Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
min

Tennis 2017

Recommended Posts

Really gutted for him. He's provided many of my best sporting memories over the last 12 years or so. Lots of late nights / early mornings keeping track. A sad way to end - he's obviously in agony and shouldn't play at all in Australia - but what a legacy to leave!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lairdyfaeinverclyde said:

It was a privilege watching him during his career. A successful proud sporting Scotsman is hard to come by. An inspiration to his home town and gave Dunblane a reason to smile again. 

Agreed.

He has to be the most successful Scottish sportsman on a world stage. You could argue about Stephen Hendry who dominated snooker in the 1990s but snooker is not really a sport played all over the globe like tennis is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2019 at 7:19 PM, Caledonian Craig said:

Agreed.

He has to be the most successful Scottish sportsman on a world stage. You could argue about Stephen Hendry who dominated snooker in the 1990s but snooker is not really a sport played all over the globe like tennis is.

I think the only one that comes close is Chris Hoy, and even he says that Murray is more successful than him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lion Rampant said:

I think the only one that comes close is Chris Hoy, and even he says that Murray is more successful than him.

Chris Hoy. Fuckin' behave. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Slam_related_tennis_records

on that list he is pretty low surrounded by players I d not heard of in many cases. 

I think it was because relative to any other British player in such a long time he won majors and the Brit fest holy grail a British Wimbledon winner. But take that UK angle out and ask did he achieve more in his sport than a Chris Hoy? I don’t know.

Edited by thplinth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thplinth said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Slam_related_tennis_records

on that list he is pretty low surrounded by players I d not heard of in many cases. 

I think it was because relative to any other British player in such a long time he won majors and the Brit fest holy grail a British Wimbledon winner. But take that UK angle out and ask did he achieve more in his sport than a Chris Hoy? I don’t know.

What players have you not heard of? 

I don't think you being ignorant on the history of tennis is really relevant to how much he has achieved tbh. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Laurence Doherty    NP    NP    5–1    1–0    6–1 1902–1906 (5)
New Zealand Anthony Wilding    2–0    NP    4–1    NP    1906–1913 (8)
United States Don Budge    1–0    1–0    2–0    2–1    1937–1938 (2)
Australia Frank Sedgman    2–1    0–1    1–1    2–0    5–31949–1952 (4)
United States Tony Trabert    0–0    2–0    1–0    2–0    5–0 1953–1955 (3)
France Jean Borotra    1–0    1–2    2–3    0–1    4–6 1924–1931 (8)
Argentina Guillermo Vilas    2–1    1–3    0–0    1–0   4–4 1977–1979 (3)
United States Jim Courier    2–0    2–1    0–1    0–1   4–31991–1993 (3)
United Kingdom Reginald Doherty    0–0    0–0    4–1    0–1    4–21897–1900 (4)
United States Frank Parker    0–0    2–0    0–0    2–2    1944–1949 (6)
Australia Lew Hoad    1–1    1–0    2–0    0–1    1956–1957 (2)
Australia Ashley Cooper    2–0    0–0    1–1    1–1    1957–1958 (2)
United States Robert Wrenn    0–0    0–0    0–0    4–1    4–1 1893–1897 (5)
Spain Manuel Santana    0–0    2–0    1–0    1–0    4–0 1961–1966 (6)
United Kingdom Andy Murray    0–5    0–1    2–1    1–1    3–8 2012–2016 (5)
United States Bill Johnston    0–0    0–0    1–0    2–6    3–6 1915–1919 (5)
United Kingdom Arthur Gore    0–0    0–0    3–5    0–0    3–5 1901–1909 (9)
Czechoslovakia/Egypt Jaroslav Drobný    0–0    2–3    1–2    0–0    1951–1954 (4)
Australia Gerald Patterson    1–3    0–0    2–1    0–0     3–4 1919–1927 (9)
Australia Neale Fraser    0–3    0–0    1–1    2–0    1959–1960 (2)
United Kingdom Wilfred Baddeley    0–0    0–0    3–3    0–0 –3 1891–1895 (5)
Australia Norman Brookes    1–0    0–0    2–2    0–0    3–2 1907–1914 (8)
United States Bobby Riggs    0–0    0–1    1–0    2–1    1939–1941 (3)
Czechoslovakia Jan Kodeš    0–0    2–0    1–0    0–2    1970–1973 (4)
United States Arthur Ashe    1–1    0–0    1–0    1–1    1968–1975 (8)
United States Ellsworth Vines    0–0    0–0    1–1    2–0    3–1 1931–1932 (2)
United States Jack Kramer    0–0    0–0    1–0    2–1    1946–1947 (2)
Australia Adrian Quist    3–1    0–0    0–0    0–0    1936–1948 (13)
Switzerland Stan Wawrinka    1–0    1–1    0–0    1–0    2014–2016 (3)
Australia James Anderson    3–0    0–0    0–0    0–0    3–0 1922–1925 (4)
Brazil Gustavo Kuerten    0–0    3–0    0–0    0–0    1997–2001 (5)

I heard of five of the above including Murray and Bobby Riggs who I think I know coz he challenegd Billie Jean King for being pish when he was an old man. oh maybe six... I am not a tennis fan but will murray not be the same with the passage of time.

edit: these were just the names immediately above and below Murray on the list.

Edited by thplinth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, thplinth said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Slam_related_tennis_records

on that list he is pretty low surrounded by players I d not heard of in many cases. 

I think it was because relative to any other British player in such a long time he won majors and the Brit fest holy grail a British Wimbledon winner. But take that UK angle out and ask did he achieve more in his sport than a Chris Hoy? I don’t know.

According to this list he's the 39th most successful men's player to ever play tennis. I'd say that's pretty good!

That list is flawed as a measure of overall success though as it has many players from an era that just isn't comparable to today's game. It also doesn't include other titles, ranking, Olympic Golds etc.

It also neglects the fact that everyone is aware of in that Andy was in the most difficult generations ever.

You're also missing the obvious in the fact that injury (if he indeed retires) has cost him around 30% of his career and potentially his prime, missing out on more GrandSlams. I'm confident he would have added another 2 had he stayed fit.

I'm sure an algorithm could be done taking into account all factors, and I'd guess it would have Andy in the top 15 male players ever.

Scotland's most successful sportsman by absolute miles!

 

Edited by dezmondo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, dezmondo said:

According to this list he's the 39th most successful men's player to ever play tennis. I'd say that's pretty good!

That list is flawed as a measure of overall success though as it has many players from an era that just isn't comparable to today's game. It also doesn't include other titles, ranking, Olympic Golds etc.

It also neglects the fact that everyone is aware of in that Andy was in the most difficult generations ever.

You're also missing the obvious in the fact that injury (if he indeed retires) has cost him around 30% of his career and potentially his prime, missing out on more GrandSlams. I'm confident he would have added another 2 had he stayed fit.

I'm sure an algorithm could be done taking into account all factors, and I'd guess it would have Andy in the top 15 male players ever.

Scotland's most successful sportsman by absolute miles!

 

Yes I don't think you can put too much credence on the tennis titles won prior to the open era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Toepoke said:

Yes I don't think you can put too much credence on the tennis titles won prior to the open era.

Exactly. 

 

32 minutes ago, dezmondo said:

According to this list he's the 39th most successful men's player to ever play tennis. I'd say that's pretty good!

That list is flawed as a measure of overall success though as it has many players from an era that just isn't comparable to today's game. It also doesn't include other titles, ranking, Olympic Golds etc.

It also neglects the fact that everyone is aware of in that Andy was in the most difficult generations ever.

You're also missing the obvious in the fact that injury (if he indeed retires) has cost him around 30% of his career and potentially his prime, missing out on more GrandSlams. I'm confident he would have added another 2 had he stayed fit.

I'm sure an algorithm could be done taking into account all factors, and I'd guess it would have Andy in the top 15 male players ever.

Scotland's most successful sportsman by absolute miles!

 

Excellent post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Toepoke said:

Yes I don't think you can put too much credence on the tennis titles won prior to the open era.

That is bullshit. Time and place. You are effectively stripping them of their titles or demoting them to lesser titles. It is like these wankers who talk about the premier league era.

edit: oops not you personally Mr Poke. (I am a rude cunt these days for sure, apologies to all)

Edited by thplinth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thplinth said:

That is bullshit. Time and place. You are effectively stripping them of their titles or demoting them to lesser titles. It is like these wankers who talk about the premier league era.

edit: oops not you personally Mr Poke. (I am a rude cunt these days for sure, apologies to all)

No offence taken. I also dislike the historical revisionism of inferring that the start of the EPL was football's year zero, because it ignores decades of competitive professional sport.

The idea that Andy Murray is not as great a player in history as William Renshaw because he won Wimbledon 7 times is patently ridiculous.  They may haved played the same game but they were completely different sports. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tennis is a far different sport now than it was even 20 to 25 years ago. Racquet technology for a start and players now are far fitter and need to be to be able to compete at the highest level. The art of returning serve has improved immensely as well. Looking back to the days of William Renshaw there is no real comparison. Wimbledon was almost akin to a UK title back then as the majority of the players competing were British.

It is easy for folk who are not real tennis fans to look at Murray's career and say 'Pffft why the fuss? He ONLY won three slams.' That does him a massive disservice. Three slam titles in an era where three of the greatest players of all-time have been playing in the form of Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic. Lest we forget Murray has also been runner-up in a slam eight times. In those eight finals it is only Federer, Nadal or Djokovic who have denied him the title. He is also only one of nine players in tennis history to have made the final of all four slam finals on three different surfaces. Also do not downplay the feat of two Olympic Gold Medals. Do not fall into the silly category of football fans claiming olympic title means Jack to tennis players. Novak wept missing out on a gold medal and Federer is so desperate for a singles gold and has said it time and again. And then there is his exploits in the Davis Cup where I do believe he holds the record for most rubbers won in a Davis Cup campaign the year GB won it. On top of that there is the ATP World Finals title he won which is much sought after and the kudos of being world No 1 for 37 weeks. I think career match wins is a more accurate way of judging where he stands amongst the all-time greats. Of singles players primarily he stands in 15th place on the list. 

It is very fair to say had Murray been playing in the late 1990's early 2000s he would have won many more slams than he has now. If he is to retire now he can go with his head held high as he has done himself and Scotland proud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like greatness in boxing.

 

Duran lost to SRL,Hagler and Hearns but is a greater boxer than all of them, cause context matters.

As they say in cycling when you win a tournament "who came 2nd"? To judge the quality of the win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×