Andy Murray is an ATG.

[RS]

ATG

Even more boring than Wladimir Kiltschko.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

You don’t need 400 slides and 20,000 posts to settle this.

Andy Murray sits in the 10-15 range of the greatest players of all time. That’s an ATG.

You big 3 circle-jerking, Human Centipede level arselickers can cry about it amongst yourselves.

End of discussion.

There's no way in hell Murray is top 10 in history.

Even if you consider him superior to Courier, Vilas, etc. he is unquestionably behind Djokovic, Federer, Nadal, Borg, Sampras, Lendl, Agassi, Connors, Mac and Wilander.And that is ignoring pre-open era or players that played in both OE and before like Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, Tilden, Newcombe, Emerson, etc. He is at best top 15 in the open era, but never top 10 open era, let alone of all time. And that is still an amazing achievement.

 

[-NN-]

You need a high level of play in order to achieve consistency.

One can't be consistently crap?

 

[KingCarlitos]

ATG is a loose term, And can be assorted to anyone who is regarded as such by the majority.

 

[-NN-]

He's a part-time great. A PTG.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Top 10 is pushing it a bit. Even if you are the pushers pusher.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Djokovic, Federer, Nadal, Borg, Sampras, Lendl, Agassi, Connors, Mac and Wilander

He is definitely also behind Becker and Edberg. In fact I would say those two are ahead of Wilander as well.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Courier is also an ATG, so no problem here.

Plus, Murray has the all-time record of 2 OG in singles. That is so emblematic and influential. How many all-time records does Courier have in a Big Title? Zero.

Courier is ahead of Murray. OG wasn’t a thing during his time and due to the special circumstances around that tournament, this record is to be taken with a grain of salt anywho. Both are not ATGs to me though. I stick to the magic threshold of six slams. While this is of course arbitrary, it is I think the best cut-off since there is nobody sitting at 5 slams. If we lower it down and let Vilas, Courier and Murray in, it is tough to argue against Stan. If we have Stan in then we can argue for the best two slammers as well and so on.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

He is definitely also behind Becker and Edberg. In fact I would say those two are ahead of Wilander as well.

Yup, I was just mentioning 10 that were for sure ahead but not all of them. I'd probably have Becker and Edberg ahead of Wilander but the latter's '88 season makes me doubt a bit.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Yup, I was just mentioning 10 that were for sure ahead but not all of them. I'd probably have Becker and Edberg ahead of Wilander but the latter's '88 season makes me doubt a bit.

88 was great but Becker has more tournament wins, the way better carpet record, the way better DC record, the H2H, the more prestigious slams at that time (3-0 at Wimbledons and Mats with two AOs). The only thing apart from the additional slam which Mats has are more weeks at No.1, 20 vs 12 doesn’t make such big difference that I could have Mats ahead.

 

[Djokodalerer31]

Murray is retired, right?
So nobody has the right to make a thread about him here...
And Murray played 25 slam matches vs. Nadal/Djokovic/Federer, and won just 5 of them.
So he's the weakest ATG ever!
And he's proof that the best player doesn't win the Olympics (other than 2008 Nadal).

Ughh...and Djokovic? LOL

 

[Razer]

Yup, I was just mentioning 10 that were for sure ahead but not all of them. I'd probably have Becker and Edberg ahead of Wilander but the latter's '88 season makes me doubt a bit.

Becker's top 10 win% = 64.7% which is 4th below Djoker, Borg and Laver by numbers. Wilander is 50% and Edberg is like 46%.

If you check for BO5 then Becker is still at 63 while Wilander is at 53 and Edberg at 44%

These are real numbers which should not be ignored at least when we are comparing players of the same era.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Becker's top 10 win% = 64.7% which is 4th below Djoker, Borg and Laver by numbers. Wilander is 50% and Edberg is like 46%.

If you check for BO5 then Becker is still at 63 while Wilander is at 53 and Edberg at 44%

These are real numbers which should not be ignored at least when we are comparing players of the same era.

Becker always raised his level against the big guns. It was his inconsistency against subpar opposition that costed him more success.

 

[Djokodalerer31]

Three easy proofs that Murray is not an ATG:
1.He didn't win 6+ slams in 5 different seasons (everyone of those 12 gentlemen we dubbed as "ATG" does), that is half worth of the decade!
2.He didn't have ANY multi slam seasons (Everyone of the ATGs, except for Edberg had!)
3.His winning % in slam finals is abysmal (The only other ATG in the negative range is Lendl with 8-11 record, but he is still much much closer than Murray to 50%)
You don't need anything else to see where your usual 6+ slam range ATG is beter than any of those with 4 or less...if he was better in at least three of those things, then his case for an ATG could have been significantly higher, but THAT on itself requires more slam wins by default so...

 

[Razer]

Becker always raised his level against the big guns. It was his inconsistency against subpar opposition that costed him more success.

Yup, Becker being compared to Murray is the ultimate insult to Tennis and logic. I donno how @Rosstour is having such false notions.

 

[Neptune]

He is definitely also behind Becker and Edberg. In fact I would say those two are ahead of Wilander as well.

Becker clearly better than Edberg, and Edberg clearly better than Wilander.

​	vs Top5​	T5 Weight​	vs Top10​	T10 Weight​	vs T11+​	T11+ Weight​	vs All​	Slam​
Mac​	131 (64-67) 48.85%​	12.66%​	214 (125-89) 58.41%​	20.68%​	821 (727-94) 88.55%​	79.32%​	1035 (852-183) 82.32%​	7​
Lendl​	158 (95-63) 60.13%​	12.05%​	257 (164-93) 63.81%​	19.60%​	1054 (905-149) 85.86%​	80.40%​	1311 (1069-242) 81.54%​	8​
Wilander​	68 (29-39) 42.65%​	8.59%​	128 (64-64) 50.00%​	16.16%​	664 (505-159) 76.05%​	83.84%​	792 (569-223) 71.84%​	7​
Edberg​	122 (49-73) 40.16%​	11.35%​	212 (99-113) 46.70%​	19.72%​	863 (705-158) 81.69%​	80.28%​	1075 (804-271) 74.79%​	6​
Becker​	110 (68-42) 61.82%​	11.87%​	187 (121-66) 64.71%​	20.17%​	740 (592-148) 80.00%​	79.83%​	927 (713-214) 76.91%​	6​

 

[Lleytonstation]

But to be consistent (as in winning consistently of course) it is essential to maintain a high level. I feel Murray is so often underrated here because his style of player is understated and more subtle than the flashier, harder hitting, more theatrical type of players whom most on here seem to go for.

Underrating Murray is practically a science around here.

At some point I think the big3 should come out and make a formal apology lol.

Still, taking fed and djoker down at center court in a slam final gold medal match is all time great stuff.

 

[Rosstour]

Yup, Becker being compared to Murray is the ultimate insult to Tennis and logic. I donno how @Rosstour is having such false notions.

I only pointed out how many other players reached 11+ GS Finals, the rest is all you

If Murray can achieve fourth banana against the 3 most dominant players of all time then I don't think comparisons with past greats who had much shorter bodies of work is unreasonable

Also, to come back and compete on the tour after a hip replacement in singles...you can't be a bum and do that. You have to be unbelievably talented as well as hardworking

 

[fishpiefriday]

Murray is the 4th best player of all time.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

Murray is a top 25-30 player of all time. Doesn't quite qualify.

15-31 Tilden onwards!!

I feel Murray is so often underrated here because his style of player is understated and more subtle than the flashier, harder hitting, more theatrical type of players whom most on here seem to go for.

i think Wilander consistently gets more respect than Murray so idk if it's necessarily just a style issue

Of course you can counter that with Murray has a great record against Novak on grass and that's fair

Queens '08 F Djokovic vs Oly '12 SF Djokovic 10 match series !

Murray is a more accomplished grasscourter but in their 3 Wimbledon meetings he's 1-9 in sets, and they're the same age basically.

if you abide by best asterisk practices, 2 of those matches are peak Nadal vs pre-prime Murray, while the 3rd is a single underperformance that can't in itself be extrapolated into a broader statement

Why did he go down in straights to a 34 year old Fed in 2015 WImbledon SF?

peak service game year for Federer is a pretty good counterpoint to the age mention

it's that most of the time he was routined whereas someone with a bigger, more lethal game wouldn't have been

the flipside is that he put himself into contention (QFs) for 10 straight years, where Nadal failed on that front 4/10 years. and if you look at a comparable grass career in Edberg for example, even with his aggressive game he lost in his prime to Lendl, Stich, and Ivanisevic, when arguably Murray could have actually matched up better against at least the latter two players (even with whatever necessary adjustments he would have made to his game for that era)

Courier, Vilas

people talk about peak Courier a lot but honestly in a prime vs prime, big tournament focused, surface by surface breakdown, i don't really see how these are questions tbh (unless you let Courier get away with having a 3 year prime when basically everyone else is judged on their best 5-6 years). Murray was better indoors than Courier, was a bit better on clay than Courier was on grass, was about as good on grass as Courier was on clay, and was about as good on outdoor hard. Murray was better on grass than Vilas was on clay, was better on clay than Vilas was on grass, was much better on outdoor hard, and was better indoors

Murray is the 4th best player of all time.

hello Nigel Graber

 

[Mainad]

One can't be consistently crap?

Of course. But anyone who was consistently crap wouldn't achieve anything.

 

[Maddamhussein]

I actually cannot believe that you gobshites are trying to start this ‘20,000 post’ bollocks again.

My post was a statement. A fact.

It wasn’t punctuated with a question and it certainly wasn’t posted to invite discussion.

Top 10-15 in the Open Era. Hell, I’ll even throw you weasels a bone and push it to Top 20.

But one of these days, you lot are going to have to address what it is about Andy Murray that you find so offensive.

Till then, go cry to your mothers. I’m sure they’ll indulge your juvenile urges…

And boys - Mainad’s got a new doubles partner in this *****. You’ll be seeing a lot more of me lads x

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Murray was better indoors than Courier, was a bit better on clay than Courier was on grass, was about as good on grass as Courier was on clay, and was about as good on outdoor hard. Murray was better on grass than Vilas was on clay, was better on clay than Vilas was on grass, was much better on outdoor hard, and was better indoors

Courier reaching the Wimbledon final 1993 by beating Edberg and playing Sampras close I find more impressive than Murray’s best FO run. So if we restrict it to Wimbledon and the FO (which we should because grass season is basically Wimbledon), than I can’t see how Murray is better on clay than Courier on grass, at least not for peak level.
As for Murray grass vs Courier clay: both have two titles and one additional final, but Courier beat the best players in the world to win his titles while Murray is 0-5 against Fedal at Wimbledon (even geriatric Fed was able to beat prime Murray). He won 2013 by getting a very mediocre Djoko and 2016 against a guy like Raonic in the absence of Fedal. Outside SW19, he has those Queens and OG sure, but Courier also won clay masters. All in all for me Courier on clay > Murray on grass.
Indoors is also closer than one would think. Murray has this one YEC in 2016, other than that he only reached the semi three other times. Courier has two finals in 1991 and 1992 only losing to the indoor GOATs Pete and Boris. No version of Murray would have beaten those two.

 

[GoatNo1]

it depend where you put the limit. and slams is not everything in tennis. otherwise wawa would be just as great as muzza but he is obviously not. muzza is much greater and he would be greater even if wawa had 4 slams. muzza has won WTF and many masters, was YE#1, has big titles on all surfaces, 2 OG. and all that in the greatest era of all time.

and for nole fans
i do think that if results of him and nole was reverse that the term big4 would never be invented BUT i do think that he is ATG and BS against nole by british (and west) media we should not project over muzza who is both the great player and human. at the end to recognised and admit his greatness do only favor to nole. if you just put it in contest that he is greater than 2 other ATG players from his own era cumulative it is something that just increasing the greatness of his GOAThood!

 

[Angrybirdstar]

Courier reaching the Wimbledon final 1993 by beating Edberg and playing Sampras close I find more impressive than Murray’s best FO run. So if we restrict it to Wimbledon and the FO (which we should because grass season is basically Wimbledon), than I can’t see how Murray is better on clay than Courier on grass, at least not for peak level.
As for Murray grass vs Courier clay: both have two titles and one additional final, but Courier beat the best players in the world to win his titles while Murray is 0-5 against Fedal at Wimbledon (even geriatric Fed was able to beat prime Murray). He won 2013 by getting a very mediocre Djoko and 2016 against a guy like Raonic in the absence of Fedal. Outside SW19, he has those Queens and OG sure, but Courier also won clay masters. All in all for me Courier on clay > Murray on grass.
Indoors is also closer than one would think. Murray has this one YEC in 2016, other than that he only reached the semi three other times. Courier has two finals in 1991 and 1992 only losing to the indoor GOATs Pete and Boris. No version of Murray would have beaten those two.

people talk about peak Courier a lot but honestly in a prime vs prime, big tournament focused, surface by surface breakdown, i don't really see how these are questions tbh (unless you let Courier get away with having a 3 year prime when basically everyone else is judged on their best 5-6 years)

responding to BauerAlmeida:

There's no way in hell Murray is top 10 in history.

Even if you consider him superior to Courier, Vilas, etc.

i'm concerned with a prime timespan as the common scope for understanding and contextualizing a player's career, not single match or tournament peaks

tapping the sign again (quotes i actually mentioned to you in our Borg on hard discussion actually lol)

nobody plays great in every tournament or final or matchup, and constantly being in a position to capitalize Can be as effective as being capable of wresting away an occasional win. this viewpoint is fine for you since (iirc) you're openly offense and level-of-play biased versus defense or results, but i don't think you can universalize what amounts to a moral judgment on a stochastic problem.

it's very simple, everyone. if Medvedev is a bargain brand Murray, Murray is a bargain brand Wilander who chronically underperformed at majors and would do so in any era. nevertheless, Murray is still an ATG because of the strength of his resume in every department other than winning majors.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

@Angrybirdstar yeah but even in this only 3-4 years of prime, Courier achieved the same basically as Murray did in his longer one. Their FO vs W records in the best years are basically identical (if we switch of course), and Courier’s 2 YEC final appearances are every bit as impressive as Murray’s one title, even though of course a title trumps every number of finals achievement wise. Whether Murray has two additional semis doesn’t cut it for me tbh.

 

[RS]

15-31 Tilden onwards!!

i think Wilander consistently gets more respect than Murray so idk if it's necessarily just a style issue

Queens '08 F Djokovic vs Oly '12 SF Djokovic 10 match series !

if you abide by best asterisk practices, 2 of those matches are peak Nadal vs pre-prime Murray, while the 3rd is a single underperformance that can't in itself be extrapolated into a broader statement

peak service game year for Federer is a pretty good counterpoint to the age mention

the flipside is that he put himself into contention (QFs) for 10 straight years, where Nadal failed on that front 4/10 years. and if you look at a comparable grass career in Edberg for example, even with his aggressive game he lost in his prime to Lendl, Stich, and Ivanisevic, when arguably Murray could have actually matched up better against at least the latter two players (even with whatever necessary adjustments he would have made to his game for that era)

people talk about peak Courier a lot but honestly in a prime vs prime, big tournament focused, surface by surface breakdown, i don't really see how these are questions tbh (unless you let Courier get away with having a 3 year prime when basically everyone else is judged on their best 5-6 years). Murray was better indoors than Courier, was a bit better on clay than Courier was on grass, was about as good on grass as Courier was on clay, and was about as good on outdoor hard. Murray was better on grass than Vilas was on clay, was better on clay than Vilas was on grass, was much better on outdoor hard, and was better indoors

hello Nigel Graber

10 match series is only for boxing. Stop stealing it.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

10 match series is only for boxing. Stop stealing it.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

@Angrybirdstar yeah but even in this only 3-4 years of prime, Courier achieved the same basically as Murray did in his longer one. Their FO vs W records in the best years are basically identical (if we switch of course), and Courier’s 2 YEC final appearances are every bit as impressive as Murray’s one title, even though of course a title trumps every number of finals achievement wise. Whether Murray has two additional semis doesn’t cut it for me tbh.

i don't think achieving something in less time is necessarily more impressive if that is concomitant with lessened performance in a surrounding timespan. to me, if someone can't keep up their level for 5 years, that detracts a little from whatever they accomplished - they effectively sacrificed some consistency for a peak and that should be recognized just as much as the opposite is

i don't see how the RG and Wimbly records are identical. Courier from '91-'95 lost to Stich in 3, Olhovskiy in 4, Sampras in 4, Forget in 5, and Pioline in 3. Murray from '11-17 lost to Nadal in 3, Ferrer in 4, Nadal in 3, Djokovic in 5, Djokovic in 4, and Wawrinka in 5. these look to me like closer losses to tougher opponents overall (though '93 Sampras probs highest level of them), not to mention all in SF+ besides the '12 QF, and not to mention wins over Wawrinka and Ferrer (vs Courier's wins over Edberg and Martin).

this also doesn't account for Courier not really playing other grass tournaments, while Murray took sets off Nadal at Monte Carlo, beat him twice at Madrid (crap form but still) to win 1 title and make 1 other final against Djokovic, and had Rome epics in '11 and '14 against Djokovic and Nadal before winning in '16 against Djokovic in 2.

meanwhile the opposite RG vs Wimbly comparison has 2 wins (Agassi and a bad Korda vs a bad Djokovic and Raonic), 1 final (peak Bruguera vs Federer), and 1 semifinal (Bruguera vs Federer) matched up, where Courier lost to Costa while Murray lost to Nadal and Dimitrov. Murray won Olympics against Djokovic and Federer while Courier lost to Rosset. Courier won Rome twice against the likes of Bruguera, Muster, and Chang, while Murray won Queen's four times against the likes of Tsonga, Cilic, Raonic, and Anderson. looking back i'd give the clear edge to Courier.

Murray's '12 YEC was a SF instead of a F where he could have gotten heroically squashed by Djokovic like Courier was by Sampras in '91, because he had to play Federer instead of Agassi, which happened because he lost to Djokovic in group stage (who would have beaten Courier just as Lendl did). Murray's '10 YEC was a SF instead of a F where he could have gotten extra moral points from losing to Federer because he lost a lottery match to peak Nadal instead of winning a lottery match against pre-prime Sampras. Murray then actually won '16 YEC (aka that time Raonic got repeatedly and viciously bullied in tiebreaks) against Djokovic - sorry if i don't trust Courier to win against Djokovic. Murray also won Madrid and Paris Masters indoors, beating Federer and Isner instead of losing in Stockholm and Paris to Becker and Sampras

also glad we don't have to get into "peak Courier was way more impressive winning his 2 AOs so he totally would have beaten Djokovic in Murray's place" or "Murray could never have won a Sunshine Double against Forget and Wheaton" or "le homogeneity would let Courier beat Karlovic and Djokovic to win Cincinnati"

 

[KingCarlitos]

Courier is ahead of Murray. OG wasn’t a thing during his time and due to the special circumstances around that tournament, this record is to be taken with a grain of salt anywho. Both are not ATGs to me though. I stick to the magic threshold of six slams. While this is of course arbitrary, it is I think the best cut-off since there is nobody sitting at 5 slams. If we lower it down and let Vilas, Courier and Murray in, it is tough to argue against Stan. If we have Stan in then we can argue for the best two slammers as well and so on.

Murray is the best and most decorated sub-ATG I reckon, The fact that Raz (and soon Sinner probably) has already surpassed Murray is mind boggling to me.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

i don't think achieving something in less time is necessarily more impressive if that is concomitant with lessened performance in a surrounding timespan. to me, if someone can't keep up their level for 5 years, that detracts a little from whatever they accomplished - they effectively sacrificed some consistency for a peak and that should be recognized just as much as the opposite is

I did not say it is more impressive but also not less. Both Murray and Courier have roughly the same accomplishments, I do not see why it should be more or less impressive in what time span they achieved it.

i don't see how the RG and Wimbly records are identical. Courier from '91-'95 lost to Stich in 3, Olhovskiy in 4, Sampras in 4, Forget in 5, and Pioline in 3. Murray from '11-17 lost to Nadal in 3, Ferrer in 4, Nadal in 3, Djokovic in 5, Djokovic in 4, and Wawrinka in 5. these look to me like closer losses to tougher opponents overall (though '93 Sampras probs highest level of them), not to mention all in SF+ besides the '12 QF, and not to mention wins over Wawrinka and Ferrer (vs Courier's wins over Edberg and Martin).

Sampras in 93 was really impressive but also Stich in 91 (highest level he ever played at a tournament). Of course Murray lost against the stronger opponents, but i would rather focus on the wins, the scalps both got, i.e. the strength of the opponents they beat not whom they lost to. Edberg and Martin is more impressive than Wawrinka and Ferrer. Murray also never played an opponent of Sampras 1993 level as close as Courier. So all in all Courier's best run is way more impressive than Murray's.

this also doesn't account for Courier not really playing other grass tournaments, while Murray took sets off Nadal at Monte Carlo, beat him twice at Madrid (crap form but still) to win 1 title and make 1 other final against Djokovic, and had Rome epics in '11 and '14 against Djokovic and Nadal before winning in '16 against Djokovic in 2.

this is not really a fair comparison as there are not many grass tournaments as opposed to three clay masters. Murray had way more chances to achieve stuff at other clay tournaments. Had there been three grass masters, I am sure Courier could have had similar results in 91-93.

Murray's '12 YEC was a SF instead of a F where he could have gotten heroically squashed by Djokovic like Courier was by Sampras in '91, because he had to play Federer instead of Agassi, which happened because he lost to Djokovic in group stage (who would have beaten Courier just as Lendl did). Murray's '10 YEC was a SF instead of a F where he could have gotten extra moral points from losing to Federer because he lost a lottery match to peak Nadal instead of winning a lottery match against pre-prime Sampras. Murray then actually won '16 YEC (aka that time Raonic got repeatedly and viciously bullied in tiebreaks) against Djokovic - sorry if i don't trust Courier to win against Djokovic. Murray also won Madrid and Paris Masters indoors, beating Federer and Isner instead of losing in Stockholm and Paris to Becker and Sampras

i did not say Murray was not better indoors, i said they were way closer than one would think. Their records at YEC are more or less equal. Courier played during a time, where indoors was way more important and players prioritized it way more than during Murray's time.

 

[Pheasant]

MuryGOAT=GOAT, which is a subset of ATG. Ergo, MuryGOAT = ATG as well.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Murray is the best and most decorated sub-ATG I reckon, The fact that Raz (and soon Sinner probably) has already surpassed Murray is mind boggling to me.

Nope it is Courier. One more slam and 17 more weeks at No.1 cuts it for me.

 

[OldschoolKIaus]

No.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

I did not say it is more impressive but also not less. Both Murray and Courier have roughly the same accomplishments, I do not see why it should be more or less impressive in what time span they achieved it.

the framework of the Courier vs Murray argument is that for level of achievement x > y > z > minimum interesting threshold, if Courier does 2 x things, 1 z thing, and 1 <z thing, while Murray does 1 x thing, 2 y things, and 1 z thing, the implicit assumption is that the weighting is something like x = 5, y = 1, z = 0.5, <z = 0, such that Courier comes out on top 10.5-7.5. i would say it should be more like x = 4, y = 2, z = 1, <z = -1, such that Murray comes out on top 9-8.

Stich in 91 (highest level he ever played at a tournament)

Stich scammed the wins against Volkov and Edberg so Courier probably should have done more if he wants credit. not YEC '93?

i would rather focus on the wins, the scalps both got, i.e. the strength of the opponents they beat not whom they lost to

i mean ofc lol, some of those Wimbly losses for example are a little inconvenient to explain away

Edberg and Martin is more impressive than Wawrinka and Ferrer

eh no rain edition + Edberg exiting prime makes me wonder how much this is name over form

So all in all Courier's best run is way more impressive than Murray's.

i feel like i'm staring into a looped dialogue tree

this is not really a fair comparison as there are not many grass tournaments as opposed to three clay masters.

in his prime Courier played Halle twice and 2 Davis Cup matches, it's not exactly like he was trying to play much grass (or doing well when he did)

Their records at YEC are more or less equal.

prime Murray made it in 1 more time and Courier didn't really do anything outside of YEC indoors so again, body of work check

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

the framework of the Courier vs Murray argument is that for level of achievement x > y > z > minimum interesting threshold, if Courier does 2 x things, 1 z thing, and 1 <z thing, while Murray does 1 x thing, 2 y things, and 1 z thing, the implicit assumption is that the weighting is something like x = 5, y = 1, z = 0.5, <z = 0, such that Courier comes out on top 10.5-7.5. i would say it should be more like x = 4, y = 2, z = 1, <z = -1, such that Murray comes out on top 9-8.

Don’t need to make it so complicated and the numbers are subjective anyways. Courier leads Murray in both slams and weeks at No.1, it is tough to argue against that. Sure they are from different eras, but Courier won his slams in a very deep field, so it is not that he feasted on a weak era or something.

Stich scammed the wins against Volkov and Edberg so Courier probably should have done more if he wants credit. not YEC '93?

Debatable with YEC 93. Wimbledon for me still trumps it, beating Edberg and Becker in succession.

eh no rain edition + Edberg exiting prime makes me wonder how much this is name over form

Edberg was seeded 2, had won the USO the year before, reached the AO final that year and was playing well at that Wimbledon. Not prime Edberg sure, but still very strong, stronger than Ferrer or Stan on clay. On top, Jim played Sampras, a guy who is way better on grass than Djokovic on clay, closer than Murray played Djokovic in 2016 FO final.

i feel like i'm staring into a looped dialogue tree

Would you disagree that Jim’s Wimbledon 93 was better than Murray’s 2016 FO?

in his prime Courier played Halle twice and 2 Davis Cup matches, it's not exactly like he was trying to play much grass (or doing well when he did)

Had there been three grass masters and masters held the same value as today, Jim would have played more on grass. I don’t see it as impossible that he might have had similar success as Murray on clay.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

it depend where you put the limit. and slams is not everything in tennis. otherwise wawa would be just as great as muzza but he is obviously not. muzza is much greater and he would be greater even if wawa had 4 slams. muzza has won WTF and many masters, was YE#1, has big titles on all surfaces, 2 OG. and all that in the greatest era of all time

Much greater stretches it. Greater yea, but not much greater. I agree though that even if Wawrinka had 4 slams this would be one of the rare cases where the guy with fewer slams (and both having less than 5) would still be greater.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

Don’t need to make it so complicated and the numbers are subjective anyways.

that's my point though! i explicitly said i'm interested in primes and you've just kept talking about peaks and i'm trying to reconcile the gap in the two, because you're subjectively assigning relatively more weight to the peaks while ignoring valleys and medium results

Courier leads Murray in both slams and weeks at No.1, it is tough to argue against that.

i recognize Slams and year end number 1s have been important to players and viewers historically but i don't think they're the only things that matter or the single best way to understand players. prime Courier had 0 80% winrate seasons (1 if you round); prime Murray had 4 (3 + 1 90% if rounding) (and this is a pretty big gap regardless of '90s unpredictability era subsidy). prime Courier won 5/36 Masters on entry; prime Murray won 8/48 against tougher comp and with inherently less form guarding. getting into the overall discussion means then bringing in '08-10 for Murray, which boosts him a lot.

you do a same age swap and Murray is winning more in Courier's place (3-4) than the reverse (1-3), in large part because Courier's peaks would have been outclassed and his prime wouldn't have been enough for him to grab some of the easier slams. whereas, for example, a Murray-Edberg swap is about even and a Murray-Agassi swap favors Agassi.

skill-wise Murray was a much better returner and comparable server (Murray 1st, Courier 2nd), and wrt baselining much worse shotmaking, worse error forcing, comparable rally tolerance, much better shot tolerance and defense, and better movement.

Courier won his slams in a very deep field, so it is not that he feasted on a weak era or something.

On top, Jim played Sampras, a guy who is way better on grass than Djokovic on clay, closer than Murray played Djokovic in 2016 FO final.

Edberg was seeded 2, had won the USO the year before, reached the AO final that year and was playing well at that Wimbledon. Not prime Edberg sure, but still very strong, stronger than Ferrer or Stan on clay.

Would you disagree that Jim’s Wimbledon 93 was better than Murray’s 2016 FO?

agreed

Had there been three grass masters and masters held the same value as today, Jim would have played more on grass. I don’t see it as impossible that he might have had similar success as Murray on clay.

but Courier was mediocre indoors in an era where it was more relevant and had those opportunities available, even with his previously discussed peaks. i don't see it as so obvious he would have done particularly well at grass Masters even with a tourney on his record like Wimbly '93