my post specified post-laver fyi
murray's joint 9th for grand slam finals, 8th for semi finals, 7th for quarter finals (ahead of sampras even), has an all time top 10 win ratio at two of the slams, 9th highest win ratio of all time across all tournaments (3rd on grass behind only fed and mcenroe), 9th against top 10 opponents too, and all that in a strong era, maybe the strongest. the only thing he's lacking is actual championships, but literally every single one of the 8 finals he's lost has been against federer or djokovic, so i don't think those losses can be held against him too much. put him in a weaker era and he probably cleans up a ton of slams. he's destined to be very underrated because of getting overshadowed by the amazing achievements of his contemporaries i think.
comparing djokovic and nadal is hard because nadal is obviously greater on clay than djokovic is on any surface, and djokovic is a greater all-rounder. there really isn't much separating them to my mind, or statistically. djokovic is in the top 4 for win ratio across all three grand slam surfaces though, nobody else across history is even close to doing that. granted, that's probably easier to do these days than it used to be, but even so, pretty amazing. he also held all four slams at once which nadal hasn't done, and has a better overall win ratio against top 10 guys. there are lots of arguments for nadal too though; for starters, obviously nobody in history has dominated a surface or slam like he has. i could easily put them both above borg too - borg retired while still in his prime so it's hard to compare him with others, but he was statistically pretty amazing and was playing in an era when it was much harder to succeed on all surfaces.