Andy Murray cannot be compared to Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, says Mats Wilander

[Mainad]

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, and then look beyond that. 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.

If we're looking at whole careers and not just the Slam count, then the result is that Murray is actually closer to Djokovic in titles won: difference of 23 whereas between Murray and Stan the difference is 29. Other than the Slam count, there really is no contest.

 

[BringBackSV]

The big 4 works for me but Murray and Wawrinka both count as half an ATG.

 

[MugOpponent]

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).

Stan on clay and hard courts. Murray on grass. Stan's far more dangerous though in totality because he can simply hit spectacular winners and there's not much defense for it. Murray's grind game doesn't really work too well on the big three.

 

[deacsyoga]

If we're looking at whole careers and not just the Slam count, then the result is that Murray is actually closer to Djokovic in titles won: difference of 23 whereas between Murray and Stan the difference is 29. Other than the Slam count, there really is no contest.

Yet slam count is THE most important thing clearly. No it is not the only thing, otherwise i wouldnt even be saying Murray is clearly above Stan as I am, but the most important thing. YE#1 maybe along with that but even when combining the two Stan is still closer to Murray, than Murray to the first 3, or Stan to the ones behind. And as I edited into my last post after you replied, I know you are well aware of that, since you partake in many of my Hall of Fame threads where you always contribute well and we have had many good discussions, and you always mention slam victories first, then time at #1 or slam finals when they have the same slams. I dont even remember the exact players now but it was two WTA players and you were placing one who had like double the tournament wins behind the other since she had 1 less slam. And I sort of argued it (I think it might have been involving Capriati vs someone), and you stuck by the player with 1 more slam despite my counter arguments, so if anything at times you are even more gung ho the slam wins first mentality than I am. PS- saying all that I think I would still have Murray over Stan even if Stan gets a 4th slam and Murray stays at 3, but that doesnt change my first point of slam wins being the most important thing, despite not the only thing.

So I know you know where I am coming from despite being a Murray fan, and again I am not disputing Murray isnt over Stan, but he is closer to being grouped with him (if we insist on this silly grouping system which I am not a fan of anyway; I already noted the Big 4 concept even when legit was a silly marketing scheme IMHO anyway) than Stan is to the ones behind or Murray to the 3 GOATs of this era.

Truth is if they retired today in a historical sense Wawrinka would be seen much closer to Murray than Murray to Djokovic, or Wawrinka to Berdych. I ensure you the placements on some all time ranking list done by a panel of experts (which again i reinterate would clearly have Murray ahead of Stan) would be much lower figure between Murray and Stan, as between Murray and Djokovic, or say Stan and Berdych. That is in a crazy hypothetical they did a best ever 200 mens players ever or something that would even reach Berdych, Del Potro, Tsonga, Cilic, et al.

Of course we have yet to see how all their careers wind up. Years from now people wont be caring much about winning 11 Masters to 1 though for instance, amongst other things. Which is sad in a way yes but it is also reality.You dont see anyone saying if Rafa reaches 40 Masters he would have a case to be GOAT over Roger with 15 majors or something like that. I am sure you dont delve up similar stats for players of the 60s either, and only the biggest tennis nerds even uncover them at all.

 

[Mainad]

Yet slam count is THE most important thing clearly. No it is not the only thing, otherwise i wouldnt even be saying Murray is clearly above Stan as I am, but the most important thing. YE#1 maybe along with that but even when combining the two Stan is still closer to Murray, than Murray to the first 3, or Stan to the ones behind. And as I edited into my last post after you replied, I know you are well aware of that, since you partake in many of my Hall of Fame threads and you always mention slam victories first, then time at #1 or slam finals when they have the same slams. I dont even remember the exact players now but it was two WTA players and you were placing one who had like double the tournament wins behind the other since she had 1 less slam. And I sort of argued it (I think it might have been involving Capriati vs someone), and you stuck by the player with 1 more slam, so if anything at times you are even more gung ho the slam wins first mentality than I am. So I know you know where I am coming from despite being a Murray fan, and again I am not disputing Murray isnt over Stan, but he is closer to being grouped with him (if we insist on this silly grouping system which I am not a fan of anyway) than Stan is to the ones behind or Murray to the 3 GOATs of this era.

Yes, of course I count Slams as the most important because they are the most important tournaments. If Player A has even 1 Slam title to his name, then it's difficult to rank a Slamless Player B over him even if B has many other titles to his name.

However in the case of Murray and Stan, we have 2 players with equal numbers of Slams and for you this means that they are closer together than either could be to any of the Big 3. But, in a case where 2 players are equal in Slam count I prefer to look at their entire resumé of titles to see where they stand in relation to the Big 3 and over each other. Murray has won a WTF title which not even Nadal has managed to win yet and has won double digit Masters titles, the only one to do so apart from the Big 3. He has won 2 Olympic singles titles which even Federer and Djokovic have tried and failed to win on several occasions and of course there is the #1 ranking which nobody apart from the Big 3 and Murray has ever been close to attaining. Finally there is the overall titles tally which I just mentioned which puts Murray closer to Djokovic than to Stan or anybody else. For those reasons, I see Murray as being closer to the Big 3 in overall achievements than he is to Stan or anybody else.

If looking purely at the Slam count, then your argument stands of course. But if looking at overall careers, I think my argument has an equally vaild case.

 

[deacsyoga]

Yes, of course I count Slams as the most important because they are the most important tournaments. If Player A has even 1 Slam title to his name, then it's difficult to rank a Slamless Player B over him even if B has many other titles to his name.

However in the case of Murray and Stan, we have 2 players with equal numbers of Slams and for you this means that they are closer together than either could be to any of the Big 3. But, in a case where 2 players are equal in Slam count I prefer to look at their entire resumé of titles to see where they stand in relation to the Big 3 and over each other. Murray has won a WTF title which not even Nadal has managed to win yet and has won double digit Masters titles, the only one to do so apart from the Big 3. He has won 2 Olympic singles titles which even Federer and Djokovic have tried and failed to win on several occasions and of course there is the #1 ranking which nobody apart from the Big 3 and Murray has ever been close to attaining. Finally there is the overall titles tally which I just mentioned which puts Murray closer to Djokovic than to Stan or anybody else. For those reasons, I see Murray as being closer to the Big 3 in overall achievements than he is to Stan or anybody else.

If looking purely at the Slam count, then your argument stands of course. But if looking at overall careers, I think my argument has an equally vaild case.

Fair enough. I dont think we will ever really get on the same page on this so we can leave it at that.

 

[Mainad]

Fair enough. I dont think we will ever really get on the same page on this so we can leave it at that.

Expect it would get a tad boring if we kept agreeing all the time.

 

[deacsyoga]

Expect it would get a tad boring if we kept agreeing all the time.

LOL of course.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

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.

Murray played in a weak era actually because there was nobody threatening behind him.

He makes finals and gets absolutely spanked, doesn't mean anything - and no, Murray isn't even close to Edberg/Becker. They would have beaten the versions of Fedalovic more often than Murray who 99% of the time couldn't finish the job.

Murray loses about as meekly as Hewitt/Roddick did against an older Federer. I can't believe anybody thinks he's worth 6 slams... rofl.

 

[octogon]

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.

Half those posters probably want to bang Sharapova. If she looked like a horse, do you think she'd get as many people here claiming she was an ATG?

 

[NoleFam]

Murray played in a weak era actually because there was nobody threatening behind him.

He makes finals and gets absolutely spanked, doesn't mean anything - and no, Murray isn't even close to Edberg/Becker. They would have beaten the versions of Fedalovic more often than Murray who 99% of the time couldn't finish the job.

Murray loses about as meekly as Hewitt/Roddick did against an older Federer. I can't believe anybody thinks he's worth 6 slams... rofl.

Yea a weak era where the three players in front of you are 3 of the greatest players of all time. That sounds pretty weak to me also. He makes finals which is more than Hewitt was doing, even before the rise of Nadal and Djokovic, and his 11-14 record against Federer is sure a hell of a lot better than than the 12-39 record that Hewitt/Roddick have against him.

Based on how many times he was able to make GS finals he definitely could have ended up with 6 Slams but he happens to be playing a trio of players who are just a bit better than he is. He's been to the same number of GS finals as Becker and Edberg and is far beyond Hewitt. That much is for sure.

 

[octogon]

The Big 4 concept becomes even more problematic if Stan ends up winning 1-2 more slams and Andy stays where he is. Better to nip it in the bud now.

 

[MichaelNadal]

In 11 of those finals he has played Federer or Djokovic 10 times. Once he got Raonic. I mean if that isn't unlucky then I don't know what is.

Oh, you're on #TeamBootyFlipFlops&Spaghetti now too?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Yea a weak era where the three players in front of you are 3 of the greatest players of all time. That sounds pretty weak to me also. He makes finals which is more than Hewitt was doing, even before the rise of Nadal and Djokovic, and his 11-14 record against Federer is sure a hell of a lot better than than the 12-39 record that Hewitt/Roddick have against him.

Based on how many times he was able to make GS finals he definitely could have ended up with 6 Slams but he happens to be playing a trio of players who are just a bit better than he is. He's been to the same number of GS finals as Becker and Edberg and is far beyond Hewitt. That much is for sure.

Pretty weak when the guys behind you are Berdych and Raonic lmao...

What's Murray's record against Federer in majors? Beat him once, lol.. Even after he supposedly established himself in 2014-2015.

If he can only win 3 out of 11 finals regardless of the competition (as another poster said before) he isn't winning 6 in any era.

And he made a lot of those finals because he didn't encounter players that are capable of defeating him.

Murray didn't even have a Moya or Ferrero level player behind him. Just Berdych and Ferrer. Lol.

 

[NoleFam]

Pretty weak when the guys behind you are Berdych and Raonic lmao...

What's Murray's record against Federer in majors? Beat him once, lol.. Even after he supposedly established himself in 2014-2015.

If he can only win 3 out of 11 finals regardless of the competition (as another poster said before) he isn't winning 6 in any era.

And he made a lot of those finals because he didn't encounter players that are capable of defeating him.

Murray didn't even have a Moya or Ferrero level player behind him. Just Berdych and Ferrer. Lol.

I guess Hewitt's era was so much tougher though right? Murray has in fact beaten both Federer and Djokovic in Slams. How many times have Hewitt/Roddick beaten Federer in a major? A big fat zero. They both are 0-8 in fact making it 0-16 for both of them. That sure makes Murray's 1-5 record not so bad after all. It's pretty disingenuous to say Murray didn't have Moya or Fererro level players when he had Wawrinka and Del Potro, and Murray leads both of those head to heads. Murray won 3 out of 11 because he faced the two guys who are among the greatest in history in 10 of those finals, and if he was even lucky enough to face Wawrinka, Del Potro or Cilic level players he would have had more chance. I know your a big Hewitt fan and it must bug you that Murray, a player who you do not respect, would be heralded in a higher regard than him but you need to accept reality.

 

[abmk]

I guess Hewitt's era was so much tougher though right? Murray has in fact beaten both Federer and Djokovic in Slams. How many times have Hewitt/Roddick beaten Federer in a major? A big fat zero. They both are 0-8 in fact making it 0-16 for both of them. That sure makes Murray's 1-5 record not so bad after all. It's pretty disingenuous to say Murray didn't have Moya or Fererro level players when he had Wawrinka and Del Potro, and Murray leads both of those head to heads. Murray won 3 out of 11 because he faced the two guys who are among the greatest in history in 10 of those finals, and if he was even lucky enough to face Wawrinka, Del Potro or Cilic level players he would have had more chance. I know your a big Hewitt fan and it must bug you that Murray, a player who you do not respect, would be heralded in a higher regard than him but you need to accept reality.

Murray is 10-8 vs Stan overall, but is 2-4 down from 2013 onwards.(including 1-2 in slams)
As far as delpo is concerned , he was off tour for almost whole of 2010, 2014, 2015.

but why just stan/delpo/cilic level players ? how about other ATGs (not 10+ slam winners), but still ATGs -- lendl,connors, mcenroe, agassi etc. --- 2 of them ....in place of djokovic/federer?

Murray would still lose all those finals at the level he played -- USO 08/AO 10/AO 11/AO 13/AO 16/RG 16 ....(AO 15 is debatable)

even Stan/delpo playing well would've beaten those versions of Murray.

so, enough with the excuses for Murray.
He's not at Becker/Edberg/Wilander level.

He should be grouped with Courier, lesser peak, but more consistency/longevity.

 

[Red Rick]

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.

Golden

Wait.?

 

[hoodjem]

Mats is correct. Either include Stan or exclude Murray.

"The Big Five."

 

[smalahove]

Murray is the Ringo Starr of the Big Four.

That was exactly what popped into my head when starting to read this thread

 

[SpinToWin]

A broken clock is right twice a day.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Wasn't there a period of a few years where no one but Fed, Nad, Djok and Murray contested every Slam final? Seem to recall that but could be wrong.

I count Murray. Obviously he hasn't had anything like the career but he's been solid at Masters etc. And before anyone mentions Stan, he can't come close to Murrays consistency.

Definitely a mile ahead as 4th best player since, say, 2010? I think that's fair.

That's true. But then again, Wawrinka is much closer to Murray than Murray is to any of the big 4.
So it would make more sense to group the big 3 together and then Wawrinka and Murray in a separate group.
Unless you're using the category "players who have been #1".

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I guess Hewitt's era was so much tougher though right? Murray has in fact beaten both Federer and Djokovic in Slams. How many times have Hewitt/Roddick beaten Federer in a major? A big fat zero. They both are 0-8 in fact making it 0-16 for both of them. That sure makes Murray's 1-5 record not so bad after all. It's pretty disingenuous to say Murray didn't have Moya or Fererro level players when he had Wawrinka and Del Potro, and Murray leads both of those head to heads. Murray won 3 out of 11 because he faced the two guys who are among the greatest in history in 10 of those finals, and if he was even lucky enough to face Wawrinka, Del Potro or Cilic level players he would have had more chance. I know your a big Hewitt fan and it must bug you that Murray, a player who you do not respect, would be heralded in a higher regard than him but you need to accept reality.

Lmao Roddick/Hewitt never got the chance to face a dead Federer like Murray did when he beat him.

Keep overrating him, he's not that good.

 

[killerboi2]

Lmao Roddick/Hewitt never got the chance to face a dead Federer like Murray did when he beat him.

They did have a chance. Roddick is younger than Federer, but retired in 2012 because he was a mug that could no longer hack it. Hewitt was also around Fed's age but became irrelevant after 2005. Where were those guys throughout Fed's career? They have no longetivity, lmao.

 

[peakin11mugs]

He’s definitely plays a big role in the era we’ve just had as he’s been there for years taking out fed nadal or Djokovic in semi finals, taking the odd grand slam, olympics, WTF, no1 weeks from them. He is also a solid player. However his accomplishments in slams are simply not in the same league as the others. Not in a hater way - he has had a solid career, some great unique achievements and I like his general low key personality

 

[Mainad]

That's true. But then again, Wawrinka is much closer to Murray than Murray is to any of the big 4.
So it would make more sense to group the big 3 together and then Wawrinka and Murray in a separate group.
Unless you're using the category "players who have been #1".

Well, there is that and also other big titles won eg. WTF, Masters, OSG etc.

 

[PrinceMoron]

I know one Murray fan (from another forum) who thinks Olympic Gold is the most important thing in any kind of sports, including tennis.

And doubles is 2 medals so doubly important


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mainad]

And doubles is 2 medals so doubly important

Well, no it isn't. Each player does get a medal but it's actually only a half-share as it only counts as '1' in Olympic records.

 

[PrinceMoron]

Well, no it isn't. Each player does get a medal but it's actually only a half-share as it only counts as '1' in Olympic records.

Think I was being facetious rather than factual.
Olympics is a joke tennis event with crying babies and rubbish beer, ignorant crowd.

Worse than US Open 2017, which is saying something


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mainad]

Think I was being facetious rather than factual.
Olympics is a joke tennis event with crying babies and rubbish beer, ignorant crowd.

Worse than US Open 2017, which is saying something

Be fair. The Olympics aren't the ONLY tennis event where you can come across crying babies!

 

[deacsyoga]

OK someone help me here. Why the f$ck is Sabratha of all peope sporting a Murray avatar? Did he lose a bet or something.

 

[Fabresque]

OK let’s settle this because there’s a difference between dominating a sport or being consistent and being successful. Stanimal isn’t a dominant player but he’s been successful. Joker, Ralph, and Rogah have been dominant but have been pretty much as successful as the other ones in some cases. Andeh is the ‘fourth wheel’ because he’s been dominating the sport with those 3 but he hasn’t had the success of those 3, not even close. Only thing he has over them are those 2 Gold medals in singles at the olympics. Huge accomplishment yes, but those 3 still have achievements that Andeh is well behind in.

tl;dr- It’s a big 4 when you consider the sheer dominance they’ve had in the last nearly 10 years. It’s a big 3 (minus Murray) when you consider the success and not just dominance.

 

[Fabresque]

OK someone help me here. Why the f$ck is Sabratha of all peope sporting a Murray avatar? Did he lose a bet or something.

Definitely lost a bet. Something like “Go one week without calling someone a mug or have Murray as your avi”

 

[rovex]

Big 4 in terms of consistency, Murray's consistency as an obstacle to Djofedal since 2008. His role in this era speaks for itself, and has been a solid contender at every Grand Slam besides the French Open. Could you have said the same about anyone else outside the top 4 ?