blonde poker forum

is the first player since Laver in 69 to hold the 4 grand slam events simultaneously

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CkNkVEDXEAAoe-U.jpg)

Murray meanwhile has won 2 of 8 grand slam finals, the lowest winning percentage ever of a player with over 7 final appearances

BUT

Murray has been favourite for none of them, in fact the shortest price has been as he walked out onto court for a grand slam final is 2.45


where would we rank Djokovic all time?

Goat. Played his whole career in the toughest era ever.  Greatest ever grass court player and greatest ever clay court player to compete against at their absolute peaks.  Murray in a different era is on boris or Egberg levels of slam wins.  Greatest player ever Murray with only two slam wins.

The guy is just a machine.  He breaks players mentally with his toughness. Murray looked spent after the first set yday even though he won it.  A more talented/all rounded version of Lendl with the same level of work ethic.

Completely agree with Arb. This eta has easily been the toughest with better athletes, equipment, sport science and he's emerged as the best. Feel for Murray. Had he been playing in the Henman years he'd probably have 6 or 7 majors.

The only slight i would put on him is 6 of his majors are the Aussie open when not all players are fully wound up at the start of the season but playing in an era of the goat grass/clay players this was probably always going to happen.

He has played 20 GS finals and only two of them were against a player not called Nadal, Fed or Murray.  One of the other two was when Wawrinka played the game of his life to beat him at the French.  Not too many 'soft' GS finals for djok in that list.  

Compare that to the list of Fed's final opponents in 27 GS finals when he was mopping up slams for fun in a much softer era in the early 2000's. His opponents in GS finals during his career include the all time greats of Mark Philippoussis, Safin, Roddick x 4, Hewitt, Marcos Baghdatis,  Fernando González,  Robin Söderling (a gift of a GS with Soderling bouncing massively after beating the GOAT on clay in the previous round), 35 year old virtually retired Agassi and del Potro.

Doubt many will agree but I used to enjoy the old Grand Slams more before the emergence of the big 4.  When you'd get winners like Thomas Johansson and Marat Safin.  Every slam would provide a new great hope who would promptly become average (eg Baghdatis/Roddick) or vanish completely (Verkerk/Joachim Johansson).

All seems a bit pointless these days.  Injury permitting Nadal/Fed/Murray smash up the other top 10 grinders before being annihilated by Djokovic in the final.    I guess I crave averageness!

Not sure I'd feel so bad for him.  He got an Olympic gold and pretty much won the Davis Cup by himself. 

Never get bored of watching true greatness no matter how much they destroy the competition.   I spent my youth watching Michael Jordan do the same in the NBA throughout the 90's destroying the dreams of numerous other top 50 players of all time winning a championship in their career.   Enjoy the greatness before it goes.  Taylor and Woods two other examples.   Golden State could easily become a modern day version of the MJ's 1990's Bulls in the NBA currently.  We have been truely blessed in the last 10-15 years sports wise as punters.

I get the argument but it's just not for me.  I prefer watching the golf slams more now with 5/6 top players rather than one undisputed goat who would win by 6+ shots.  Would rather watch Arsenal trying to unlock the door against Palace than watch Barca win 6-0 against Levante etc.  I think if greatest becomes so significant that there is no challenge then it loses the appeal.

I'd make Djokovic wear some kind of waistcoat made of concrete to slow him down if I had my way. :)

He does look a stone well in at times i would agree with that!

Massively agree with Dung on this, tennis is my favourite sport and I had a fantastic time during the earlier rounds but didn't bother watching the final yesterday. Same for every masters tournament in the lead up. Don't see the point in watching the same two players play each other week in week out, just find it tedious.

The courts have got much more similar, to my eye, over the last 15 years or so. Surely that lends itself more to allowing a good all-rounder to win more slams than it ever had before?

Fed changed his game from being a serve and volley guy to an all-rounder. Nadal is primarily a clay court player in style but his power from the back of the court worked on a slower Wimbledon surface. Should he really have won as many as he has?

I don't think you have to go far back to start asking questions. How would Roddick or Agassi have done today? What about Müster or Safin?

Although there are exceptions like Isner or Del Potro, the modern elite player has no major weaknesses but isn't known for a particular trait, other than the power of their groundstrokes. Sport needs diversity but money is King and having Djok/Fed/Nad/Murr/Waw every week on court is what the punters (and thus sponsors) want. So that's what we get.

Very true Tal and it's a shame.  Diversity of surface used to much greater.

Where does Murray rate in terms of all time? 

I was thinking yesterday before the match if he had won, he'd be up there for greatest Scottish sports star in my lifetime. 

Wouldn't be too hard to be fair lol

Diversity of surface is still huge.  It might not be as huge as it was but it is still pretty huge.  Think this is massively over rated because we are in a generation of players who are just in the discussion of the GOAT.   Roddick was always 500/1 to win the french when he was number 1 or 2 in the world.  He would still be 500/1 to win the french now at his best some players just cant win the french in any era.  Nothing has really changed.  

the thing that has changed is the bookies don't make the same ricks as they used to in the 1st round of Wimbledon.

I remember one year Costa (french open champ or finalist can't remember) v Canadian Greg lol brit first round of Wimbledon.  my firm went up 5/6 each of two stan james went up 1/5 Costa because of his clay form against a proven grass courter.  Those ricks don't happen anymore.

Djokovic the absolute Goat, just makes it look so easy.

I'm with other posters who prefer older eras for diversity though. Same for changing balls to make all games rally fests. Preferred Wimbledon with serve and volley as an example.

Even by your standards, that is a pretty silly post.

Without giving it too much thought:

Stephen Hendry - arguably the greatest snooker player of all time.
Kenny Dalglish - in the top 10 of anyone's all time greatest footballers
Jimmy Johnstone - genius
Bill Shankly
Fergie
Jim Clark
Jackie Stewart
David Wilkie
Jocky Wilson - capable of beating anyone on his day
Gavin Hastings
Andy Irvine
Ken Buchanan
Chris Hoy
Old and Young Tom Morris
Willie Carson

Enough to prove you wrong?

Not sure where muzz would go on that list tbh.

Other notables would be

Monty
Gary Anderson
John Higgins
Alan Hansen
Souness
Jim watt
Liz mccolgan
Allan wells
Ricky Burns - only ever three weight world boxing champ for Scotland
Archie gemmall get on this list???

No, a few of those I don't even consider sports people, so maybe only Kenny Dalgleish and Chris Hoy from that list.

pardon?

you are dismissing olympic gold medals swimmers and boxers, an all time great jockey, some of the best football managers, a birtish lions captain and grand slam winning rugby full back, three time F1 champion etc as not sports people?

Darts, snooker, jockeys, football mangers, racing drivers are not in the same category as proper athletes in my book. Can't really compare Andy Murray with those.

The original post was "sports star" and that widens the field a lot.

By the standards of the upper-class Victorians who invented or at least codified most sports - they being the first ones with the time and the money - tennis is not a sport at all. Sport involves exertion and physical danger. So a sportsman would ride to hounds and climb Alps but not play tennis which was a game for ladies on vicarage lawns. The idea that what Murray does is on a par with racing drivers of the heroic era like Clark would have seemed laughable.

Muzz is right at the top end of these discussions though.  Whether he is the best jock sportsman ever or not is hard to say but there is no doubt he is right up there all time for me.

 rotflmfao rotflmfao

I agree, I count tennis as one of the toughest of the sports (no taking a breather while teammates take on the main action etc).

Murray is incredibly unlucky to around when three of the absolute GOAT tennis players are at their peak.

You've got to think if he played against the likes of Connors, Sampras, Mac, Lendl, Agassi, Becker or Edberg he'd be closing in on around 10 slam wins.

Although maybe the strength of the opposition he's faced has pushed him to the extremely high levels he plays at now.

I agree he'd have been clear number 1 in the Roddick/Hewitt era but I think you're being a bit harsh on the likes of Sampras, Lendl and Agassi making them sound well below Murray!

My thoughts exactly.  Couldn't have put it better.

Did someone suggest Monty? Or did I imagine it.

Must have had the stella goggles on again.

Fkn Monty ???

Murray a decent fav over Lendl on Clay?   Seriously?  The vegas life must be treating you good!!!!!

Must be close to the richest sportsman in Scotland surely?   Murray definitely first i would imagine and Monty 2nd?  Monty has ironed out plenty in the divorce courts though tbf.

Think I'd be laying Murray as favourite in most of those match ups.  Sampras in his prime would be a heavy favourite over Murray on grass in my opinion.  I'd make Sampras marginal favourite over Federer in his prime (I know they had one match when Fed was young and Sampras was past his best which Fed won).

What a match that would be with both in their prime on centre court. 

Yeah the Mrs Doubtfire alone grossed more than $200m.