Andy Murray to retire after Wimbledon 2019

Bojan11

Full Member
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
33,550
I know there’s a tennis thread. But this deserves its his own thread.



First of the big four to retire. I given him stick at times but only because he was at times passive in his play. I always wanted him to do well. For me he was probably the greatest British sports person. He was unlucky to play in a era with three other greats. But he still done very well.
 
True story, I injured him playing against him in high school. He went on to better things.
 
Absolute legend. Once he won his first Wimbledon, to me it didn't matter what he achieved, he'd already managed to show me a British man winning Wimbledon, that meant a great deal to me to witness that.

The fact he's won it twice, double olympic gold medallist, US open winner, Davis cup winner as well? Enjoy your retirement I'd say.

Also, it's always annoyed me the stick he gets about his personality, he comes across as very drole, but he's actually got a very dry sense of humour and I've always found him amusing. Nice guy, wish him all the best.
 
Always liked him, dry sense of humour, immensely talented and under-appreciated.
 
A shame but not completely unexpected. Once he adapted his game to be a pure baseline grinder, the wear and tear on his body was going to cost him at some point.

Still, one of the greatest returners of all time, a pass master, as well as having one of the best lobs ever.

Never got the complaints about his personality. He's genuinely the funniest person in tennis and his dry wit is very endearing.
 
Camy89 said:
Absolute legend. Once he won his first Wimbledon, to me it didn't matter what he achieved, he'd already managed to show me a British man winning Wimbledon, that meant a great deal to me to witness that.

The fact he's won it twice, double olympic gold medallist, US open winner, Davis cup winner as well? Enjoy your retirement I'd say.

Also, it's always annoyed me the stick he gets about his personality, he comes across as very drole, but he's actually got a very dry sense of humour and I've always found him amusing. Nice guy, wish him all the best.
Click to expand...
This. Also becoming a world No1 too, I wasn't sure if I'd see a Brit doing any of the things he's done in tennis. Gave me a great pleasure and will be a sad day when he retires.

Can't say I'm at all shocked though, he's crocked.
 
Camy89 said:
Absolute legend. Once he won his first Wimbledon, to me it didn't matter what he achieved, he'd already managed to show me a British man winning Wimbledon, that meant a great deal to me to witness that.

The fact he's won it twice, double olympic gold medallist, US open winner, Davis cup winner as well? Enjoy your retirement I'd say.

Also, it's always annoyed me the stick he gets about his personality, he comes across as very drole, but he's actually got a very dry sense of humour and I've always found him amusing. Nice guy, wish him all the best.
Click to expand...

His best performance for me was that Olympic final in 2012 where he destroyed Federer in his own yard at Wimbledon. That performance gave him the confidence to believe he could win the slams and he did that later that years.
 
Bojan11 said:
His best performance for me was that Olympic final in 2012 where he destroyed Federer in his own yard at Wimbledon. That performance gave him the confidence to believe he could win the slams and he did that later that years.
Click to expand...

He did that, then won the US slam, everybody including him felt that in 2013 Wimbledon, you wouldn't bet against him at all. Was fantastic to watch.
 
Andrea Petkovic
"He was always my favorite, and I think it will be a huge loss for tennis in general, but also for the WTA. Because even nowadays, when you think everything is equal, you still need men, especially successful men, to speak up for women."
 
"Big 4" is such a misnomer. It would be like if someone said, "First of the big two to retire", when Andy Roddick called it a day.

Always liked Murray. Good player. Shame that his injuries have taken the toll in the end. Unlucky too, otherwise he could have won a couple more in the years when Roger, Rafa & Novak - the Big Three - were struggling with form and fitness.
 
ErranMorad said:
"Big 4" is such a misnomer. It would be like if someone said, "First of the big two to retire", when Andy Roddick called it a day.

Always liked Murray. Good player. Shame that his injuries have taken the toll in the end. Unlucky too, otherwise he could have won a couple more in the years when Roger, Rafa & Novak - the Big Three - were struggling with form and fitness.
Click to expand...

What you going on about? Murray was as consistent as the other three. Yeah he couldn’t beat them enough in slam finals, that’s what probably lets him down. But he won 14 ATP masters 1000 finals ffs. That’s 9th on the all time list.

He’s won the ATP tour finals, 14 masters, 2 Olympic gold medals and 3 slams. Of course he deserves to be part of the big four. Players like Del Porto and Wawrinka could have been apart of it but they were never as consistent as Murray. Murray was always in the semi final or finals.

He had a winning record against everyone besides the big three.
 
Bojan11 said:
What you going on about? Murray was as consistent as the other three. Yeah he couldn’t beat them enough in slam finals, that’s what probably lets him down. But he won 14 ATP masters 1000 finals ffs. That’s 9th on the all time list.

He’s won the ATP tour finals, 14 masters, 2 Olympic gold medals and 3 slams. Of course he deserves to be part of the big four. Players like Del Porto and Wawrinka could have been apart of it but they were never as consistent as Murray. Murray was always in the semi final or finals.

He had a winning record against everyone besides the big three.
Click to expand...
To be blunt, had he been born in another era he would of dominated IMO. All 4 will truly go down as all time greats, Federer probably the greatest ever.
 
Bojan11 said:
What you going on about? Murray was as consistent as the other three. Yeah he couldn’t beat them enough in slam finals, that’s what probably lets him down. But he won 14 ATP masters 1000 finals ffs. That’s 9th on the all time list.

He’s won the ATP tour finals, 14 masters, 2 Olympic gold medals and 3 slams. Of course he deserves to be part of the big four. Players like Del Porto and Wawrinka could have been apart of it but they were never as consistent as Murray. Murray was always in the semi final or finals.

He had a winning record against everyone besides the big three.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make him the Big 4.

No one cares about all those ATP master's 1000's wins. Grand Slams matter the most and he regularly came up short in those. He could win at only 2 of the 4 slams. Won only 3 in total. Putting him in the same category as the guys who 20,17 & 14 respectively is an insult to them. I would agree that may be he is the 4th best player of the era, but no way he is one of the "Big 4".

I know success is hard to come by in British sport, but come on, let's not be delusional.
 
ErranMorad said:
That doesn't make him the Big 4.

No one cares about all those ATP master's 1000's wins. Grand Slams matter the most and he regularly came up short in those. He could win at only 2 of the 4 slams. Won only 3 in total. Putting him in the same category as the guys who 20,17 & 14 respectively is an insult to them. I would agree that may be he is the 4th best player of the era, but no way he is one of the "Big 4".

I know success is hard to come by in British sport, but come on, let's not be delusional.
Click to expand...

If he’s 4th best then he is part of the big 4. Duh.

ATP masters 1000 don’t matter? So why are they dominated by the big four? Rarely do the other players get a look in. Only in the last few years we had Cilic, Del Potro and Zverev winning them.

If they don’t care about these events they would stay at home wouldn’t they. Why would Rafa go through all that effort to play four clay events before the French open when he could rest up. So I suggest to you that they matter. Only to casual watchers who tune in for Wimbledon they don’t matter. Are you one of them?
 
Bojan11 said:
If he’s 4th best then he is part of the big 4. Duh.

ATP masters 1000 don’t matter? So why are they dominated by the big four? Rarely do the other players get a look in. Only in the last few years we had Cilic, Del Potro and Zverev winning them.

If they don’t care about these events they would stay at home wouldn’t they. Why would Rafa go through all that effort to play four clay events before the French open when he could rest up. So I suggest to you that they matter. Only to casual watchers who tune in for Wimbledon they don’t matter. Are you one of them?
Click to expand...

Nah...That way there is a Big 6 or 7, let's include Stan, Del Potro & Cilic to it too. Actually, that way Murray could be the 'Biggest of the Four' between Stan, Del Po, him & Cilic.

If you want to talk about ATP masters 1000's - Rafa has 33, Novak has 32 & Fed has 27 - two of which are more than double of Murray's 14 & one is almost double. He doesn't measure up there either to be called a part of the "Big 4". It's always was Big three & Andy.

And let's not worry about what I watch and what I don't. Jesus Christ!
 
ErranMorad said:
Nah...That way there is a Big 6 or 7, let's include Stan, Del Potro & Cilic to it too. Actually, that way Murray could be the 'Biggest of the Four' between Stan, Del Po, him & Cilic.

If you want to talk about ATP masters 1000's - Rafa has 33, Novak has 32 & Fed has 27 - two of which are more than double of Murray's 14 & one is almost double. He doesn't measure up there either to be called a part of the "Big 4". It's always was Big three & Andy.

And let's not worry about what I watch and what I don't. Jesus Christ!
Click to expand...

How is there a big 7?

Del Potro has won one masters and one slam. His highest rank was three last year.

Wawrinka has won one masters too and only reached four masters final. Murray has reached 67 finals in his career whilst Wawrinka has reached 28.

Murray world number one, three slams, two Olympic gold medals, atp tour final winner and 14 masters. Wawrinkas or Del Potros career don’t hold up even close. They were nowhere near as consistent. Del Potro could have been if it wasn’t for injuries. Murray was way superior to the rest hence why he was part of the big four. Yeah the other three got the better of him but he was consistent in getting to semi finals and finals.
 
Last edited:
I'm glad to see that so many people share my viewpoint regarding the unfair treatment he's received due to his "dour" character. I too find him sincere--not the most common feature for public figures--and quite likable, actually.

It'll be a shame to see him go already. And of course there was a "big four" only, ffs.
 
Without injuries it would have been the big 5 - Murray and Del Po would have made it into a 5 IMO but the assertion is right that it was mostly a big 3 albeit that has come about due to injury. During his prime it was clearly a big 4.

Nevertheless as a Brit, Murray was one of my favourite all time sportsmen and an inspiration. I think the ‘grinder’ tag was a tad unfair as he was capable of such delicate shots, great feel at the net and amazing lobs/slice. His backhand was also an all time quality shot, fantastic first serve and all time quality returning skills - it’s just a shame he had a horrendous forehand but it did become more efficient under Laver.

Without injuries, he was entering the prime of his career IMO and was well set to take advantage of the recent Nole slump but instead Roger and Rafa were allowed to sneak back in and I reckon a fit Murray could have taken them both as they weren’t exactly in their prime.

Super nice guy off the court as well and he will become a great ambassador for the game. Will no doubt be very hard to take retiring this early but I’m sure at the start of his career if someone told him he’d be world number 1, Olympic gold medalist and multiple grand slam champion including Wimbledon - he’d take that. His legacy is already secure without even enjoying a full and lengthy career.
 
Sad news. Still, a great career. I rank him in a tier above likes of Wawrinka but below big 3. His all-round achievements are better than Stan.
 
Bojan11 said:
If he’s 4th best then he is part of the big 4. Duh.

ATP masters 1000 don’t matter? So why are they dominated by the big four? Rarely do the other players get a look in. Only in the last few years we had Cilic, Del Potro and Zverev winning them.

If they don’t care about these events they would stay at home wouldn’t they. Why would Rafa go through all that effort to play four clay events before the French open when he could rest up. So I suggest to you that they matter. Only to casual watchers who tune in for Wimbledon they don’t matter. Are you one of them?
Click to expand...
I agree with this assessment. From a neutral point of view, I always saw Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal as the big 3 followed by Murray. Yes, he was definitely the best of the rest, and on his day could give the three a good run for their money. However, what stops him from being regarded as one of the era's greatest players - which is what Big 4 refers to - is his performance in the later stages of grand slams. Stacking up wins in other tournaments is definitely important but grand slams are the most watched tournaments and that definitely shapes public opinion on a player's status in the game.

This is not an assessment of Murray's lack of ability thought. It's just that his body of works looks short when stacked up amongst the stalwarts that played the game at the same time as him.
 
Subho611 said:
I agree with this assessment. From a neutral point of view, I always saw Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal as the big 3 followed by Murray. Yes, he was definitely the best of the rest, and on his day could give the three a good run for their money. However, what stops him from being regarded as one of the era's greatest players - which is what Big 4 refers to - is his performance in the later stages of grand slams. Stacking up wins in other tournaments is definitely important but grand slams are the most watched tournaments and that definitely shapes public opinion on a player's status in the game.

This is not an assessment of Murray's lack of ability thought. It's just that his body of works looks short when stacked up amongst the stalwarts that played the game at the same time as him.
Click to expand...

In fairness he was consistently getting to the last 4 of the slams?
 
The gap between Murrary and the rest is bigger than the gap between him and the Big 3. Big 4 is fair, considering he pretty much took games off them consistently and won stuffs even against them .
 
Bojan11 said:
How is there a big 7?

Del Potro has won one masters and one slam. His highest rank was three last year.

Wawrinka has won one masters too and only reached four masters final. Murray has reached 67 finals in his career whilst Wawrinka has reached 28.

Murray world number one, three slams, two Olympic gold medals, atp tour final winner and 14 masters. Wawrinkas or Del Potros career don’t hold up even close. They were nowhere near as consistent. Del Potro could have been if it wasn’t for injuries. Murray was way superior to the rest hence why he was part of the big four. Yeah the other three got the better of him but he was consistent in getting to semi finals and finals.
Click to expand...

Stan won an equal number of Grand Slams but on one more surface than Murray. Del Po's career has been blighted by injuries, still won 1/3rd the number of slams that Murray won. Why shouldn't we count them too?

If you are going to compare Stan's record with Murray's in master's 1000's to point out that Stan was no where close to Murray. Then you should compare Murray's with the other three to see that he is no where near them. You keep dangling this "Masters 1000" record as something that makes Murray count in the same sentence as the Big Three. However, he has won that tournament half the number of times than the guy with the third best record. The Big 3 are well ahead of Murray in the head to head too.

The top 3 guys are amongst the greatest players of all time. Whereas, Murray fulfilled the dreams that everyone saw for Tim Henman.

I like Murray and think he is a top player; the best of the rest. However, he is no where close to the level that we have seen from Rafa, Fed & Novak Not in terms of performances, titles, wins and records. It's desperate to put him on the same pedestal and count as one of the four. It's Big three, Murray and then the rest.
 
In my eyes he’s a legend and one of Britain’s greatest ever sportsmen. I hope he’s able to make Wimbledon for a send-off but he’s been struggling with his hip for so long it would be understandable but such a shame if he doesn’t make it. A really lovely guy with a great sense of humour and who stands up for what he believes in too. Brilliant memories of him winning the gold at the Olympics, Wimbledon, the US Open and Davis cup. Cheers for it all Andy and enjoy the retirement when it comes, it’s well earned :(

And of course it’s the big 4 and Murray’s a part of it. I honestly fail to see why anyone would say otherwise.
 
Chekhov said:
I'm glad to see that so many people share my viewpoint regarding the unfair treatment he's received due to his "dour" character. I too find him sincere--not the most common feature for public figures--and quite likable, actually.

It'll be a shame to see him go already. And of course there was a "big four" only, ffs.
Click to expand...
Out of all the tennis players he's been one of the most interesting. Not to say Federer, Nadal, Djokovic aren't interested but all of them have been pretty guarded about what they say throughout their careers. Murray jas definitely come across as more open and honest about issues many don't want to talk about such as equality between the men and women
 
Raees said:
In fairness he was consistently getting to the last 4 of the slams?
Click to expand...
And this is where the big 4 tag comes from. Bit bizare people can't understand it. Due to the draw there is and always will be a big fascination of who is playing who in the semi finals and Murray was in the equation a lot. Plus his record at Masters events also backed it up.

Like say in the PL, before City and Spurs became a force, people used to refer to the big four, not because there was an equal amount of success but those 4 teams were consistently in the top positions.
 
Just as I was starting to like him, that's so annoying. Is it just his hip that has been giving him problems?
 
A shame injuries have curtailed his career. A great player who would probably have won a lot more if he had not played in same era as 3 all time greats and the greatest ever. Also a good man who had no problem with speaking out about the inequality in his own sport.
 
saivet said:
Out of all the tennis players he's been one of the most interesting. Not to say Federer, Nadal, Djokovic aren't interested but all of them have been pretty guarded about what they say throughout their careers. Murray jas definitely come across as more open and honest about issues many don't want to talk about such as equality between the men and women
Click to expand...
I don't know if they are more open in their first languages but he's more engaging from what I have seen, more willing to discuss issues and I also really like the dryness of his humour. He's a great guy and has been unlucky that his career has coincided with three of the best of all time, vastly inferior players to him are going to rack up slams in the next few years. I hope that he gets to have a proper goodbye at Wimbledon but given the pain and discomfort he is dealing with constantly it might not be worth playing for another 5/6 months.
 
Always found the big 4 a bit forced. He doesn't belong in the same category as the other 3 IMO. He has like 3 Grand Slams while the others have 14-20 or whatever they have.

Still the greatest tennis Brit player of recent times if not ever.
 
saivet said:
And this is where the big 4 tag comes from. Bit bizare people can't understand it. Due to the draw there is and always will be a big fascination of who is playing who in the semi finals and Murray was in the equation a lot. Plus his record at Masters events also backed it up.

Like say in the PL, before City and Spurs became a force, people used to refer to the big four, not because there was an equal amount of success but those 4 teams were consistently in the top positions.
Click to expand...

Masters don’t matter apparently. Masters are like the premier league of tennis. Where as grand slams are your champions league. So saying shit like nobody cares about masters is just stupid. There’s a reason why like three or four players outside the big four have won ATP 1000 events in the last decade or so and that’s because they matter.
 
It's just hard to take the 'big 4' tag seriously when 3 out of those 4 are players for which you could make an argument as being the best 3 players to ever grace the sport. Then you have Murray who probably wouldn't even make top 10. It's not like he has a winning record against them either (not sure about Federer). Even in terms of appearances in finals, I haven't checked the stats, but he's probably way behind them too.

Anyway, I've always liked his game when he's on and not playing within himself. He's the perfect mix of counterpuncher and craftiness. The fact that he never had more success on clay (especially as he trained a lot in continental Europe) will always befuddle me. In terms of attitude, he was obviously a bit of a prat when he was younger, but afaic he grew to be more interesting than Federer, Nadal and Djokovic
 
There's no Big 4, it's something British media completely made up. He just ain't on the same level as the other three.

Anyways, I'm really sorry for him, he's a nice guy and a sportsman and I hope he'll manage to overcome this. Injuries affect both your body and your mental health and it's really difficult to keep a clear head when you're having so much problems with them. Djokovic had the same thoughts two years ago, but he returned in the best possible way, so I hope Murray will get to do the same.
 
Big 3, Murray, and the rest.

Just as Wawrinka doesn't compare favourably to Murray with his Masters 1000 record, Murray has nothing on the other 3 (Olympic Gold, may be).

Was he unlucky to be playing in the same era with 3 giants of the sport, possibly the top 3 all time? Yes. Does it mean he deserves to be mentioned alongside them? No. Being made a punching bag at Slams repeatedly by them excludes you from that discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.