RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
According to TTW those few weeks of Stan being hot trumps years of collecting and performing at high level to achieve what Murray did.
A comparision of Wawrinka vs Murray at HC slams
- Thread starter abmk
- Start date
According to TTW those few weeks of Stan being hot trumps years of collecting and performing at high level to achieve what Murray did.
RS
Bionic Poster
Stan played at a high level for big parts of like a 4 year period in majors tbh and has a decent H2H vs Murray but he is not a greater player.
Last edited:
RS
Bionic Poster
It might be because of the AO 2014 QF and the RG 2015 final.Funny how Stan gets shaded but guys like Medvedev, Zverev and Berrettini get praised
kevaninho
Hall of Fame
He crazily played Davis cup after the US Open before the back surgery.
Just another example of what he put his body through when he could have been resting instead.
No one really wants to give him that sort of credit though.
Zetty
Hall of Fame
Who'd be an AM devotee out in the open?
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
Good question honestly. That Wawrinka beat Murray twice at the U.S Open, including once well before his late career prime in 2010, and is 2-1 at the Open might be another argument in his favor in just hard court slams.
titoelcolombiano
Legend
HC H2H Murray 7-4
HC Slam H2H Stan 2 - 1
HC Slam H2H Stan 2 - 1
NAS
Hall of Fame
Med and zverev have overall better resume, I have no problem if somebody want only slam comparison but remember it will come to bite you at different point.Funny how Stan gets shaded but guys like Medvedev, Zverev and Berrettini get praised
Stan has very good peak but he didn't achieve much outside slam, so anybody who is at same number of slam will be rated over him
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
Zverev definitely not until he wins atleast 1 slam. I am not a "slams only" guy but there is no planet we are going to start suddenly saying guys with 0 slams have "better resume" than guys with 3.
That is not even mentioning the 'not winning a slam yet' in this **** poor era we are in today thing.
NAS
Hall of Fame
Not in comparison to Stan but in general, what I meant was that with great titles outside slam, if they ever equal anybody in slam number they will be rated ahead
-snake-
Hall of Fame
Mainad
Bionic Poster
King No1e
G.O.A.T.
Murray didn't play quite at peak level there. That was one way traffic if I've ever seen it.
No_Kwan_Do
Semi-Pro
I'd go for Murray.
13 QFs, 9SFs, 7 Fs and 1 W
VS
11 QFs, 6SFs, 2 Fs and 2 Ws
His additional QFs, SFs and sheer number of Fs outweigh Stan's one additional win. The disparity between the two becomes even more apparent away from the slams: Masters win, 500/250 wins, surface winning percentage etc.
13 QFs, 9SFs, 7 Fs and 1 W
VS
11 QFs, 6SFs, 2 Fs and 2 Ws
His additional QFs, SFs and sheer number of Fs outweigh Stan's one additional win. The disparity between the two becomes even more apparent away from the slams: Masters win, 500/250 wins, surface winning percentage etc.
Similar threads
