- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 9,734
- Reactions
- 5,080
- Points
- 113
Andy Murray's next Slam title (#4) will be a big one, at least as far as all-time rankings and consideration goes, or to those nerdy types like myself who care about such things!
Anyhow, here's my reasoning. Andy has three Slams now, which ties him with Jan Kodes and Gustavo Kuerten, just behind four-Slam winners Guillermo Vilas and Jim Courier and ahead of the many two-Slam winners. Like so:
6 Slams: Becker, Edberg
4 Slams: Vilas, Courier
3 Slams: Andy Murray, Kuerten, Kodes, Ashe
2 Slams: Smith, Nastase, Kriek, Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Hewitt, Safin, Wawrinka
Slams titles aren't everything, but they are the main badge of greatness - I think that is pretty widely accepted. But everything else matters, especially, in rough order: year-end #1 and weeks at #1, other big titles like tour finals and Masters, as well as other rankings, Slam results, minor titles, etc.
For awhile now Andy has ranked as the best in his "Slam tier." When he won his first he was probably the best single-Slam winner, or among the very best. When he won his second he stood out above the rest, or at least close to Nastase who is certainly now (again) the greatest two-Slam winner of the Open Era. Among his current group of two-Slam winners, Andy and Ashe are close and they're both way ahead of Kodes and Kuerten, who aren't as good as some of the two-Slam guys (especially Kodes).
So here's the thing. If and when Andy wins his fourth, he not only surpasses everyone below him--both because of his four Slam titles but the strength and depth of the rest of his record--but I think he becomes the best of the four-Slam winners. Vilas ranks higher than Courier, in my view, with a much deeper resume. Courier has the #1, but Vilas has everything else (and should have a #1). Andy's overall record is superior to both, even though he doesn't have the #1.
So just one more Slam title and he not only separates himself from Ashe, but surpasses Courier and Vilas and puts himself as the best player of the Open Era with less than 6 Slams and, I think, possibly able to join the next group: Edberg, Becker, and Wilander (who despite winning one more Slam than the other two, has an overall lesser resume), what we could call the first tier of true greats. John Newcombe also belongs in his group, but is a bit harder to rank as he played in the 60s and 70s, but I'd probably rank him above Wilander but below Becker and Edberg.
What would Andy need to catch and surpass these three? Well, all three have something that Andy doesn't: a #1 ranking, even if only for a few weeks like Becker. Becker has three year-end titles and two WCT titles, and Edberg has the one year-end final and of course those two year-end #1. Wilander has a year-end #1, but no tour finals and overall inferior record. So to pass these guys, I'd say he needs to either:
Win 6 Slams or
Win 5 Slams and a WTF and get the #1 ranking, at least for a week
He probably doesn't have a chance of getting to the next tier: Agassi, McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, and Borg.
In summary, here is where I see Andy currently ranking among the greats of the Open Era. These include the entire careers of the players who played both before and during the Open Era, as well as Pro, Amateur, and Open Era Slams (understanding that the first two are not as potent as the last):
1. Laver (19)
2. Federer (17)
3. Rosewall (23)
4-6. Nadal (14), Sampras (14), and Djokovic (12) in some order (not wanting to touch this now
7. Borg (11)
8. McEnroe (7)
9. Lendl (8)
10. Connors (8)
11. Agassi (8)
12. Becker (6)
13. Edberg (6)
14. Newcombe (7)
15. Wilander (7)
16. Vilas (4)
17. Courier (4)
18. Murray (3)
19. Ashe (3)
20. Nastase (2)
Or something like that. I think it could be argued that he should be ahead of Courier (although not Vilas...yet), or behind Ashe.
Now if Andy wins #4, he jumps ahead of Courier and Vilas to #16. If he wins a 5th AND is #1 AND a year-end final, I'd probably put him ahead of Wilander and Newcombe to #14. If he wins a 6th (in addition to #1 and the WTF), I'd put him ahead of those two at #12. If he has 6 and only the #1, it will be hard to differentiate him from those two. If he only has 6 and not the #1 or WTF, I'd keep him at #14.
p.s. I'm re-working a system I use for ranking players, so once I get that settled I'll post an updated list with their point values.
Anyhow, here's my reasoning. Andy has three Slams now, which ties him with Jan Kodes and Gustavo Kuerten, just behind four-Slam winners Guillermo Vilas and Jim Courier and ahead of the many two-Slam winners. Like so:
6 Slams: Becker, Edberg
4 Slams: Vilas, Courier
3 Slams: Andy Murray, Kuerten, Kodes, Ashe
2 Slams: Smith, Nastase, Kriek, Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Hewitt, Safin, Wawrinka
Slams titles aren't everything, but they are the main badge of greatness - I think that is pretty widely accepted. But everything else matters, especially, in rough order: year-end #1 and weeks at #1, other big titles like tour finals and Masters, as well as other rankings, Slam results, minor titles, etc.
For awhile now Andy has ranked as the best in his "Slam tier." When he won his first he was probably the best single-Slam winner, or among the very best. When he won his second he stood out above the rest, or at least close to Nastase who is certainly now (again) the greatest two-Slam winner of the Open Era. Among his current group of two-Slam winners, Andy and Ashe are close and they're both way ahead of Kodes and Kuerten, who aren't as good as some of the two-Slam guys (especially Kodes).
So here's the thing. If and when Andy wins his fourth, he not only surpasses everyone below him--both because of his four Slam titles but the strength and depth of the rest of his record--but I think he becomes the best of the four-Slam winners. Vilas ranks higher than Courier, in my view, with a much deeper resume. Courier has the #1, but Vilas has everything else (and should have a #1). Andy's overall record is superior to both, even though he doesn't have the #1.
So just one more Slam title and he not only separates himself from Ashe, but surpasses Courier and Vilas and puts himself as the best player of the Open Era with less than 6 Slams and, I think, possibly able to join the next group: Edberg, Becker, and Wilander (who despite winning one more Slam than the other two, has an overall lesser resume), what we could call the first tier of true greats. John Newcombe also belongs in his group, but is a bit harder to rank as he played in the 60s and 70s, but I'd probably rank him above Wilander but below Becker and Edberg.
What would Andy need to catch and surpass these three? Well, all three have something that Andy doesn't: a #1 ranking, even if only for a few weeks like Becker. Becker has three year-end titles and two WCT titles, and Edberg has the one year-end final and of course those two year-end #1. Wilander has a year-end #1, but no tour finals and overall inferior record. So to pass these guys, I'd say he needs to either:
Win 6 Slams or
Win 5 Slams and a WTF and get the #1 ranking, at least for a week
He probably doesn't have a chance of getting to the next tier: Agassi, McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, and Borg.
In summary, here is where I see Andy currently ranking among the greats of the Open Era. These include the entire careers of the players who played both before and during the Open Era, as well as Pro, Amateur, and Open Era Slams (understanding that the first two are not as potent as the last):
1. Laver (19)
2. Federer (17)
3. Rosewall (23)
4-6. Nadal (14), Sampras (14), and Djokovic (12) in some order (not wanting to touch this now
7. Borg (11)
8. McEnroe (7)
9. Lendl (8)
10. Connors (8)
11. Agassi (8)
12. Becker (6)
13. Edberg (6)
14. Newcombe (7)
15. Wilander (7)
16. Vilas (4)
17. Courier (4)
18. Murray (3)
19. Ashe (3)
20. Nastase (2)
Or something like that. I think it could be argued that he should be ahead of Courier (although not Vilas...yet), or behind Ashe.
Now if Andy wins #4, he jumps ahead of Courier and Vilas to #16. If he wins a 5th AND is #1 AND a year-end final, I'd probably put him ahead of Wilander and Newcombe to #14. If he wins a 6th (in addition to #1 and the WTF), I'd put him ahead of those two at #12. If he has 6 and only the #1, it will be hard to differentiate him from those two. If he only has 6 and not the #1 or WTF, I'd keep him at #14.
p.s. I'm re-working a system I use for ranking players, so once I get that settled I'll post an updated list with their point values.
