Can Andy Murray become the greatest tennis player that ever lived?

Andy Murray is extremely talented, but I am sure there is no chance in hell he can eclipse Federer, Nadal or Djokovic. I know he just came off a great win over Federer, but remember, this is not the first time he has easily beaten Federer. He played the best tennis those 9 days in the Olympic tennis tournament and I didn't see a person who deserved it more than him, but at the end of the day, Federer still has 17 Slams, Nadal 11, Djokovic 5 and Murray is yet to win a Slam. And considering the age, things aren't looking any brighter. Federer won his first Slam at 20, Nadal at 18 and Djokovic at 19, so basically in their late teens. Murray is in his mid twenties and now is not the time to start becoming the Greatest of All Time. Realistically Murray has 7-8 years more on the Tour if he avoids serious injuries. In that time, he would have to win at least 18 Grand Slam titles to become Greatest of all time, which basically means he has to keep winning 2-3 Grand Slams per year every year in order to stand a chance and this is all hypothetical under the circumstance that Federer wins no more Slams.

So basically, when you look at it objectively it's not unrealistic, it's almost impossible. Having a winning record versus Federer wont mean he is a better player. It just shows the match up is that way. Murray is talented though and his head seems to be getting better and better so I definitely see a Slam in the near future. It's realistic to expect he can win a Slam, hopefully in the near past too because he really deserves it. He had some tough losses over the years and I can definitely see him winning 2/3 Slams in his career.

No.The British-Scottish Is Not The Greatest Player Who Have Ever Lived Because Of The Following

1.)Players Today

1.Roger Federer

2.Rafael Nadal

3.Andy Murray

4.Novak Djokovic

5.Jo-Wilfred Tsonga

2.)History Of Tennis

Players Like Pete Sampras Are Far Better Than Andy Murray.

These Are The Examples Andy Murray Is Not The Greatest Player Who Has Never Lived

Ok I get where you're coming from but...no.

I don't think you can call Federer 'lucky'. 'Lucky' is maybe winning one or two grand slams, but not 17. I also don't really see what justifies what you call that 'weak generation' either.

What i have a problem is: 'Ability wise, Murray is 100 times superior than...Roger Fagderer'.

Come on, We all know thats not true. If he had half of Roger's ability then he would have won a Grand Slam by now.

A lot of people won't agree with this but I believe Nadal has something to do with this sudden greatness of Murray. Nadal plays like a turnip for a day and gets knocked out in round 2 of Wimbledon, this leaves the chances of being in the final wide open for Murray. It is likely that in the Semi Final Murray would have played Nadal if he had remained. No Final for Murray. Instead Murray advanced and got drawn with Tsonga for the Semi Final. I love Tsonga but i think for Murray this was a pretty much guaranteed ticket for the final. Same for these Olympics. Nadal withdrew so we have the same situation. He gets an easy ride to the final, i say easy but its his superb talent that gets him through, (I would like to clarify that nowhere in this answer am i denying Andy has talent.). So he finds himself in the final. I must say that Murray was brilliant today, he deserved that medal for his performance over Roger who for some reason was just not with it today. So what I'm saying is, don't be too surprised if Andy seems to 'slow down' once Nadal returns.

I agree with you that Murray is likely to win a few Grand Slams from now on, but he's got a lot of catching up to do to reach 17. When he comes close to that only then will i think about calling him 'the greatest tennis player that ever lived'...

I do have respect for Andy and I don't have much against him, he made GB immensely proud today, but trying to compare him to Roger, who without doubt is the greatest tennis player that ever lived, is nothing short of ignorant.

Oh and one more thing...'Fagderer'? i mean, really?

I dont care whatever reason you give. But in the end Federer have won 17 GS titles and Murray have never won any. Federer have proven that he is capable of winning GS and Murray is still yet to win a Majors. Until he won at least 3 GS titles, then only I will consider him as being one of the greatest. Why do I choose to say at least 3 GS, because these days there are too many one hit wonder kind of player. Up until that, saying he's going to be the greatest ever really is just a joke and at the age of 25 he doesnt have much time to dominate too. Plus, If he is really good, he should be able to beat Federer most of the time like what Djokovic and Nadal did to him these days. Instead when it comes to Murray it was Federer who took the charge(an old federer). He beat Federer today but does it really proves much point, I dont think so. I bet if it were played on hard court(to me grass is his best and he's not that good on hard court) and at Switzerland he wouldnt won it. Mentally he is just not strong enough to be in Djokovic, Nadal, Federer league. He need 10,000 crowd to cheer by his side and a home soil olympic event to boost his confidence.

Theres no doubt Andy Murray is supremely talented and it is fair to say he shouldve already won a couple of Grand Slams if not for his mental frailty. But Roger Federer in his prime was a class above the rest. What you refer to as the "weakest era" wouldn't be so if we didnt have Roger Federer's brilliance to show us just how high a level of playing tennis can be attained. Relativity can never become absolute.

No and never will be - however, now that he's finally realised that being a team player helps him win and smile i'm looking forward to him becoming one of the best BRITISH and of course SCOTTISH tennis players in history. God, even his Mum smiled when he got the gold - that's a first all round!

He can potentially make it to the top 20 on lists if he starts getting grand slams.

murray will find the same success as a player like agassi, but not quite sampras or federer

Nope

The fact you called Federer overrated is laughable and makes any point you just made irrelevant.