Is Murray the best player to only win one slam now?
 

8 masters, Olympic gold, and had to deal with the strongest top 3 since the 80s, possibly ever. Can you think of anyone better?

What's the point of discussing this when we all know it is only a matter of time before he wins another on a hardcourt?

Good question.No.Simple. No debate. Thread is finished.

It's Thomas Muster. Show me another 1 time major winner who won 44 career titles, including 21 titles in a 25 month prime? Muster also has 8 masters series titles.

What about Roddick?

He won titles against mugs in a horrible era. You are the most knowledgable poster on this forum but you blind yourself with stats. Muster was a high tier journeyman winning tournaments nobody gave a rats arse about. Sorry truth hurts.

Muster won 3 Monte Carlos, 3 Romes, 1 Essen (an indoor carpet masters at the time), and 1 Miami. He won tournaments at all levels. During his 25 month prime, he won 6 masters series titles.

There's already a thread on that :)

Fails so hard at slams though.....1rd wimby gow many years in a row lol....Wins french...nobody really cares about french though....Fails everywhere else. Weak era, wins a couple of masters. He is a nothing compared to Murray, Roddick even beats him in this one (thanks to Brooklyn)

Ah just saw it. Hate that work has kept me from my forum time lately lol.

Murray has 8 Masters titles just like Muster. After that Murray has Olympic Gold plus 3 500 titles vs Muster's 4 500 titles. Over 30 of Muster's career titles are 250 level or below, which are pretty much meaningless when talking about Slam Champions. Murray though has Olympic Gold and 5 slam finals. This gives him the edge over Muster who has much weaker slam performance. Plus surface to surface:

Clay: Muster >>>>>>>>>> Murray
Hard Courts: Murray >>> Muster. I know Muster did play some good hard court tennis and wasnt a bad hard court player, but this is still no contest.
Grass: Murray >>>>>>>>>>> Muster.
Indoors/Carpet: Murray >>> Muster. Muster did win that Essen event and had some decent matches at the WTF, but again no contest.

Outside off clay Murray dumps all over Muster.

This. 10 huge scottish dumps all over Muster :)

Without Nadal in the draw, I wouldn't even count this as a slam, considering the era and the intangibles of the tour.

But when has Murray had a period like Muster's prime, like going 65-2 on your best surface in a calendar year, and 111-5 over 2 calendar years?

10dumps on Muster's forehead. Goodnight sweet sweet Mustard!

Tennis isnt just played on one surface. What surface other than clay is Muster even close to Murray? Yes he isnt a mug on other surfaces except grass, yes he is a great of the Open Era on clay, but there is only so far greatness on one surface, especialy one that resulted in only 1 slam and a dissapointing slam record on your pet surface, can take you. Seriously are you going to argue Muster is better than Courier too since his greatness on clay possibly exceeds Courier on any one surface (depsite Courier having 2 hard and 2 clay slams, this is possibly true). By this logic you could even try that, but of course that would be even more laughable.

Yeah Murray on hard courts has never dominated as much as Muster for a brief period on clay, but Murray's longevity as a top hard court performer also far surpasses Muster on clay, so it evens out, and Murray's achievements on hard courts definitely measure up to Muster's on clay. Anyway while Muster did face a strong clay field, he would not have dominated clay to that extent in 95/96 if he had to face the equivalent of Federer and Djokovic on hard courts on clay, heck he probably wouldnt have even dominated Federer and Djokovic on clay itself with ease at his peak of peaks like he did the field for a couple years, never mind their equivalents of hard courts which Murray had to face (plus Nadal as well). Then on their other surfaces it is no contest, even Murray on clay is way better than Muster on grass based on the brief pitiful sightings of him even playing competitively on the surface.

Muster never won a match at Wimbledon rofl.

LOL. You don't have an answer, do you? ;)

Why bring Courier into this conversation? Courier won 4 majors, and we're discussing players with 1 major.

Murray has long term consistency at the top, but not the dominance of Muster at his peak on his strongest surface.

Yes, I do know that. How exactly does this change the fact that Muster, a 1 time major winner, won 44 career titles including 8 masters series, and also 21 titles in his 25 month career peak?

So 2 years of dominance on one surface, one which included a flop at the biggest event of the year on that surface, is enough to overcome HUGE superiority on the other 3 surfaces, much more longevity and consistency as a top player over the years, much better slam performances (even on their mutual best surface), and similar achievements as far as semi significant or above titles and wins even on the mutual pet surface all combined. Just no.

Are we supposed to believe that Murray is better when he has never had an aura and dominance like peak Muster?