• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Andy Murray

Andy Murray can have a face like a wet weekend for all I care.

However, those who saw him play and especially those who saw him win those Grand Slam tournaments witnessed one thing. A British champion in every sense of the word.

The rest is frankly irrelevant nonsense!
 
Looks like the finest tennis player this country has ever produced in about to retire. Sad news, the man has been an absolute sporting icon & legend.

In my mind the top man is Fred Perry, winner of eight grand-slams plus a World table-tennis champion ....... an absolute legend !
 
In my mind the top man is Fred Perry, winner of eight grand-slams plus a World table-tennis champion ....... an absolute legend !

A legend without a doubt, but it was a different era Kaymac. Perry would probably struggle to beat the juniors today.
 
A legend without a doubt, but it was a different era Kaymac. Perry would probably struggle to beat the juniors today.


Haha......nothing to do with it and a poor comparison as well you know. Remind me how many grand-slams Murray has won again ?
 
A legend without a doubt, but it was a different era Kaymac. Perry would probably struggle to beat the juniors today.

Perry played with wooden rackets, not the super fast ones they have to day, similar Borg all won with wooden rackets

Different era but quality of players were there, just could not beat them
 
Haha......nothing to do with it and a poor comparison as well you know. Remind me how many grand-slams Murray has won again ?

It's everything to do with it. Perry just could not have competed. Tennis players today are supreme athletes. Murray won 3, in the era of the greatest players there have ever been in the history of the game.
 
Futile argument from your side MKS, by your logic any sports champion of years past cannot possibly be as good as someone from the modern day.
 
Futile argument from your side MKS, by your logic any sports champion of years past cannot possibly be as good as someone from the modern day.

Not really as that's probably close to the truth for a lot of sports, especially (most of) the physical ones. Today's athletes are fitter and mentally tougher than those of yesteryear. They have to be to compete at the very top level.
 
Last edited:
Futile argument from your side MKS, by your logic any sports champion of years past cannot possibly be as good as someone from the modern day.
the best 'analysis' i've seen to try and compare across eras was in F1, where you can evaluate the relative performance of a driver against how they do against their teammate(s) who has (in theory) an identical car.

https://f1metrics.wordpress.com/2014/07/18/who-was-the-greatest-f1-driver/

Obviously for an individual based-sport you can't do this, but MK's point still holds. Nadal, Federer and Djokovic are (probably ) 3 of the top 10 of all time with Federer at least top 5. So the fact Murray has held his own in that era, winning 3 grand slams and coming second 6 times, suggests that while he may not be top 10, there's an argument he could be top 20. Especially considering the greater pool of professional tennis players that are in the sport in this generation, compared to previous.

The other way to look at it is the number of times the Big 4 have been represented in the men's GS final over the past 10 years.

So obviously there have been 40 Men's GS finals, One of the Big 4 has won 35 (87.5%). Incredibly, only one final has been played without any of the Big 4 involved. Their dominance is also extremely competitive. For Andy Murray to be considered as part of the Big 4 rather than a Big 3 is incredible.
 
I hadn't realized you could possibly be such an expert on the quality of tennis players back in the 1930's, Pubey, so do I cede this point to you having superior knowledge or merely say that you are being massively dismissive of the abilities of the champions (include FP) in those days?

As for the stats, tell me again, who won more grand slams??










.....
 
Back
Top