Stan with the hypothetical Career Grand Slam vs Andy Murray

  • Thread starter Deleted member 748597
  • Start date

What say you?

  • Total voters
    55
D

Deleted member 748597

Guest
So I know that the possibility of Wawrinka somehow winning Wimbledon is laughable, especially right now. I mean this man never even reached the SF at Wimbledon during his prime.

However, I was wondering who should be ahead if somehow the miracle happened.

Wawrinka

4 Slams (Career Grand Slam)
1 Masters
0 YE #1
0 weeks at #1
0 weeks at #2

Murray

3 Slams (11 Slam finals)
1 YEC
2 Olympic Gold Medals in singles
14 Masters
1 YE #1
41 weeks at #1
 
gjm127

gjm127

Hall of Fame
I would find this excruciatingly tough to decide. Stan would have the CGS + more Slams over Murray but nothing else. Not even slam final appearances. I'd still go with Murray due to Wawrinka's lack of other credentials.

Picking Wawrinka means you only value GS title numbers and nothing else. And even then, it would only 1 more than Murray. This is why I'd lean Murray.
 
Last edited:
F

FrontHeadlock

Hall of Fame
It's Murray, and it's not close imo. And I say this as someone who likes Stan leaps and bounds more than Murray.

Aside from the stats you listed, Murray has 46 total titles compared to Stan's 16, and Murray has 11 major final appearances compared to Stan's hypothetical 5 (should he win Wimbledon).
 
I

ImmorTAL Big 3

Semi-Pro
CGS have been achieved by only 8 players-its the greatest achievement in tennis so in that scenario i ll go with Stan-for me player with CGs is even greater than one with 1 plus title/max 2/.So due to the weigh of that achievement i ll go with Stan
 
T

TheNachoMan

Guest
We are now being told that all that matters is slams. So I’m going with Stan.
 
D

D.Nalby12

G.O.A.T.
There are very few players who achieved CGS. Even today stan' slam distribution is better than Murray. And his slam wins were far more impressive to me. So if he wins another one - I will give it to Stan.
 
T

TheNachoMan

Guest
You are cheating readers if you vote for Murray as a RAFAfan.
 
The Blond Blur

The Blond Blur

G.O.A.T.
TheNachoMan said:
We are now being told that all that matters is slams. So I’m going with Stan.
Click to expand...
That’s not what people are/were saying. It’s just that the schlems and the schlem record are the MOST important thing. The Murray vs Stan comparison is not an apples to apples comparison to the RAFA vs Joker debate. Outside of his 3 schlems Stan has nothing else worth mentioning.
 
T

TheNachoMan

Guest
The Blond Blur said:
That’s not what people are/were saying. It’s just that the schlems and the schlem record are the MOST important thing. The Murray vs Stan comparison is not an apples to apples comparison to the RAFA vs Joker debate. Outside of his 3 schlems Stan has nothing else worth mentioning.
Click to expand...
Weeks at #1 - Murray leads
Masters titles - Murray leads
WTF titles - Murray leads

But Stan would lead by 1 slam. Which is enough to discount everything else for some.
 
Backspin1183

Backspin1183

Talk Tennis Guru
Stan should have been my pick if he had won a few more Masters. He's a no show outside of Slams compared to Murray. So, really tough to pick him over Murray who has been #1, year end #1, won 14 Masters and 2 Olympic Gold medals in singles.

But because Stan would have one more Slam over him, they would be about even for me.
 
The Blond Blur

The Blond Blur

G.O.A.T.
TheNachoMan said:
Weeks at #1 - Murray leads
Masters titles - Murray leads
WTF titles - Murray leads

But Stan would lead by 1 slam. Which is enough to discount everything else for some.
Click to expand...
For some people sure, a small minority. Stan has a bunch of 0’s across the board. Conversely, RAFA is only missing the YEC which is balanced out by Joker missing the OSG. To make Stan RAFA’s counterpart in his comparison is incredibly disingenuous.
 
Backspin1183

Backspin1183

Talk Tennis Guru
The Blond Blur said:
For some people sure, a small minority. Stan has a bunch of 0’s across the board. Conversely, RAFA is only missing the YEC which is balanced out by Joker missing the OSG. To make Stan RAFA’s counterpart in his comparison is incredibly disingenuous.
Click to expand...

Murray vs Stan isn't the same as Nadal vs Djokovic. Nadal has won so much outside of Slams too. Stan on the other hand has a very average record in best of 3 tournaments.
 
D

Deleted member 748597

Guest
Backspin1183 said:
Murray vs Stan isn't the same as Nadal vs Djokovic. Nadal has won so much outside of Slams too. Stan on the other hand has a very average record in best of 3 tournaments.
Click to expand...
The difference between 4 and 3 is larger than the difference between 21 and 20 though. The percentages and all.
 
Backspin1183

Backspin1183

Talk Tennis Guru
Nole Slam said:
The difference between 4 and 3 is larger than the difference between 21 and 20 though. The percentages and all.
Click to expand...

1 Masters vs 14 Masters, 2 Olympic Gold medals in singles, a WTF title? Stan has won nothing much outside of Slams. Not even 5 Masters from Stan.
 
Sabrina

Sabrina

Hall of Fame
Probably still Murray but it's very close. Murray YEC + Year End No.1 + MS1000 titles + consistency should be worth around 1.5-2 GS so Stan would need 5 GS to be in the same conversation with Murray.
 
D

Deleted member 748597

Guest
Backspin1183 said:
1 Masters vs 14 Masters, 2 Olympic Gold medals in singles, a WTF title? Stan has won nothing much outside of Slams. Not even 5 Masters from Stan.
Click to expand...
I do agree with that. Just pointing out how much closer 21 is to 20. I mean just looking at the Slam count.
 
The Blond Blur

The Blond Blur

G.O.A.T.
abmk said:
firstly YEC is more important than OSG in tennis.
secondly more chances to win YEC than OSG.
thirdly, Djoko has 5 YECs to 0 for nadal. that's a big difference.
as opposed to gold medal for nadal to bronze for djoko.

that's not balancing out by any means.
Click to expand...
In your opinion it is. Other people have them as equal (like me) and others have it as more important, it’s subjective.

And that’s not the point. The point is that RAFA and Joker are a lot closer outside of the schlems than Murray and Stan are. The OP has tried to make this comparison before, but it doesn’t really work. Outside of 1 tournament Stan has done very little outside of the schlems.
 
Backspin1183

Backspin1183

Talk Tennis Guru
The Blond Blur said:
In your opinion it is. Other people have them as equal (like me) and others have it as more important, it’s subjective.

And that’s not the point. The point is that RAFA and Joker are a lot closer outside of the schlems than Murray and Stan are. The OP has tried to make this comparison before, but it doesn’t really work. Outside of 1 tournament Stan has done very little outside of the schlems.
Click to expand...

That's true, but you'd be surprised how many casual fans would think he's better just because of winning 1 more schlem than Murray.
 
D

Deleted member 748597

Guest
The Blond Blur said:
In your opinion it is. Other people have them as equal (like me) and others have it as more important, it’s subjective.

And that’s not the point. The point is that RAFA and Joker are a lot closer outside of the schlems than Murray and Stan are. The OP has tried to make this comparison before, but it doesn’t really work. Outside of 1 tournament Stan has done very little outside of the schlems.
Click to expand...
Have I? I probably forgot.
 
abmk

abmk

Bionic Poster
The Blond Blur said:
In your opinion it is. Other people have them as equal (like me) and others have it as more important, it’s subjective.

And that’s not the point. The point is that RAFA and Joker are a lot closer outside of the schlems than Murray and Stan are. The OP has tried to make this comparison before, but it doesn’t really work. Outside of 1 tournament Stan has done very little outside of the schlems.
Click to expand...

I got the larger point. I don't disagree with that.
My point was pointing out over-rating of Olympics by you. If you want to make that as subjective without basis of tennis history/points etc., it doesn't work.

and the difference in YECs b/w Djokovic&Nadal in YECs being big is not subjective. That's a fact.
 
F

FrontHeadlock

Hall of Fame
abmk said:
I got the larger point. I don't disagree with that.
My point was pointing out over-rating of Olympics by you. If you want to make that as subjective without basis of tennis history/points etc., it doesn't work.

and the difference in YECs b/w Djokovic&Nadal in YECs being big is not subjective. That's a fact.
Click to expand...

ATP points to me is always the weirdest argument for or against an event.

Btw, there are plenty of strong arguments against the WTF given its format.
 
The Blond Blur

The Blond Blur

G.O.A.T.
abmk said:
I got the larger point. I don't disagree with that.
My point was pointing out over-rating of Olympics by you. If you want to make that as subjective without basis of tennis history/points etc., it doesn't work.
Click to expand...
Dude this is your problem, you always think you are right and that anyone who doesn’t share your opinion is wrong. If you think that the YEC is more important then good for you, I couldn’t care less.
 
Kralingen

Kralingen

Talk Tennis Guru
Stan would be better, pretty clearly.

Murray's big problem is that he couldn't hack it vs. high level Bo5 competition. He required gifts wrapped and delivered on his doorstep by Windovic and Exhaustovic in '12/13 and then got a nice RaoMUG waiting for him in the final in '16. Wawrinka beat well playing Djokovic 2 times and also beat Nadal in a Slam final.
 
abmk

abmk

Bionic Poster
The Blond Blur said:
Dude this is your problem, you always think you are right and that anyone who doesn’t share your opinion is wrong. If you think that the YEC is more important then good for you, I couldn’t care less.
Click to expand...

I'm saying you should have a a good basis for your subjective opinion.
If I say Halle/Queens and Basel is equivalent of Masters 1000 just because I want it so doesn't make it reasonable.
 
D

Deleted member 779124

Guest
abmk said:
I got the larger point. I don't disagree with that.
My point was pointing out over-rating of Olympics by you. If you want to make that as subjective without basis of tennis history/points etc., it doesn't work.

and the difference in YECs b/w Djokovic&Nadal in YECs being big is not subjective. That's a fact.
Click to expand...
The 2nd part is why Nadal IMO needs 22 slams to pass Federer/Djokovic.
 
The Blond Blur

The Blond Blur

G.O.A.T.
abmk said:
I'm saying you should have a a good basis for your subjective opinion.
If I say Halle/Queens and Basel is equivalent of Masters 1000 just because I want it so doesn't make it reasonable.
Click to expand...
I’m not going to get into an hours long debate with you over this dude. If you think the YEC is more important then good for you. Let’s just agree to disagree like adults here and move on.
 
abmk

abmk

Bionic Poster
FrontHeadlock said:
ATP points to me is always the weirdest argument for or against an event.

Btw, there are plenty of strong arguments against the WTF given its format.
Click to expand...

no, points is one factor and a reasonable one.
when only top players are playing you allow for a little breathing space and its exactly the right format.
 
L

Lorenn

Hall of Fame
Nole Slam said:
I do agree with that. Just pointing out how much closer 21 is to 20. I mean just looking at the Slam count.
Click to expand...
Difference is the big three have such amazing careers to debate the fine details becomes insanely problematic. Joker has tons of secondary number but really lacks any younger rivals. All the others tended to have younger and older rivals. Nadal tends to lack secondary stats and was a little bit more likely to have injuries when compared to Joker. Fed people will always point towards the peak. SO slams becomes the easy way not to have a year long debate on every detail. Overall they are insanely close really.

This debate Stan just lacks secondaries at all really.
 
abmk

abmk

Bionic Poster
The Blond Blur said:
I’m not going to get into an hours long debate with you over this dude. If you think the YEC is more important then good for you. Let’s just agree to disagree like adults here and move on.
Click to expand...

if you want to escape with badly judged subjective things, that's what you do.
Oh and by your logic, I'm free to say Halle is a grass masters equivalent and Basel replaces Paris as Masters 1000.
So fed has 47 Masters equivalent titles.

You can agree to disagree and move on. :)
 
The Blond Blur

The Blond Blur

G.O.A.T.
abmk said:
if you want to escape with badly judged subjective things, that's what you do.
Oh and by your logic, I'm free to say Halle is a grass masters equivalent and Basel replaces Paris as Masters 1000.
So fed has 47 Masters equivalent titles.

You can agree to disagree and move on. :)
Click to expand...
Again dude you take this place way too seriously. Anytime someone disagrees with you and/or doesn’t want to engage in a fruitless discussion with you, you throw a tantrum. The fact that you’re having this big of a meltdown when someone on the internet has a different opinion than you is frankly embarrassing.
 
duaneeo

duaneeo

Legend
Nole Slam said:
So I know that the possibility of Wawrinka somehow winning Wimbledon is laughable, especially right now. I mean this man never even reached the SF at Wimbledon during his prime.
Click to expand...

Not so much actually. Stan had never made it beyond the QF of the AO or RG before winning those tournaments. The LostGens are pathetic on grass, Murray appears to be too physically damaged to go far in slams, and Federer might not never return to the game. That leaves Nole, who Stan owns mentally. It would actually be interesting to see what would happen if they met at Wimbledon.
 
abmk

abmk

Bionic Poster
The Blond Blur said:
Again dude you take this place way too seriously. Anytime someone disagrees with you and/or doesn’t want to engage in a fruitless discussion with you, you throw a tantrum. The fact that you’re having this big of a meltdown when someone on the internet has a different opinion than you is frankly embarrassing.
Click to expand...

I'm only showing you a mirror. that you delusionally say is a tantrum or a meltdown shows how irritated you are at being shown the mirror. :)
Over and out.
 
The Blond Blur

The Blond Blur

G.O.A.T.
abmk said:
I'm only showing you a mirror. that you delusionally say is a tantrum or a meltdown shows how irritated you are at being shown the mirror. :)
Over and out.
Click to expand...
Lol ok, I’m not the one trying to provoke someone else into an argument because they happen to have a difference opinion with insults :laughing:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TimHenmanATG
To people denying the concept of a ''big 4'', and comparing Murray to Wawrinka - here are some stats
3 4 5
Replies
203
Views
9K
tennis_pro
tennis_pro
H
  • Poll
Do you think Zverev will have a better career than Andy Murray?
Replies
42
Views
1K
mike danny
mike danny
Fedeonic
  • Poll
Who has had the best decade so far?
Replies
32
Views
1K
BGod
BGod
Achilles82
Can Stan win Wimbledon and complete career grand slam?
Replies
11
Views
765
TupeloDanger
TupeloDanger
Kralingen
Djokovic 2018-2023 vs Federer 2004-2009
2 3 4
Replies
156
Views
4K
GoatNo1
GoatNo1
Top