How Good Was PRIME Andy Murray Actually?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 сер 2024
- How Good Was PRIME Andy Murray Actually?
During the late 00s and for the most part of the 2010s, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Novak Djokovic dominated the sport emphatically but there was a 4th man who refused to go away despite falling short on many occasions
Inspired by How Good Is Carlos Alcaraz, Really?...
SUBSCRIBE: bit.ly/tennisp...
SUBSCRIBE: bit.ly/tennisp...
For copyright matters relating to our channel please contact us directly at : luxurypluschannel@gmail.com
#andymurray #murray #tennis
The terrible thing is that he's going to be underrated historically due to his competition. He was clearly the fourth best guy but the gap between Murray and 5th place was also massive. Absolute warrior.
I think he is overrated. That's why so many wildcard he recive. Yes, and because he is english
@@milanjelovac9593 not even English….
@@milanjelovac9593 šta pričaš? lik je bukvalno predobar. 14 mastersa, svetski broj 1, finala svakog slema, dva zlata na olimpijadi. Lik je bukvalno uzeo sve što se moglo uzeti sem australije i pariza, gde je igrao mnoga finala. prebrz je bio na terenu, i fantastičan teniski iq je imao. a to što misliš da ne zaslužuje wildcardove je najgluplji razlog svih vremena. lik je bukvalno urnisao koga je stigao sem velike trojke, a cak je i njih redovno prao
@@kotzkica Opuštemo. Rekao sam svoje mišljenje, ne znam što te toliko pogadja.
@@kotzkica staviti ga kao big 4 uz ostalu 3 je ipak previše
His Davis Cup victory was ridiculous… basically won a team competition on his own. And I remember how exhausted he was by the end of that season. Absolutely incredible heart.
Andy was the man who was closest to gettting THE GOLDEN SLAM. Just 3 games away from accomplishing the most prestigious accomplishment in tennis. He deserves so much praise.
In 2012 murray was ridiculous, the way he was smacking his backhand was unbelievable
And 2013.. until his injury.
He was the best in 2016 when he beat all comers at the Tour finals, including Djokovic and Wawrinka. He has been underrated.
At their bests I believe Murray's backhand was statistically more effective than Djokovic's
@@FredKirk-vi2rpDjokovic had a superior down the line backhand but Murray was unmatched with the cross court side
@@mitchhills47472016 he was the best on the tour, it’s a shame his body couldn’t handle it
He was good enough to be djokovics toughest challenge on hardcourts and grass during Novak’s prime years between 2011-16. That’s how good. As a djokivic fan I was always more scared of Murray and wawrinka then I was of nadal and fed. Except at the French open then obviously nadal, but that’s it
Stan Wawrinka also had three major titles, but he and Murray didn't have the staying power of the other three!!
@@philthompson5907 Both were way too injury prone. Otherwise they would have stayed consistent
Nadal was the toughest rival of Novak on hard courts during his peak years (2010-2016). Nadal leads the H2H over Djokovic at the US Open 2-1. Murray doesn't lead the H2H over Novak on any Slam on hard. Djokovic's peak started the last months of 2010 when he beat Federer in the USO 2010 in 5 sets, just like he beat Federer in 5 sets at the USO 2011. At the USO 2009, Djokovic lost in 3 to Federer. So he peaked in late 2010. He wasn't non-peak just because he lost to Nadal in the final. It's not like Djokovic was non-peak the 31th of december of 2010 and suddenly became peak the 1st of Juanuary of 2011.
@@philthompson5907I have been a big fan of Stan. But it's just wrong to compare him with Murray... As far as staying is concerned, Murray's prime lasted from 2008 to 2017...
@@anjangogoi1513Warinka won the AO which Murray couldn't do in a million years.
We are so lucky to have experienced the Federer/Djokovic/Murray/Nadal era.
Each one of them would comfortably be number 1 in any other era, 4 astonishing talents at the same time led to the elevation of Tennis to an insane degree.
2012-2016 andy was incredible.. to be that successful in that 4 year period really is underrated
2010 Murray was a monster too, even if he didn't win a slam. Look back at him beating Federer multiple times, incredible world finals semi with Nadal, him being a beast at the Australian, etc. Most of his 2008- 2016, although streaky/ up & down at times, incredibly overlooked
That injury after getting to number 1 was devastating. 2016-17 he was the best in the world
He was almost unbeatable in 2016
@@oo0024 he would have won more if it wasn't for the hip. Probably dominated for a year or two. Now he's out there winning a title back into the top 50 again at age 35 built like RoboCop. Nothing left to prove but he's proving it anyway.
@@oo0024haha, lost djokovic 2 slam finals 2016 in his best year, the best years of big 3 was 3/4 slam win ,andy???
@@quangle6854show some RESPECT and GROW 🪴 Fast 😂
@@quangle6854 Then beat Djokovic in the final of the year end championships when they went head to head for the year end number 1.
He went toe to toe with by far the 3 greatest players of all time in their prime. Guys like Wawrinka and Del Potro had their moments but Murray was the only one consistently able to stay close to Big 3 in the rankings and I remember a few year stretch where every SF was basically Big 3 + Andy. This next generation have only recently been able to compete with past their prime Djokovic and Nadal. That says it all. Any other era and Murray would've won at least 8 slams, and if you dropped prime Murray in todays game he would probably win even more. Alcaraz, Medvedev, Zverev, Sinner, Tsitsipas... Prime Murray smokes them all
@@ybw7607 yes of this next generation of players - it also says they are rather weak - consistently unable to defeat any of the big three despite - none are as good as pre 2019 ISH
My opinion of most the new gen - they are not good at 5 set matches , and they all mostly play the same ( double backhands / hit hard from back court / big serve but mostly poor around the net )
While on the big three ; yes I'd agree they re great - in terms of longevity the all stand out . But put them up against the top 10 players from the 90 s in particular, using the same equipment - I'd seriously doubt they would have dominated like during the past 18 yrs .
E.g - on grass or hard court, I just couldn't see Djokovic or Nadal consistently beating Pete Sampras/ Agassi / Safin / Rafter / Courier / Chang / Ivanisivic/ Becker or Edburg
As for Federer , he would hold his own on the same perhaps ..
But cut most of their total slams by half I'd say
@@johnrenehan7406Agree they wouldn’t have been near as dominant with best 90s guys playing against them but cutting their slams in half is too much imo also. That’s like 30 slams lol. You forget that a lot of the time to win a slam ppl would have to beat 2 of them in the same tournament and even Agassi, Sampras and Becker would find that insanely tough. Big 3 would still be the best three players in any past era imo. I’d say take about 6 slams each off of all 3 max and that’d be more realistic outcome
@@jp92hellraiser hmmmm , I see it more like , yes if they played in among the best of that era - they ALSO - would need to beat each other PLUS most likely a Sampras an Agassi a Becker or a Chang or Courier - so , like for instance Djokovic s 2023 AO draw - which was 1 X top ten player faced ( Rublev ) out of 7 matches - the other 6 matches he played were mostly against players outside the top 50 ! So , now picture him facing an in form Becker second round - then , if he makes that he s got Jim Courier in round of 16 . Then Agassi in the semi ; and finally , with most of his mojo used up MAYBE norrowly defeating that bunch , he s then got to face Sampras in the final !!! Apply the same to the other two and - I'm sure you get my point ??
Thing is , I've seen all these players live & on the box ; and I look at Djokovic in 2023 , when he won 3 from 4 slams - winning at least 2 of those facing a bunch of guys most of us never heard of ; I'd be super confident that YES - YOU CAN CUT HIS SLAMS & probably the other two by at least half , no doubt.
This current era is super weak - if you find that hard to believe, read Tony Nadal s comments on the subject
He knows way more than you or I
@@johnrenehan7406 i think if the big three played in the 90s they would have won fewer slams for sure. I.e. if they played before the surface changes at a few of the slams. The big one being grass. Novak and Federer would have considerably fewer Wimbledons as the old surface really favoured the serve-volleyers so Becker and Sampras would still be favourites over them there imo. Hardcourt and clay i'm not as sure. Nadal is by far the best player I have ever seen on clay in thirty years watching tennis. Maybe Novak wouldn't have been so dominant on the old AO green surface (he won his first one in 2008, the year the change was made, and quite a few players noted a real change in speed). I think generally though the courts were faster than now and that suited guys that liked to play inside the court and come forward so would naturally have hurt a baseliner's chances
That said, i think if those 90s players played in the 2010s they wouldn't have won as much as they did. The change in the levels of physicality was massive and I'm not sure Chang would have fared well for example. I don't know if Agassi would have been the force he was either (especially given his off court stuff, you can't get away with that now). Generally though, In the late 2000s early-mid 2010s I think the number of 'big' guys consistently in the top 20 who played huge off the serve and forehand from the back of the court kinda showcased the type of player the new slower surfaces naturally favoured - Cilic, Delpo, Berdych, Soderling, Tsonga etc.. Basically, the only players ahead of them were a handful of super athletic/physically strong counter punchers and Federer who was just a kind of tennis savant with incredible talent.
Stan is a bit of an outlier because he was very inconsistent until he was almost thirty years old and was physically a bit smaller but was also super powerful and basically whacked the cover off the ball from the baseline lot of the time.... his main advantage was he could do it off both wings which made him much more dangerous when he finally go it together.
But I still think if it wasn't for the big 3 and Murray, the 2010s era would have been dominated by the massive hitters who ran round their backhands because their game really suited all surfaces at that point and their kryptonite wasn't an aggressive serve-volleyer but defensive baselines with the strength to use their power against them.
This guy made me appreciate tennis and understand the game better than anyone else could have. I have followed him since 2010 and have watched literally hundreds of his matches since then. I am now 24 and there is no doubt in my mind that he will always hold the title of my favourite athlete of all time. He makes me proud to be a Scotsman and brought me more joy than any other athlete could! Retire on your own terms, Andy. You've made us incredibly proud!
at his peak he was big 3 level, but what makes the big 3 so special is that they reigned for 3 decades and murray's body could not hold up for nearly that long.
If Murray had recovered like Djokovic did at the end of 2017 he would be top three right now easy
@@ryoshusuke2108 I agree. He would've had more slams for sure
He was never as good as big 3 post 2011. And he clearly not as good as Nadal or Federer pre-2011. Murray was incredible but not in the same class as Rafa,Roger and Novak.
@@luckyluke1503 in 2nd part of 2016 yes he was on the same level
@@Thomas-fr1jk Well Not Really. He got lucky in Wimbledon because Federer and Djokovic lost before Finals to Raonic and Querry and that’s why he won it. And in US Open he lost to Nishikori.
The Scot was such a monstruos defensive player. Imo, the speediest tall guy on tour, and incredibly patient. Too much of a pusher for me, but effective nonetheless.
@Chad Vindly 1.91 m
Pusher is such a terribly insulting term and does not go any way near assessing Murray's abilities....
People like Chang and Ferrer were pushers. Not Andy.
@@mitchhills4747 just because he's a pro, doesn't mean his style is an aggressive one. He keeps the ball in play ans seldom takes charge unless he gets a weak reply
@@MikacoolChang had more power for his size than Murray.He could beat Agassi from the baseline.
Not to forget that he is creating a new legacy now. What he is doing after his hip surgery is unreal and more notably what he is doing in 2023. I feel u could’ve included a part about his form this year too. He’s beating big players and can make it up the rankings again. 2023 could be a break through season for him again
I have all the respect in the world for him!
Nothing but respect for this man. Gritty and determined.
Best thing about Murray was his never say die attitude on the court + excellent stamina. Even hitting winners vs this man, would commonly come back at you, he will be remembered as one of the most active and fastest court players
I love Andy Murray and he is easily one of top 10 best players of this century, if not top 5. Unfortunately for him, he was born on the same age as the top 3 of all time. Although that's also the reason he is one of the best of this century. It was insane how those three push the levels of everyone, and only Murray closed the gap between them and everyone else.
He had THE best ever lob. Never seen anything like it since.
100% - if there's one thing you could say Murray is the goat at it would be that. Him or Leyton Hewitt
Serbia loves Andy Murray 💖🎾🏆
🇷🇸
No one can control how much natural ability they have but they can control his much effort they put in. Murray gave it everything he had
The most underrated player of all time. His achievements in the best era are remarkable
Had the best hands of all the top 4 for me, his shot making was ridiculous, especially his lobs and drop shots
The most exciting player to watch,if wasn’t for the big three he could of won so much,look how many slam finals he was in,but a three slam winner,two Olympic golds,a knighthood and world no1 ,the boy did good,had so many shots serve,lob,drop etc sadly I think we’ve seen the best of him wich is sad,but so good for the game
The curse of playing with the big 3 is a fair shout but it probably forced him to be better, though I'm sure he would've won many more slams if we was playing 10 years earlier/later.
But one thing for me, the gulf between Andy and #5 (and the rest) was massive. So glad he is still playing and getting some of the appreciation he deserves now
It isnt playing against the big three on the ATP Tour you know somewhat.😊
Good point
In the history books in a few decades, the big 3 will of course be remembered as the greatest 20 year period of tennis ever. The truly remarkable achievement of having the three greatest players to ever play a sport competing against eachother every month of every year may never again be replicated in any sport. I hope that the history books will also remember how far superior they were to every single other player on tour- except for Wawrinka, Del Porto and Murray. But of these three players, Murray from 2009-2016 was the only player year in year out remotely close to the big 3 levels, and capable of beating them. As others have commented, the tragedy of Murrays career is that in 2016 he genuinely was the best player in the world- having won wimbledon, the olympics and beating Djokovic in the ATP Finals. I think he was easily robbed of another 2-3 grand slams had his form continued. Still, anyone who watched tennis during the period remembers how good Murray was, rated highly by all of his competition and contemporaries (just watch Djokovic, Nadal & Federer talk about him). He's comfortably a top 10 tennis player of all time in my book, and probably an 8+ grand slam winner in any other era.
At his peak I would rank his skills physical first, then technical, and then mental. However now I would say the opposite.
Another good video, always happy to see Andy get some love
Andy Murray is one of the most underrated players ever.
I think the big 3 made Murray play better and up his level in the slams his injury problems seemed to start after 2016 🎾
Andy Murray, the most unfortunate man in tennis history. If he was born in any other generation than that of the big three, he would have become an all-time great. Truly a mere mortal amongst Gods.
either your good or your not end of story
Murray had a few iffy moments in slam finals but he did well to get 3 and was brilliant up until late 2016 / early 2017 and scarily was only getting better. The man was no 1 in the world and then his hip went. It was so sad. Never the same player afterwards and now he’s gone and we miss him already.
Substantial injuries holted his career twice, at pivotal points in his career, and there is no doubt other benefited from that.
An amazing player, that made me fall in love with tennis again, a huge loss to the game
Lendle took him from a very good player , to a great one - no doubt about that
Being the 4th best player of his generation is still some going when you consider the 3 above him. But 3 GS feels measly for how good he was
Three slams,two Olympic golds,Davis cups,various titles and world no 1 and a knighthood defo in the big four without a doubt
At his very best he was the 4th best tennis player in history imo (Based on level of play) I personally feel he would of beaten players like Agassi and sampras a lot more than they would of beaten him.
4 th best in history , not sure about that - but he would have held his own pretty true
It took the three GOATS to to stop him winning the 4 slams at least once. Its like Maurice Greene being in the same race as Usain Bolt, Yohan Blake and Tyson Gay.
Thanks. The big 3 have dominated tennis in a way I don't think has a historical equal. I have a spreadsheet, which has the winners of the 4 majors from 2003 (Federer's 1st major win) through the present. Just to put into perspective how insane the chart looks, here are the stats for those 20 years (so far):
The Big Three [Federer, Nadal, & Djokovic]: 64 majors (20, 22, & 22 respectively) 80.00%
The Other Two [Murray & Wawrinka]: 6 majors (3 each) 7.50%
EVERYBODY ELSE ON EARTH: 10 majors (but only 1 each) 12.50%
In other words, the top 5 players have won 70 out of the 80 majors in that time. The "other two" are leagues behind the "big three", and nobody else has even managed to win 2 in that stretch. Now Federer has retired, injuries may have finally caught up with Nadal, & Djokovic isn't getting younger. Andy & Stan are well past there prime. We're soon to see a passing of the torch. I doubt any small group of players will ever be able to completely control the majors to the extent these guys have done. It's just totally nuts to even think about it. But it'll be fun to watch. tavi.
I think just looking at majors skews the picture though. Murray was miles above Wawrinka.
If you look at other tournaments, and world rankings, I’d guess that makes it clear.
Yep he won way more masters titles / reached way more slam and masters finals too....plus olympics golds and Number 1 etc@@Whiteeyy1
Better to do it from ~2009 once Djoko and Murray were properly established too. I think from 2009 to 2017 it's probably more like 87% 10% 3% split !!
Andy Murray is seriously underrated. he shared the primes of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. just imagine how difficult it must be to win majors against these guys. was there another accomplished player in history facing a more difficult era?
Murray is an amazing player and fighter. Idk what people have against him
He's too defensive and has a grumpy personality.
@@jacktaylor9290 Defence is necessary. One of the most defensive players out there is no less than Djokovic after all.... and Murray isn't grumpy; just competitive!
its the way he starts crying and whinging and fist pumps every point he wins, big deal
@@mikejones-tf6zo believe what you want buddy. you know deep down that it’s not true
Looking at how great murray was also shows how ridiculous good the big 3 were. Murray couldv won lots of grandslams easily if it wernt for the big 3. He literally has all the skills fitness and mentality, the gap between him and below top 5 were huge but the big 3 were just different
At his best, he was the best in the world. 2016 he was clearly the best player.
Without injury - capable of beating the top 3 on his day
I love Andy Murray - one of the GOATs.
His transition game was underrated
He is a class above the rest during the era of the big 4 with his olympics titles and 3 GS & multiple finals but below the GOATs.
In the history of atp tour i would evaluate his prime to a prime Agassi level
I wouldnt say class above Wawrinka. Definently a better player, but prime Stan was a beast. Too bad he couldnt really show what he can do at Olympic level at his peak because a beast named Federer is also Swiss. He won 3 Grand slam titles, and that match against Đoković at Roland Garros in 2015 is one of the best matches I have seen someone play against Novak, especially cause that was prime Novak, in 2015 he was dominating everyone.
@@mihailopavlovic2027 True peak Wawrinka beats Murray but I pick Murray overall because he is more consistent and has won more titles. Wawrinka game matches up well against djokovic but not against Federer or Nadal
When prime Murray was playing with the big 3 tennis was on another level
Take a look at the year end top 10 rankings in these years where the level was quite high I think
2009: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro, Davydenko, Roddick, Soderling, Verdasco, Tsonga
2013: Nadal, Djokovic, Ferrer, Murray, Del Potro, Federer, Berdych, Wawrinka, Gasquet, Tsonga
2014: Djokovic, Federer, Nadal, Wawrinka, Nishikori, Murray, Berdych, Raonic, Cilic, Ferrer
@@tingyenahkee1447 No no, I agree Murray's career is better overall, no question, I have just said it's not that huge of a difference. True, Wawrinka's explosive tennis was a great matchup for Novak, but not so much for Rafa or Roger. I just think Stan gets really underrated nowadays, he was a beast in his prime, but overall Murray > Wawrinka career wise
In his prime, Murray was an incredibly consistent player, reaching 11 slam finals.
His problem, of course, is that he always ran into 1 or 2 of the Big 3 and rarely seemed to be able to maintain his top level against them for an entire match. He'd often be as strong (or better) than his Big 3 opponents for long periods, but then throw in a dodgy couple of games and the set was effectively gone.
As has been mentioned, his 2nd serve was always a big problem when he wasn't quite firing on all cylinders.
It's about mindset and endurance, if he was the best "human" player alive, then the big
3 were "Gods" or "Aliens".He often lost his cool against the big 3, that's why Roger always toys with him in a GS. He got destroyed by Nadal because his playstyle is basically like
a younger Nadal, a counterpuncher but passive. However Rafa developed a stronger forehand over the years, and he became an aggressive counterpunch.
Murray could beat Rafa when he played aggressively, but he rarely does it. His mindset is stuck on outmaneuvering Nadal which is never gonna work.
Then against Djokovic, he actually came really close to DJoker at one point, both rising stars coming into the league, and both reached the top 5 in 2 years. If you remembered correctly, Murray actually gave Novak a run for his money around that 2012~2013 time zone. Beat him twice in a GS final, and took him to the fifth set in 2012 AO, Novak's absolute prime. The only difference is mental and physical endurance IMO, the injuries came to him pretty soon unlike Djokovic, and he couldn't come back every year like Nadal
did.
@@Leo-nc3yx He did beat Nadal on clay though.....
isn't murrary the poundland of the big 3
I always find it interesting how the big 3 and Murray are all in the same height zone, nadal and fed 6”1, Novak 6”2 and Murray 6”3
Also makes you wonder what they'd do in a street fight against these trolls and haters
Prime Murray is the only player that could compete with Djokovic! In terms of athleticism! When both of them faced each other you knew you was gonna see a fast paced game. 4th greatest player in history imo
I'm just glad he managed to win Wimbledon (twice, even!) and the Olympics. Especially the ones in 2012 in London. I'm a huge sucker for athletes winning in front of their home crowd.
See what's funny right - is that Murray wasn't the 4th best of the big 3 - he was the shadow 3rd best. Like he would go through spells of beating each of them, but not consistently and rarely back to back. And so when one of the big 3 would slip in form, they fall behind Murray who was the GOAT of consistently "good enough"
2x Olympic gold, Davis cup, world number 1, 2x Wimbledon, US Open, heaps of slam finals. A knighthood. Still on the tour. Millions banked. I wouldn’t have many demons…❤
Probably the 4th best player to date
If he didn't have a body made of glass and in any other era he would have been the top player and by a massive margin too.
Murray had relentless drive, gave absolutely everything he had every game he played
National treasure 🏴🏴🏴
Murray was just unfortunate that every time he got to a slam final he had to face one of the GOAT's who'd already won serveral slams - something none of the other three had to do. That bit of confidence that comes from being a slam winner took him much longer to acquire so cost him several slams. By 2016 however he was there - he was the best player of all of them on grass, he was the second best behind Novak on hard, and the third best behind Rafa/Novak on clay. He should have experienced a few glory years winning a slam or two a year but once again he was unlucky as his hip gave up.
Still gotta thank him for what he gave us which was some great tennis, and plenty of excitement - the guy wears his heart on his sleeve and gives 110%. His best aspect was mental through his whole career, he won because other players knew he would grind them down and they would eventually lose. In his prime that meant they tended to hit out because they didn't want to grind and that just played into his hands with his excellent defensive skills.
Don't forget he also won 2 Olympic golds
He was awesome. An absolutely awesome player. Unfortunately his prime was cut short by injury.
If he hadn't had his hip go I think he would have won more slams. When he reached world No.1 it was fully deserved - he was the best player in the mens' game at that point.
It's still an illustrious career though:
46 Singles titles
3 Slams
2 Gold medals
1 Silver mixed doubles medal
1 Davis Cup
Record number of Queens titles.
What he's doing now, at his age, with a metal hip - is just as impressive in a different way. To be even competing at this point is a major achievement; he's paved the way for future athletes in all sports.
Superb.
Top 10 of all time I'd say. An excellent player but not a complete player. Had weaknesses that the Big 3 were consistently able to exploit.
I would rank him about 12 in all time. Injury aside could've been top eight
Consistently? His record vs Federer is lost 14 won 11. I'd hardly call that being dominated.
I would say he was a complete player but lacked that extra gear, which Djokovic and Nadal had, and which Federer never really needed because of his raw talent. I remember him having many tough battles against Djokovic, where he'd be extremely competitive for the first two sets, usually 1 set a piece, but would then gradually fall apart.
Technically, his main weakness was his second serve and his relatively average, by pro standards, forehand
Any other era,he would have 8 plus grand slams,better player than agassi, McEnroe,lendl,not far off sampras
When we say Big 3 , in a way it's injustice to Murray... He always went toe to toe with them ...
He's VERY FREAKING GOOD. Top guy tbh
Quick answer : Not as good as the big 3 but pretty much better than everyone else of that era.
Still the best lob in the game!
His problem was always his serve, that is the big difference between him and the big 3. His first serve would often go walkabout and his second serve was weak by ATP standards.
That in a way dictated his style. He is criticised for being too defensive but he had to defend that weak second serve. If you could go back and give Murray a better serve, he would have won far more.
Fair points but there have been times when Murray's serve has been brilliant. At the Olympics against Fed in the final for example. He hit loads of aces...
Totally agree first serve percentage too low too often and second serve too weak. But he still played to defensively, especially off the forehand wing. I'm a big Murray fan, but I can remember so many slams where he'd play super defensive in the early rounds because he could win that way against lesser players and then against the big three he'd be forced to play more aggressively and he just couldn't quite switch it on having not been hitting that way all tournament. Just occasionally he'd have a patch of playing more aggressively and in that mode he was a match for anyone on hard and grass. At his best he was very much on the same level as the big three on those two surfaces, with Rafa in his own category on clay, obviously. But he couldn't get in that mode often enough. He still made 11 slam finals, which is incredible, but I think his three slam titles is disappointing, I think his ability merited more like five or six slams.
That's a pretty fair summary.
I enjoyed this video right up to the point you showed David fecking Cameron.
Prime Stan was a beast too. Stan should get as much respect as Andy. :)
On his day, Stanimal was a beast, for sure. But Murray went deep into slams far, far more often than Stan and was ranked far higher for far longer. He's definitely a rung above Stand overall.
No way, he was prob tied with djokovic for best returner and backhand, and 4 sure had the best lob. I think he might have a couple deep runs in slams left.
Lol let's not go crazy. He's got a worse return and bh than Djokovic. If it was equal or better, he would have more titles
Murray has all time level backhand and return, but not quite on the level of Djokovic.
@@joshforde698 I feel like Murray's return is just a little bit more defensive than Djokovic's, but his backhand is more versatile, but he also uses it for defensive (probably too often)
@@M.L.official It's not crazy when you think about it, then how can he compete with the big 3 when his serve & forehand is obviously nowhere near any of them?
Murray's strong suit was always counterpunching, returns, and BH.
He got a superb lob, sadly it's not a big factor in games, he also is a more nature volleyer than Novak, and got a better touch.
If I gonna rank it as a game Novak's forehand is an 8~8.5, and Murray's is a 6~7.
I would say they both got a perfect score on BH, just like Roger & Rafa should get a
perfect score on the forehand. There's one thing into consideration, Andy never has the flexibility of Novak, which allows him to stretch in a none human way.
Plus endurance and mental are the 2 things that make Novak great, which Murray
didn't possess.
@@Leo-nc3yx I didn't say it was nowhere near, but it is worse. Sure on some tournaments his backhand has been better than Novak's, but if you take a full season, more often than not, Novak wins out.
If Murray retire, we got 2 guy, possibly three will emulate him. Norrie, Draper and Searle who just won junior Wimbledon title.
Very hip of him to recover and manage to return to the top 100.
Prime Murray is very good but not smart like the old Murray now 🫶🏻 prime Murray relied too much on his physical body , old Murray is more wiser , shot selection is way better , wish the prime Murray have the knowledge of the current Murray ❤
He felt blood in 2016 he went on some many tournaments just to get world number 1. And he did it with a price
I'm a fan of Andy Murray but it's completely nonsensical to put him on par with the big 3 as well as way above Stan the man. It's very clear for any pragmatist: big 3 are the big 3, and there's nobody else close, and next level are Andy followed by Stan and no one else close for their generation.
If you think Stan and Murray are on the same level, you don't know a thing about tennis. Would you like to compare their career accomplishments? The only thing Stan did in his career was get hot for 3 major tournaments. For everything else, he is miles behind Murray. Even Wawrinka admits it's an insult to Murray to compare them.
@@Macca15 the insult is to put Murray anywhere near the big 3. I simply said Murray is closer to Stan than he is to any of the big 3 which is a fact. Now, of course he has a leg up over Wawrinka but not far apart. Andy is #4, but calling it the "big 4" is outright ludicrous.
@@caioscofield You don't have a clue what you're talking about. It isn't even remotely close.
Murray: Year end number 1, 41 weeks at number 1, 2 Olympic singles golds, year end championships, 46 ATP tour titles, 14 Master Series titles, 11 major finals, 3 major titles.
Now let's do Stan's career: Career high of world number 3 (held only briefly), 16 ATP tour titles, 1 Masters Series title, 4 major finals, 3 major titles.
See the rather monumental difference? Now, let's hear what Stan said on the subject:
"To honest I think it's unfair to include me in all that because they are in a completely different league to me.
It's unfair on Andy. Those guys have been winning everything for fifteen years - Masters tournaments, year-end finals. Andy's won more than forty titles.
I've had four or five good years, and it's been amazing. But I am behind them. Ahead of other players maybe, but behind them."
@Macca15 you forgot to compare Andy to any of the big 3.
@@caioscofield Murray's achievements don't compare to the big 3. The point is he's in an entirely different league to Stan. You said they were close. They aren't. Objectively, Murray's career is infinitely superior to Stan's.
I always thought his defensive style went against him against the other three. Great player though.
I remember Murray playing even though he was emotional like Djoke. I really loved him. I am very sad about Djoke winning more gs than Fed and Nadal I would have much rather preferred Murray there
Really good, all you need to know how good is take a look at some matches from 2010-2015 insane high match play
Good enough to beat the Big3 29 times and beat the GOAT at least twice in a slam final, which only 2 others have done. Unfortunately his prime coincided with Nadal, Djokovic and Federer's (to a lesser extent) prime and they were just better, more talented players.
my children only remember him as the player who guards his character in Wimbledon bcos the Queen is there.
To say prime Andy Murray had "one of the best lobs in the game" is to say that prime Michael Jordan was "one of the greatest players of his era". Technically true but it misses just how insane his level was compared to the rest.
Good video, but a couple of minor issues with some facts. He was the first British male player to win a Grand Slam in 77 years. Also you can call us British people Brits. Briton is unnecessary, if sweet..
It's simple. Mury = GOAT
I have no doubt that if he hadn’t gotten hurt in 2017. The year djokovic was out. It would’ve been MURRAY getting those hardcourt and grass slams, and masters 1000 titles. Not federer
2017 australian open+ sunshine double + wimbledon FED beats every single version of Murray let’s not be dumb look at what he did to him in a worse shape at wimb 2015
I disagree, Murray was absolutely on fire in 2016, Djoko had fallen off, Nadal and Fed had been gone a while. Fed only won one Slam when all the other three were in their prime....Murray could have won at least another 2 slams if not for his hip.@@baptistelleshi1090 . Swap Murray for Federer for their ages / Eras and I dare say Murray would have more slams than Fed, as Murrary could have beaten Hewitt / Sampras / Agassi in slam Finals whereas evidently Federer wasn't quite as good as Nadal or Djoko...although still absolutely amazing ofcourse...
Is*
4:00 that was thailand not us open
It's always been the Big Four
He was like Djokovic, only slightly worse
You mention he supported women’s tennis but you say “he was Britain’s first grand slam winner since Fred Perry”.
No, we had female winners. You completely ignored women’s tennis
I think the mental side blocked Murray from turning a few more of those finals into GS wins. He was the least mentally stable of the big 4.
It was the big 4 mate
Could have been up there with 6 or 7 grandslams but for the other 3
IMO Murray lacked a really good FH and 2nd serve to go higher, he was as good as the Big 3 in every aspects of the game.
Tough to say “higher”, the guy was so much better than the fifth player on tour, whoever that was
12k atp!
The trouble was he had to beat one of the top 3 just to get in to the finals then beat another.
It doesn't matter what anyone says. When he won Wimbledon for the first time, he really was the smartest player in the world. Djokovic was humbled... in straight sets, no less... and it's not like the vaccine cheating new age science Jesus wannabe was injured or below his best, either. Andy Murray was simply the better player at that particular moment, and the best in the world, too.
In Djoko's defense he had an insanely gruelling match against Del Potro in the semifinals before he faced against Murray in that 2013 Wimbledon final, but Murray deserved that title more than anyone else. A well-deserved win against Verdasco, reached the final in 2012, played better in that 2013 Wimbledon tournament than anyone else, etc.
Also you have no right to call out someone especially an athlete on his or her decision to get vaccinated. It's not your body.
@@TheseHoesAreLoyalDjokovic also had an insanely grueling match v Murray at the Australian open semi final in 2012 and still went on to defeat Rafa in the final. So what's the difference?
I hate word 'underrated', its everywhere on UA-cam, mainly by Millennials, if they dont know it, then it must be underrated by default. Underrated on UA-cam is, well, overrated.
Remember when ppl said big 4
Murray compared to the Big Three, probably where he falls short is that he was arguably not better than all three of the others at anything. Second to Djokovic with the backhand, arguably second behind Federer with his hands & touch, probably just behind Djokovic for his speed and physicality, behind Djokovic for return, probably the worst forehand and arguably the worst serve.
But had the best lob shot
His volleys were better than Djokovics
@@robatkinson2125 Best lob for sure, but I'd include that in overall handskills, which Federer is the king of, better volleys than Djokovic, but not Federer.
Literally there is a video novak said that Murray the best backhand common in his prime he was returning everything 😂😂
@@mohammadsayed5631 Yes, Djokovic said that, because he's not going to say that his own backhand is the best (even though it is).
This video is extremely disrespectful! How could you forget the fourth man that consistently battled with the Big Three? If you don’t know how good Andy Murray was in his prime, you don’t know tennis. You’re probably newbie who grew up in the nextgen era post 2017
What 😂
The video is literally about Andy Murray?
british this british that. hes a scot and will always be a scot. just another example of the english trying to take something that was never theirs.
WOULD'VE BEEN THE GOAT IF NOT FOR THE BIG 3
Eh, love murray, but sampras, agassi, borg, etc were better. Murray is for sure top 15 of all time though
I would’ve been the goat if not for the big 7 billion
@@Divvy21 there was a simulation that thinks that he would have gotten 17 Slams if not for Big 3
His level might not be as high but the guy was not giving up
@@ekim4926 I think playing against the big 3 made Murray a better player IMO.
Acting like Stan wawrinka doesn’t exist
Not good enough to beat Federer and Nadal consistently. Still a very good player.
True…. But only the big 3 could consistently beat one another. The fact is Murray was the biggest challenge to them in his prime
His record against Federer is pretty good. Novak played him way more times than Roger and Rafa though.
Its unfortunate that they rigged the draws against him