Originally Posted by batz
Before Murray won the USO, very few people argued that he had accomplished more than Delpo, because the big man had achieved more at grand slams than Murray had i.e. all those slam finals, masters series wins and other titles were trumped by Delpo's solitary better performance in the slams.
Were you one of them? I find it very limited to judge the player's resume only on their slam result (or victories). Three master 1000, 1 WTF, show that he could win big. His load of smaller tournaments show that he could beat regularly thoose whom he should beat (which is what most players lack).
Using your criterions, Brugera is a better player than Murray (2 slams, 2 master 1000, 1 one silver medal when it meant little. Well, two slams is better than one), Verkerk is better than Henman, Davydenko, Haas, Ferrer, etc. (he did reach a slam final).
I regard consistency higher than wisp.