement or a reference point / after thought to this discussion of the 'new age' / 'golden era'
El Dude
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 10,586
- Reactions
- 6,431
- Points
- 113
Nice Blog, RN, and welcome to Tennis Frontier!
I've often said that Andy has a tendency to be under-appreciated because his peak is subsumed with three of the very greatest in tennis history. We can look at his 2-8 Slam final record as an indictment of his ability, or we can look at it as pointing to a higher true talent level than a mere 2 Slam titles would indicate. I personally think that Andy should be considered a greater player than, say, Jim Courier, and at least as great as Arthur Ashe or Guillermo Vilas, if not quite in the Edberg-Becker-Wilander group.
Andy is also a very unique player due to him being so consistently the "best of the rest" after the Holy Trinity. I don't think there is any comparable player in Open Era history, except for Vilas - who was similarly placed after Connors and Borg, then McEnroe and Lendl. While it is easy focus on how these players aren't the equals of the true greats, it is also important to remember that they're better than everyone else.
As for your article, I think it is an interesting point you make about Andy's importance in assessing Novak's greatness, but I wouldn't overstate it. There are just too many other factors to consider, not least of which is the depth of competition. The simple fact that Andy is so important to assessing Novak's greatness points to how weak the field has been, at least from 2014 to the present.
I've often said that Andy has a tendency to be under-appreciated because his peak is subsumed with three of the very greatest in tennis history. We can look at his 2-8 Slam final record as an indictment of his ability, or we can look at it as pointing to a higher true talent level than a mere 2 Slam titles would indicate. I personally think that Andy should be considered a greater player than, say, Jim Courier, and at least as great as Arthur Ashe or Guillermo Vilas, if not quite in the Edberg-Becker-Wilander group.
Andy is also a very unique player due to him being so consistently the "best of the rest" after the Holy Trinity. I don't think there is any comparable player in Open Era history, except for Vilas - who was similarly placed after Connors and Borg, then McEnroe and Lendl. While it is easy focus on how these players aren't the equals of the true greats, it is also important to remember that they're better than everyone else.
As for your article, I think it is an interesting point you make about Andy's importance in assessing Novak's greatness, but I wouldn't overstate it. There are just too many other factors to consider, not least of which is the depth of competition. The simple fact that Andy is so important to assessing Novak's greatness points to how weak the field has been, at least from 2014 to the present.
El Dude
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 10,586
- Reactions
- 6,431
- Points
- 113
One more thing about Andy's 2-8 Slam final record. It reminds me a bit of Roger's 2-13 record against Rafa on clay. The most obvious thing is to say, "Wow, Rafa totally dominated Roger on clay, who must have really sucked." But a subtler--and perhaps more profound--view is noting how impressive it is that Roger played the greatest clay-courter in history 15 times, which means that he must have been pretty good on clay too, considering 13 of those match-ups were in finals, and 2 in semifinals.
And so we can remind ourselves about Andy: he's been to a Slam final 10 times. That's the same as Becker and Newcombe, and one less than McEnroe, Wilander, and Edberg, and more than Vilas or Courier, and twice as many as Ashe.
And so we can remind ourselves about Andy: he's been to a Slam final 10 times. That's the same as Becker and Newcombe, and one less than McEnroe, Wilander, and Edberg, and more than Vilas or Courier, and twice as many as Ashe.
GameSetAndMath
The GOAT
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2013
- Messages
- 21,141
- Reactions
- 3,398
- Points
- 113
kskate2 said:
Not just for Scottish or British people, but for upcoming players from all around the world, Andy will be a role model in how NOT to behave on court. :lolz: That may be his legacy.
El Dude said:
Ok I have taken a liberty in suggesting that if Novak catches or surpasses Roger that he will have played Murray in more than 50% of his finals (which is not unreasonable to think) but the real leap is saying that this will be a key aspect to carving his legacy. You are quite right there is far more that goes into it, but the juxtaposition I find interesting and wanted to explore it.
Another point worth labouring on from the blog that you touched on is the record of ten finals - when you consider that in all 10 thus far he has played Roger or Novak (potentially the 2 greatest of the modern era) it does perhaps give some context for judging Murray beyond the pure numbers and perhaps conclude that he is slightly under valued?? I mean we have another greenhorn in the Milis thread very eloquently talking up Raonic and referring to the era of the big 3.... No criticism but perhaps it's representative of the feeling
Fiero425
The GOAT
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2013
- Messages
- 11,636
- Reactions
- 2,634
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Chicago, IL
- Website
- fiero4251.blogspot.com
Watching replay of Murray match and even up 4-0 in the 3rd he can't control himself! He's beating a DC team mate badly and with 1 UFE making it deuce, he still has to "lose it" and rant before going up 5-0! What a tool! I know I took no great joy out of beating someone who got down like that! 
:ras:
:ras:Rational National said:
Andy Murray is Novak Djokovic's Andy Roddick. How many more slams would Roddick have won if not for Roger Federer. Conversely - how many more slams would Roger Federer have won if not for Rafael Nadal? And how many more slams would Nadal have won if not for Federer? No one is ever going to be able to say that about Djokovic's currently run - because he has no competition - especially not Andy Murray. Five of Djokovic's slam wins were against Murray - just as 5 of Federer's slam losses were to Nadal (4 of which were on clay the French Open - Murray doesn't have the luxury of having lost 4 French finals to the King of Clay). Murray, like Roddick before him, just doesn't have that extra gear to shift into in tight slam finals. Sorry to say it but rehiring Lendl isn't going to suddenly give him an extra gear that simply doesn't exist and shift the paradigm in Murray's favor.
I'll say this much for Murray - Roddick won his slam without having to defeat Federer (he beat Juan Carlos Ferrero for the 2003 US Open), but at least Murray can say that he won his 2 Slams defeating Djokovic - who's trying to make a run for GOAT but will never get my vote simply because - he has no competition. Murray couldn't even beat Djokovic regularly when they were in juniors, Fed's 34 soon to be 35 and he's the next closest guy - and Nadal's a shell of his former self and has more ailments than most octogenarians. :lolz: Sorry...but that's just kinda lame..
Riotbeard
Multiple Major Winner
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 4,810
- Reactions
- 12
- Points
- 38
Great post.
It's a tough question! I think Murray is both underrated and properly rated. He is clearly very talented, but I also feel like, he has the physical talent to be better than 2-8 in slam finals. Maybe Lendl will help. I am a huge Novak fan, but I think Murray, should have snuck in at least one slam in the last couple of years. At least, he is taking a set in slam finals recently, which you couldn't say pre-Lendl. I think Murray's pro-feminism stance (which I find commendable) could also help secure his legacy, even though that is not why he is doing it.
It's a tough question! I think Murray is both underrated and properly rated. He is clearly very talented, but I also feel like, he has the physical talent to be better than 2-8 in slam finals. Maybe Lendl will help. I am a huge Novak fan, but I think Murray, should have snuck in at least one slam in the last couple of years. At least, he is taking a set in slam finals recently, which you couldn't say pre-Lendl. I think Murray's pro-feminism stance (which I find commendable) could also help secure his legacy, even though that is not why he is doing it.
Come off it on Murray being the same as Roddick Murray still playing & won more than Roddick todate.I think people post without thinking or looking into what's been won.
Roddick 5 Masters
Murray 12 Masters
that's just 4 starters,come on guy's
Roddick 5 Masters
Murray 12 Masters
that's just 4 starters,come on guy's
Front242
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 23,019
- Reactions
- 3,969
- Points
- 113
sid said:
Roddick played against prime Federer who denied him so many trophies. He made a very valid point actually. Murray only faced prime Federer for a very short while and yet has still been spanked by him in Federer's near retirement years. For the record, in his current state though, Federer has no chance of beating Murray.
Fiero425
The GOAT
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2013
- Messages
- 11,636
- Reactions
- 2,634
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Chicago, IL
- Website
- fiero4251.blogspot.com
sid said:
I guess you could call it an opinion! :cover
Roddick did become #1 for about a minute with that 1 major win! Murray's been nowhere close even with 2! Murray has the wins, Roddick has the notoriety! :nono :angel: :dodgy:Fiero425 said:sid said:
I guess you could call it an opinion! :cover
Murray's way better than Roddick's game,Murray's not just a big service there is more 2 his game.:huh::huh::huh:
Front242 said:
Ok let's play fair,just look @ the H2H v Roger with both guy's.Roger & Murray beat the big serve players with no trouble @tall.
Front242
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 23,019
- Reactions
- 3,969
- Points
- 113
Roddick's forehand in his prime was beast like. The problem with many tennis fans is short memories and they only remember the mere shell of his former self that Roddick was in his final years on tour when his forehand was nothing like in his prime. Federer's forehand and Nadal's have also declined an absolute ton from their prime years.
Fiero425
The GOAT
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2013
- Messages
- 11,636
- Reactions
- 2,634
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Chicago, IL
- Website
- fiero4251.blogspot.com
sid said:Fiero425 said:sid said:
I guess you could call it an opinion! :cover
Murray's way better than Roddick's game, Murray's not just a big serve. There is more to his game. :huh: :huh:
True enough, but if Murray doesn't do anything else, guess who has the bigger accomplishment at 1st glance? :nono
Fed/Nole/Nadal/Murray all get the serve back 90% of the time,once that happens Roddick was beat.Fed is still ranked 3 btw.