A statistical tribute to Andy Murray
Andy Murray relinquished his Wimbledon title last week, succumbing to a hip injury as much as to big serving Sam Querrey in the form of his life. He remains world number one though, despite Sunday's winner Roger Federer currently holding two grand slam titles to Murray's none. As the recriminations begin among SW19's fair weather tennis fans, I have objectively assessed Murray's career to date and concluded that he is among the 10 best male players of all time.
I'll keep saying 'all time' because it's clumsy to keep saying 'the open era' or 'the last 50 years', but also because it's accurate. Unlike, say, the arbitrary habit of dating English football statistics to the launch of the Premier League in 1992, the commencement of the open era in 1968 genuinely did mark the point from which we can take tennis records seriously. Before the '60s, participation in the big four tournaments was drawn from relatively few nations and heavily favoured home players. During the '60s, tennis was in chaos, with players divided along amateur and professional lines, so all achievements must reluctantly be marked with an asterisk.
The chief victims of this line in the statistical sand are four great Australian players. John Newcombe had a great career within the open era but also won two slams beforehand. Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall's careers were bisected by the 1968 reboot, and, like Newcombe, only have their open era statistics listed (in italics) below. Roy Emerson's 12 majors all came too soon though, so he doesn't feature at all. Of these four, I am prepared to state that Murray outranks all but Laver, who, like Bradman in cricket, is a transcendent great regardless of his early vintage.
Anyway, back to Murray, whose divisive status extends beyond playing tennis - his personality is also scrutinised: many find him bad tempered to the point of insolence; others interpret the very same behaviour as the self deprecating emotion of a genuine human being. Likewise, his tennis performance is deemed outstanding by many but mediocre by some. Let's be objective though: how many grand slam titles has he won, and how does he compare?
17 men have won more slams than Murray, and four more match him. By this very simple metric, Murray is not even clearly in the top 20 players. However, three of the top four on this list are Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic. This will be a recurring theme, and epitomises the Murray debate: it's reasonable to state that a player who only ranks fourth among his contemporaries can't possibly be among the 10 best ever; that statement can certainly be challenged, though, when the three ranked above him are all part of the debate as to the single greatest player of all time.
The second factor worth noting is that Murray is not done. While not certain, it is definitely possible and arguably probable that he will win more titles and improve his ranking on the above list. As I said though, this is a very simple metric - an important one, but inadequate on its own to properly assess and compare players. To establish a firmer view of the quality and consistency of these 22 players at grand slam tournaments, let's learn how many finals they have reached, win or lose.
As soon as we dig a little deeper, Murray's rank improves considerably; he's hit the fringe of the top 10, having made more slam finals than Becker and as many as Edberg, Wilander and McEnroe. Admittedly the real discovery here is that he has a remarkably poor conversion rate in slam finals. It's comfortably the lowest of the 22 players, but at least up from the 20% he'd managed before he beat Milos Raonic to win last year's Wimbledon. The next lowest success rate was achieved by his coach Lendl, while the other 20 players all managed to win at least half of their slam finals, with Laver the most impressive on the big day with five wins out of six.
Murray's struggles in finals are in stark contrast to two of his fellow triple champions: Kuerten won three finals out of three, all at Roland Garros; Wawrinka had his own perfect record, at three different tournaments, until Nadal beat him in Paris last month. In Murray's defence though, all eight of his final defeats - and two of his three victories - came against either Federer or Djokovic.
Those two and fellow contemporary Nadal form the top three in the finalist list above, cementing the notion that Murray's achievements should carry more weight given the stature of his competitors. While many denigrate Murray's efforts due to the superiority of these three greats, their presence in fact makes his record all the more remarkable. And again: he's not done yet.
Naturally we've extended the search to semi-finals here, and Murray moves clear in eighth place, partly because Bjorn Borg won a remarkable 16 out of 17 semi finals, or, in other words, Murray has reached more grand slam semis than the legendary Borg, not to mention Edberg, Wilander and McEnroe. His conversion rate from finals to semis is much improved too, better than Connors, Vilas and, in a reversal of fortune, Wawrinka.
Connors, as his conversion rate suggests, benefits from this list expansion, rising from equal 7th to equal 2nd. His longevity is unique, with a Wimbledon quarter-final loss to Ilie Nastase in 1972 and a U.S. Open semi-final defeat to Courier in 1991. He was too often a bridesmaid, and as such is comparable to Murray, and indeed Lendl. Semis were his chief sticking point, but beyond those he claimed eight titles from 15 finals, so he's probably satisfied.
Laver and Kuerten, though, remain anomalous: neither ever lost a grand slam semi-final, with Laver winning six out of six; Kuerten's curate's egg of a career saw him only ever reach three slam semis, but lift the trophy every time. Nadal is only 6th in semis reached, which reflects his own impressive conversion rate. Murray is at the other end of the table when converting semis to tournament wins.
This is understandable when all but the first and last of his 10 semi-final defeats were at the hands of the Big Three. While Federer and Djokovic have been his nemeses in finals, Nadal is his principal semi-final conqueror with five wins, three of them in 2011. In an era when, on reaching a semi-final, Murray can reasonably expect to find Federer, Nadal and Djokovic all awaiting him there, it's impressive that he has achieved what he has so far.
Once more though: he's not done yet. Let's take this process one stage further with a look at grand slam quarter-finals reached by our list of 22. The semis and quarters lists don't include ranking, because even I have better things to do than check for less successful players with multiple losses at those stages. However, the data for all players ranked alongside or above Murray is exhaustive.
Pete Sampras's demotion on this list, like those of Laver, Borg and Nadal before him, reflects a good success rate in quarters, although most of these players, unsurprisingly given their stature, achieve similar figures, with only Newcombe and Kuerten (finally!) showing signs of struggle.
Murray is much improved, winning most of his quarter-finals, but the table puts his disappointments into the sharpest relief yet: that red figure of 10% makes him by far the least successful of all consistent quarter-finalists at converting those quarter-finals to slam wins; however, nobody else has ever had to reach so many quarter-finals in the presence of the Big Three.
Credit where credit's due, of course: it is truly remarkable that the Big Three have achieved what they have in the presence of each other. How dominant any one of them would have been in another era is a question for another day. Anyway, they actually account for only a third of Murray's quarter-final defeats, with one win each. Instead, his rare losses at this stage have been exceptions, upsets caused either by a rare loss of form or, as with Querrey last week, injury.
Vilas and Rosewall have impressive quarters to semis conversion rates, and the outstanding Laver plunges proudly to the bottom of the latest list, courtesy of his six wins out of seven. In other words, in the open era, Rocket Rod reached seven grand slam quarter-finals, and converted five of them to trophies. When you put it like that, there's no question that he is an all-time great, his hypothetical match with Federer consigned to endless and futile debate.
Murray's rise to 7th above Sampras means that this exploration has gone far enough: I'm absolutely not going to argue that Murray is the equal of Sampras, or Borg for that matter. Still, it's interesting to note that Murray is actually more experienced in the latter stages of tournaments than such great players, and such a revelation warrants a more rigorous mathematical approach to the facts.
This more rigorous mathematical approach involves the points system that I use to evaluate all knock-out sporting formats, which uses the Fibonacci series of numbers (the ATP tennis ranking points system helps to justify this approach by closely resembling it). The system offers a middle ground between two alternatives frequently suggested by novices: an additional point for each round reached gives insufficient weight to winners; doubling the points allocated at each stage rewards winners too much.
Look, unless you're into this stuff, better to just trust me and check out the next table, which ranks players according to overall grand slam achievement from quarter-finals onward on a 5-3-2-1 points basis. There are more players now too, to give full context: all eight double grand slam winners; five current players with estimable records; five who score 20 points or above with just one slam win; and a bonus Aussie and Pom, for comparison's sake and the popular vote.
We'll get to Murray later, but this is a treasure trove of statistical nuggets. Roddick, Ivanisevic and Chang are mini Murrays, with consistent appearances in quarters, semis and finals but only one win each to show for it. England's Henman reached as many semis as Nastase, Kodes or Kafelnikov - and more than Pat Cash - but lost them all. Connors - longevity, consistency, but a good number of outright wins too - emerges as the closest challenger to the Big Three.
Americans have dominated. Once the three early Aussies and Vilas stepped aside, Connors and McEnroe fought over a decade or so, although Borg trumped them both. After a European phase featuring Lendl, Wilander, Becker, Edberg and the intellectually European Courier, it was time for Sampras and Agassi to rule the '90s and beyond. Then, despite Roddick's protestations, came Federer and Nadal, then Djokovic and Murray. Everyone else is a footnote.
Ferrer is the quarter-final fall guy, losing 11 and converting just one of the other six into a losing French Open final. He, Berdych and Tsonga, with one lost final each, should receive the same added value as Murray given the Swiss-Spaniard-Serb triumvirate who invariably vanquished them - with the added barrier of the Scot himself. Cilic and del Potro have a little more time on their side, and, injury permitting, will feature higher on this list when we revisit it.
Wawrinka, for all his inconsistency, is good value for his three slam titles; he is Ashe's equal, but this table refutes suggestions that there is a Big Five in men's tennis. Granted, the Big Three reflects the dominant winners of the recent era, and doesn't include Murray. However, the Big Four reflects the major players consistently fighting for those honours, and doesn't include Wawrinka.
Furthermore, those who propose that, having won three different titles, the Swiss #2 is closer to a career grand slam than Murray can think again: Murray will probably win an Aussie and might win a French; Wawrinka will never win Wimbledon - at age 32, he's never even reached a semi-final.
To Murray himself though. He is equal 10th on this list, despite those two caveats that I will keep repeating: he has endured an entire career alongside the top three players on the list; and he is still not done. For these reasons, I propose the following:
1) Murray will surpass Edberg, McEnroe and probably Borg on this points table before his career is over. However, Borg, with 11 slam titles, is clearly a superior player.
2) Murray will win sufficient further slam titles before his career is over as to render negligible the difference between his tally and those of McEnroe, Edberg, Becker and Wilander above him.
3) Any doubt as to whether Murray's slam wins total or points total justifies his elevation above McEnroe, Edberg, Becker and Wilander in a theoretical all-time ranking is mitigated by the fact that Murray has achieved all that he has achieved alongside the three players at the very top of the points ranking, who are also three of the top four in terms of slam wins.
4) Regardless of Murray's achievements, I am not about to claim that he should rank above the mystical, almost mythical genius that is Rod Laver.
In conclusion, Murray is the 10th best male tennis player of all time.
There's a second accusation frequently levelled at Murray though. Many tennis fans are disgruntled with the fact that he is currently ranked number one in the world. I had resigned myself to this circumstance never eventuating, but in late 2016 Murray achieved top spot. For those who think that the position is the preserve of the game's all-time greats, I say two things: 1) Andy Murray, as explained above, is one of the game's all-time greats; and 2) have a look at one last list:
(The ATP rankings started in August 1973. Apologies to Vilas, Ashe, Kodes and the early Aussies.)
Murray ranks 15th in terms of weeks at number one and he's barely clinging to the throne, so nothing further is guaranteed, but he's already seen off Wilander and Becker. There's a decent chance that Nastase and Kuerten will follow; hopefully Courier too, but Edberg may be a bridge too far, beyond which Hewitt stands as a perplexing anomaly... The Aussie battler picked his moment, post Sampras, pre Federer, and snatched 80 weeks at #1 - including the 6th longest consecutive streak - despite only two grand slam titles.
There's also a decent chance that Murray will kick on, overcome his recent form slump, and surpass, say, Borg, in terms of weeks at the top of the tree. If he does so, he will probably have picked up a couple more major titles on the way - maybe even that coveted career slam - and thus comfortably fulfilled my earlier predictions.
Seriously though, was that you at the back saying that Murray's not great enough to be a #1? Well... Safin, Ferrero and Kafelnikov and Aussie Rafter are surprising enough, but ladies and gentlemen, I give you Thomas Muster and Marcelo Rios: one French Open win for the Austrian and a lost Melbourne final remembered only in Chile; clearly, they caught Sampras and Agassi off guard for a few months - nowadays you'd have no such luck.
My statement that Murray is the all-time number 10 - behind (in deliberately alphabetical order) Agassi, Borg, Connors, Djokovic, Federer, Laver, Lendl, Nadal & Sampras - is confidently based on what he has already achieved. However, I am equally confident that it will be reinforced by his future performance. The longer that Federer and Nadal defy age and injury to extend their grand slam careers, the more we can believe that Murray might still enjoy his most fruitful years yet.