Is Andy Murray the 4th Greatest Men's Tennis Player Ever?

In the world of men's tennis, there are three names that unquestionably dominate discussions about the greatest players of all time: Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal, and Roger Federer. However, identifying a fourth player to join this illustrious trio is not as straightforward. 
 
Many would mention Rod Laver for his achievement in winning all four Grand Slam events in both 1962 and 1969. Others might look back to Big Bill Tilden, who won seven US Opens and three Wimbledon titles before World War II. Bjorn Borg's impact on the game cannot be overlooked either; he forced his competitors to elevate their games with six French Open wins in eight years along with five consecutive Wimbledons. The list goes on—Pete Sampras, John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors—each has made significant contributions to tennis history. 
 
However, I propose another name for consideration as the fourth-best men's tennis player of all time: Andy Murray. 
 
Despite facing continuous physical adversities that have frequently interrupted his career—most recently spinal surgery—Murray’s achievements remain remarkable. He was ranked No. 1 in the world in 2017 before being sidelined by a severe hip injury, which hasn't seen him rank higher than 37th since then—an impressive feat considering he was playing with a resurfaced hip. 
 
Murray may only have three Grand Slam titles under his belt, but consider this scenario: what if Federer had chosen soccer instead of tennis? Or if Nadal had been drawn towards golf rather than clay courts? What if Djokovic had decided basketball suited him better? 
 
Over two decades, these three titans amassed an incredible total of sixty-six Slam titles between them—more than everyone else combined during this period! Their dominance undoubtedly motivated Murray to push himself beyond limits just so he could compete at their level, which he did! 
 
Without these stalwarts around, it is conceivable that Murray could have dominated men's tennis. He certainly had the talent and tenacity to do so. His victories at Wimbledon in 2013 and 2016, his US Open win in 2012, and his Olympic gold medal at Wimbledon in 2012 all attest to this. 
 
If we were to hypothetically remove Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic from the equation starting with Wimbledon 2003 up until now, Murray would emerge as a dominant force. Without these three players, Andy Roddick may have won more than just one Slam title (the 2003 US Open); he could have potentially added four more finals, including three Wimbledons that he lost to Federer. 
 
By around 2008, Murray would have established himself as the best player not named Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic, winning multiple Slams. By this time, a new generation of players like Gael Monfils and Richard Gasquet might also have started making their mark on Grand Slam tournaments. 
 
Without the Big Three interfering, it’s conceivable that Murray would have amassed an impressive double-digit slam total by his mid-20s, challenging Pete Sampras’ record of fourteen titles! 
 
In reality, though, injuries hampered what was shaping up to be an exceptional career for Murray. However, even if we factor in some hypothetical losses due to reduced motivation without competing against the Big Three, it is still likely that he would bag numerous major titles. 
 
Whether you agree with my argument or prefer Laver or Sampras for your fourth spot on men's tennis Mount Rushmore is entirely subjective, but there can be no denying Sir Andy has made a strong case for consideration!