Breaking Bad.

Empirically wrong. See America, United States of

Which one is the Emperor?

OP's data is garbage, the chart is meaningless - see my comment below.

OP's data is garbage, the chart is meaningless - see my comment below.

This chart - or more specifically, the "data" (I use that term loosely) behind it - is garbage. Ignore.

Good riddance. He was not a good person, wtf do we idolize someone just because they played a game for a living.

Hard agree on this. He was this close to being an all-time great, except he happened to live in an era of not one, not two, but three all-time greats. If any one of the Big Three aren't around, I think Murray has double-digit grand slams. He lost in 10 semi-final matches, 8 of which were to one of the Big Three (the other two: Wawrinka and Roddick. No freebies anywhere).

Murray winning Wimbledon was one of my favorite tennis moments of my life, and I'm not even British.

Agassi won 8 grand slams. He probably should have had at least 12 if he had taken tennis & fitness more seriously earlier in his career. How many AOs did he leave on the table by not even playing?

It's Andy Murray, and it's not close.

5 grand slam finals lost to Djokovic

3 grand slam finals lost to Federer

8 semi-final losses to Nadal, Djokovic or Federer.

Quite possible.

Or maybe he just gets bored and retires?

Always interesting to wonder to what extent the Big Three pushed each other to improve.

Bjorn Borg had the record for most grand slams in the Open era, at 11. His last Grand Slam was 1981. That record stood for 18 years, until Sampras won his 12th in 1999.

19 years after that, *three* players had passed Sampras.

Kinda feels like that record may stand for a while. The only current players with more than one Slam win: Murray and Wawrinka, and they are zero threat to win another Slam.

One of my favorite stats - after winning his first Slam at Wimbledon in 2003, Federer won 12 of the next 17 slams. He won 13 slams his first five years. Heck the seven slams he won over the last 13 years would be a good career in and of itself!

Right sentiment, wrong Andy.

<g>

Good god that is ATROCIOUS. You have six charts not one, the x and y axis on the charts are not the same - this might be the worst graphic I've seen in a long time.

Utter rubbish.

And then it levels off -fast- as Djokovic and Nadal hit the scene.

Nice chart, but my god the color scheme is atrocious.

If any one of the Big Three wasn't around, how many grand slams would the other two have? How many grand slams would Andy Murray have?

The Big Three have all been in 30-33 grand slam finals and won 20-22; it's amazing how similar that is. Agassi was in 15 grand slams, won 8. Sampras was in 18 but won 14, which is crazy. Lendl was in 19 finals and only won 8, wow. Andy Murray has been in 11 finals (!!) but only won 3 because...yeah.

I had forgotten how many finals Murray's been in.

All three of them have extended periods of no titles - Djokovic has -two-!

I would imagine that players need that time to recuperate, it must be damn near impossible to stay at such a high level consistently for many years at a time.

Anyone studying religion deserves what they get, but wtf, education should be at the far right of that chart.

Damn. Got me good. Fine, take my upvote.