Nadal played Federer and Djokovic 16 times in slam finals. But he won 10 of them. Real champions find ways to win. There are really no excuses for losing 8 finals out of 11.
Andy Murray cannot be compared to Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, says Mats Wilander
Tennisanity
Legend
If you had to pick someone to beat peak Djoko, Nadal or Fed, who would you choose? Peak Murray or Peak Stan? I'd go with Stan (except probably grass).
Against Djokovic it's Wawrinka for sure. Against Federer and Nadal it's a tougher question.
TahoeTennis
Legend
Murray is definitely an ATG, and his first win at wimby after losing the previous year gives me goosebumps every time i listen to his speech. (Losing speech) .
To have the pressure of the whole UK and come through is monumental.
That said, he's obviously 4 of the big 4 with Stan right behind him. But it's all subjective anyway.
Vamos Andy!
To have the pressure of the whole UK and come through is monumental.
That said, he's obviously 4 of the big 4 with Stan right behind him. But it's all subjective anyway.
Vamos Andy!
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Murray has won 45 finals and 14 of them were against Federer, Nadal or Djokovic. Are you saying he isn't a real champion?
TahoeTennis
Legend
Ps. Just getting to a slam final multiple times is greatness, and then to win one cements you as an atg, which is why Roddick is up there too, top 50ish?
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Well I'm not comparing Murray to Djok fed and nadal. He is inferior to them. Career wise no he is not close to them. But he can still be considered an ATG. You don't have to have 10 slams to be that. Edberg, Becker for example are considered to be ATGs. Why can't Murray be considered that then with his all round career.
Federer and Nadal have had multiple inferior opponents in their finals, like Berdych, Soderling, Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Anderson, Ferrer. All I'm saying is Murray is unlucky he didn't get more inferior opponents in his finals like for example Raonic. Its not like murray has reached two slam finals, he has reached 11 of them and in almost all of them he has had to play Fed or Djoko. Still though he beat Djokovic two times.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Murray has beaten three of them a combined 29 times. Wawrinka stands at 8. He has 20-3 h2h record against both fed and nadal. Against djok 18-5.
My decision would be Murray any day of the week, peak to peak, average to average you name it.
deacsyoga
Banned
Mixed.
In a slam for Djokovic it would be Stan for sure. For Nadal it would be Murray. Murray has beaten Nadal a couple times in slams and pushed him other times. Stan beat him once but was otherwise drubbed. And Federer, no idea, both are borderline hopeless against him in slams.
Jaitock1991
Hall of Fame
But he's won the Olympics TWICE 
Surely he must be the GOAT..
Surely he must be the GOAT..
deacsyoga
Banned
and most importantly about 50% of this forum thinks Sharapova is an ATG. If she is, then Murray can be too. His career is atleast as good as hers. She has 5 slams to his 3, but he has a ton more Masters than she does Premiers and Premier Mandatory, both have a YEC, he has 2 Olympic Golds to her 0, he has more slam finals and semis I believe, she has the Career Slam. And he doesnt use PEDs and isnt on a 13 year losing streak to anyone.
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
In other news, water is wet
Jaitock1991
Hall of Fame
I'm sorry but any thread that has "says Wilander" makes me go...
Who is worse? Wilander or JMac?
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Wilander...definitely
Fedalfan
Semi-Pro
In fairness, "Big 4" got coined around 2008-09, when Fedal led the pack, with Djoko and Murray guaranteed to make semis/finals. Mind you, Djoko only had one AO slam at that point and so they were quite comparable and it made sense to have a "Big 4" and everyone else was questionable - a Berdych or Delpo could have joined the ranks but for various circumstances, didn't.
Between 2011-now, landscape has shifted quite a bit. Murray did get his 3 slams but Djoko has put a big distance of 9 slams between them. Fedal keep leading the pack, but Stan the Man also emerged in this era and has an equal 3 slams with Murray.
So to make a distinction between Big 3, and 2 greats (Stan and Andy) isn't unreasonable. The big 3 have an average of 16 slams. It's a really big difference from 3 slams. Also, when you say Big 4 and leave Stan out, that doesn't make sense. So either Big 3 or Big 5 are more acceptable buckets. Big 4 isn't fair any more, I feel.
Between 2011-now, landscape has shifted quite a bit. Murray did get his 3 slams but Djoko has put a big distance of 9 slams between them. Fedal keep leading the pack, but Stan the Man also emerged in this era and has an equal 3 slams with Murray.
So to make a distinction between Big 3, and 2 greats (Stan and Andy) isn't unreasonable. The big 3 have an average of 16 slams. It's a really big difference from 3 slams. Also, when you say Big 4 and leave Stan out, that doesn't make sense. So either Big 3 or Big 5 are more acceptable buckets. Big 4 isn't fair any more, I feel.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Murray can't be compared to Edberg or Wilander because he has half their amount of slams lmao.
We all know why you overrate Murray.
Purplemonster
Hall of Fame
Murray is the Big 1 though as in the GOAT for major finals lost especially at one particular tournament.
titoelcolombiano
Legend
Nothing new here - there is no such thing as a 'big 4'. Murray is not an all time great like the 'big 3' and therefore can't be grouped in with them.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
It doesn't if all that is taken into consideration is the Slam count but not if other aspects of their careers are taken into account eg. ranking, other big titles won, total titles won etc.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/big-titles-nadal-us-open-2017
I'm just saying that there is no need to overrate him.
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
There are as many as four grand slam tournaments in a single year, nine masters. Having boatloads of those is a bit like being a millionaire in the Weimar Republic in 1922: sure, looks good on paper, but doesn't really mean much.
Murray knows to collect the rare prizes that matter.
Murray knows to collect the rare prizes that matter.
Sport
G.O.A.T.
I agree. Wawrinka for hard and clay. Murray for grass.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
But he has 11 finals.
I mean if Hewitt has 2 slams then Murray is definitely worth atleast 6.
NatF
Bionic Poster
abmk
Bionic Poster
Of course the World Cup is the biggest price in football, but that’s mainly because Olympic Football is effectively a U23 tournament with the exception of 3 players who are allowed to be older. And the reason why FIFA insisted on it (after the Olympics became open for professionals during the 80s) was the fear of seeing the World Cup losing ground to the Olympics.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
No he's not you idiot. The fact he lost that many finals is telling.
So, according to Wilander, there isn't any Big Four, only Big Three and Murray cannot be compared to the other three players. He even speaks of the concept of the Big Four and then dismisses it because Andy made the finals but didn't win enough. The Swedish veteran has ungraciously attempted to erase Andy from his rightful position at the top of the game and reveals a great deal more about himself than anything else. It is fact, not opinion, that Murray has contested tooth and nail in an incredible decade-long era of tennis, achieving final-four outcomes time and time again - an unprecedented and probably never-to-be-repeated phenomenon. How incredible is it that the Fab Four, yes, Four, have made it to the summit of so many wonderful tournaments? Federer. Nadal. Djokovic. And, of course, Murray. Their names belong together, whether Wilander likes it or not.
Slightly D1
Professional
Poor Andy, born either 10 years too early or 10 years too late. While he is a great player, there is no such as thing as a "Big 4".
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Edberg has 11 finals, Becker has 10 finals and Hewitt, for an example, has only 4 finals. Based on this, Murray should be closer to Becker and Edberg than to Hewitt except one problem: he played Federer and Djokovic in all his finals except one. If it wasn't for this, he would have about 6 Slams right now.
So you are actually correct, not because Hewitt has 2 Slams and Murray is worth more, but because Murray has had a career more in line with Becker and Edberg than Hewitt. Becker has 3 WTFs, Hewitt has 2, and Murray and Edberg have 1. However, Hewitt only has 2 Masters whereas Edberg has 8, Becker has 13 and Murray has 14, not even mentioning Murray's 2 Olympic Golds.
Murray's career is beyond Hewitt and he really should be on par with Edberg and Becker but he was unlucky that he played in an era where 3 of the players are in the top 4 of the Open Era. He really got the short end of the stick. This really hurt him because he would have achieved more in a different era than this one, or if he would have been fortunate enough to play them less in Slam tournaments and finals.
tennis4me
Hall of Fame
While probably Mats has a point about the big Four vs Three, he completely avoided the original question which was how "his career would have been had he played in the same era as the Big ...". Curious what his answer would've been. Sounds like he gets a little annoyed by that question being compared with the "Big Four" that includes Andy, who only has 3 GS so far.
Legend of Borg
G.O.A.T.
what is this retardo logic?
he's worth 3 slams in total BECAUSE THATS HOW MANY HE'S CONVERTED
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Very Good post and you snatched the words out of my mouth. That is exactly what I mean by saying Murray is worth more slams. He is closer to those guys than he is to hewitt, even if he has only one slam more, in fact he is much more distanced from Hewitt. He is on par with guys that have won 6-7 slams quality wise. No question about that.
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
It's not just Wilander who says this, it's every tennis fan on the planet who says it and knows it. Andy has 3 majors, we all know how many the other three have. He's not remotely in their same league, he never has been and he never will be.
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
is this a joke? A guy with three slams is an ATG?
Many tennis historians don't even place Lendl, Mac, Connors or Wilander or Agassi (all with 7-8 slams) as ATG's, much less Murray. It's just utterly absurd. Nobody with 3-5 majors in an ATG. Why not toss in Jim Courier as an ATG, since he's got 4 majors?
deacsyoga
Banned
is this a joke? A guy with three slams is an ATG?
I would normally agree but half the posters here seem to think Sharapova is an ATG. And if she is Murray can be too I guess. I guess here the bar is really low.
deacsyoga
Banned
That is what I said. I said there is a big 3 of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic IMO and a big 5 of those 3 that now adds on Murray and Wawrinka. The big 4 concept made sense once but not anymore. Wawrinka and Murray are closer to each other now than Stan is to the pack below, and Murray is to the 3 GOATs above.
abmk
Bionic Poster
LOL, wut ?
Murray did not play that all well in any of the slam finals he lost except for Wimbledon 2012 final. He'd have lost to good players (other than Federer/Djokovic) in all of these finals - USO 08, AO 10, AO 11, AO 13, AO 15, AO 16, RG 16. (only AO 15 is debatable - given he was taken in by djokovic's drama playing possum).
USO 08/AO 10/AO 11 - no explanation needed, I presume.
AO 13- he was affected by blisters after 2nd set. So he loses it anyways.
AO 16 -there's a good chance he loses to Raonic if not for Raonic's injury. He was down 2 sets to one. Murray wasn't playing all that great.
RG 16 - any competent clay courter would've beaten him the way he played from sets 2 to 4.
if anything he was lucky to make the finals of AO 11/AO 16 --- he struggled to get to the finals in both of them. Federer was the better player in both those AOs than him , he just happened to face Djokovic in the semi.
-----
Lets see in comparison to Edberg for instance.
Edberg was unlucky to have to default the AO 90 final to Lendl due to injury (occurred in the last game of the semi). He had absolutely demolished Wilander in the previous round, losing only 4 games and was the clear favorite in the final, if not for injury.
If Murray was unlucky to lose Wimbledon 12 final to Federer, Edberg was unlucky to lose to Stich in 91 Wimbledon semi (lost 3 TBs, wasn't even broken once)
In 85 AO - Edberg beat Lendl in 5 sets (9-7 in the 5th) in the semi and defending champ Wilander in straight sets in the final.
in 87 AO - he beat an in-form Cash in 5 sets in AO 87 final
in 88 wimby - he came back from 2 sets to love down vs a really in-form Mecir and beat 2 time wimbledon champion Becker in the final in 4 sets
in 90 wimby - he beat Lendl in straight sets in the semi in a brilliant performance and beat Becker in 5 sets (coming from a break down in the 5th)
in 91 USO - he was dominant, beating Lendl easily in straights in the semi and thrashing Courier in the final, losing only 6 games
in 92 USO - he overcome one of the toughest draws of them all - beating Krajicek, Chang and Lendl all in 5 sets ( was a break down in the 5th set in all of them IIRC) and then Sampras in 4 sets in the final
Edberg faced tougher competition than Murray did.
Edberg was clearly better on grass, on fast HC, indoors and better even on slow HC (he really should've won AO 90). Murray is only better on clay/RG (in the last 3 years).
Edberg's peak level was clearly higher than Murray's and he was a considerably better player.
to put them on par is ridiculous.
Murray would have won one more slam in another era (not Edberg's though), but that's it. But he'd also less consistent results than he currently has ( thanks to homogenization )
Last edited:
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
I'm totally not interested in engaging in a debate with you today, just like any other day. I really don't see the point in any of what you stated since clearly Murray played in the tougher era. I'm sure he would gladly take on Wilander, Courier and Cash any day of the week over Federer and Djokovic. The argument was never even about whose peak level was greater and I'm only looking at what these players accomplished. Based on Murray's record and what he's accomplished in tennis so far, his career would easily be on par with Edberg and Becker if he didn't have Federer and Djokovic blocking him along the way and playing them in virtually every GS final. Throw Edberg in Murray's era, and he would be getting beaten just like Murray.
abmk
Bionic Poster
it wasn't just Wilander, Cash , Courier. It was Lendl and Becker too, big part that you missed.
So Murray did not face tougher competition, Edberg actually had it tougher.
If you are looking at just what they accomplished , then Edberg is considerably ahead.
and no, replace Federer/Djokovic with Lendl, Becker, Wilander, Courier or in-form Cash and Murray still loses those finals that I mentioned. The oh murray was unlucky chant would have more weight if he actually played well in those finals.
And no, if you put Edberg in this era, he wins atleast 3 wimbledons , 1 or 2 USOs and there is a decent chance he gets 1 AO (more chance than Murray anyways)
There's no doubt that takes all 3 of the slams that Murray won btw.
Last edited:
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
No I didn't miss it. I pointed out that Edberg had the luxury of playing Wilander, Courier and Cash in GS finals and Murray did not. As great as Becker/Lendl/Wilander are, they are still less, by a quite a considerable margin, than Federer/Nadal/Djokovic. Murray clearly had it tougher since those 3 players are in the top 4 in the Open Era. No comparison.
So place Edberg in this era and he wins an extra Wimbledon even though you have Federer and then Djokovic/Nadal who are all accomplished on grass and have won it a combined 13 times? Sure that makes sense. Even though Edberg's serve and volley game would be obselete on the slower modern grass but still let's just throw him an extra Wimbledon just because.
abmk
Bionic Poster
1. Murray did not face Nadal in a GS final. At best, Nadal cost him one slam - wim 10. AO 07/wim 08 -- murray was never going to win.
USO 11, RG 14 - he was the worst of the 4 SFists. Wim 11 - djoko would've beaten Murray in the final anyways.
Also they didn't even meet once in 12-13, which benefitted both of them.
2. Yes, Federer/Djokovic are clearly tougher than Wilander/Courier/in-form Cash.
And playing those guys in a final is not a luxury at all. Playing someone like Raonic not playing well is.
Most importantly, did Murray play well enough to convince us that he could beat other very good or great players like Wilander/Courier/Cash and only came up short vs the higher levels of Federer/Djokovic ? The answer is a big resounding no for : USO 08, AO 10, AO 11, AO 13, AO 16, RG 16 ...AO 15 is debatable.
Wim 12 was one performance where he actually played really well in the final and still lost.
Edberg put up excellent performances in the slams vs these guys, both dominating them and winning vs them when they were playing well - even coming back from situations like a break down in the 5th set to the boot. (Wimbledon 90 final is a sterling example)
3. Also Murray didn't have to face a complete blankout from federer like prime roddick/hewitt did vs federer from 2004 onwards. Djokovic was not as as ruthless/good. Federer was getting out earlier in the slams by the time Murray started winning. You could complain about Murray's bad luck more had he not got an easy opponent like Raonic in Wim 16 final.
4. As far as Edberg on grass goes, I'm talking about his good years starting from when Murray's did, which is when federer's prime was ending on grass - 09. Edberg surely wins both the Wimbledons that Murray did and takes one of the other Wimbledons from - Nadal in 10 or djoko in 11 or fed in 12 or djoko in 14 ( depending on his form ). Nadal was not a factor on grass from 12 onwards and Murray's best years on grass have been - 12, 13,15 and 16.
Notice that I said 1 or 2 USOs for Edberg -- even though he won 2 USOs ..that's because he wasn't that consistent at the USO as he was at Wimbledon (from 87 to 93) ...
Edberg was taken out by peak lendl in wim 87 SF, peak Becker in straight sets in 89 (tbf, Edberg played below par in this final), unlucky to be taken out by peak Stich in 91 wimby, taken out by a rampaging Goran in 92 and by Courier at his best Wimbledon in 93.
Also remember he won 2 out of 2 AOs on grass when he became a top player ( 85 and 87).
Of course I am assuming that he changes his strategy to be more selectively attacking --- but keeping his level the same as it was.
Same for Murray if in other eras. Or I could say that the first serve% was lesser in the previous eras in general and Murray's 2nd serve would be even more of a liability than it is and say he'd do less well than he has in the current era.
SnV is obsolete on modern day grass in major part because there is no one good enough to do it well. (& the one top guy good enough to do it was better from the baseline and stuck to that more so than net rushing , of course he also found it safer to do so)
Just that it needs to be done selectively.
Last edited:
MugOpponent
Hall of Fame
Surely I'm not the only one who wants the Stanimal to win a fourth slam just to make Andy's inclusion in the big four look even more absurd than it already is.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree about this. For me, once Murray got the #1 ranking he moved closer to the Big 3 again (can you think of anyone else likely to take this ranking anytime soon including Stan?) and away from Stan and the others. Really, the ONLY thing that Stan has in common with Murray is the Slam count and if Slam count is ALL that matters to you then of course it is logical to place them as equal. But I prefer to look at whole careers and other titles won along with the Slams and here there is still an enormous gap between Murray and Stan.
deacsyoga
Banned
I agree Murray is clearly ahead of Stan. I dont dispute that part. However which gap do you think is the smallest, Djokovic to Murray, Murray to Stan, or Stan to say Berdych. For me that is an answer answer, Murray to Stan are the closest of those clearly. And certainly will be in the future where people will look at their slam wins first, and then at other things after that. Or even if you want to say their slam wins and their YE#1s first, then everything after that, Murray would still be closer to Stan than Stan to the ones behind, and Murray to the 3 GOATs. Even if they look at head to heads they will Fedalovic owning both Murray and Wawrinka (although Stan becoming Djokovic's slam nemisis awhile), Stan winning all his matches over people like Berdych from mid 2013, and Murray-Wawrinka just about tied.
And fact of the matter is I know you know where I am coming from as you participate in many of my Hall of Fame threads and what do you post first always? Slam wins. You even admit to me many you only look at slam finals and time at #1 as the first tiebreaker, always placing peoples slams win first (which of course would favor Murray over Stan, but again I am not disputing Murray being above Stan).
Similar threads
- Poll
