Andy Murray is much better than Courier and Gustavo Kuerten he is tied with Agassi

Noleberic123 said:
I don't remember either being spectacular in that final. Though I haven't watched it since and never will again.
Click to expand...
Rafa turned back the clock the last 3 sets. FH was on fire. Of course some of that was Novak was lackluster maybe because of his illness and allowing Rafa to dictate points.
 
1982mathew said:
U are mentally ill?
Lob even? MURRAY HAS BEST LOB I EVER SAW TOGETHER WITH HEWITT
Touch Murray
Return ? Yeah Safin no doubt Murray return suck obv
PAss even? lol?
Backhand is very very close.... Both one of best two handers i ever saw, Marat better offensice backhand, Andy more stable and better slice , hard call
U beated me at trolling gratz
Click to expand...

BH is not close at all. One has a very good BH, the other had the best backhand ever.

Pass? Uh, it's widely known that Safin was one of the best passers in the game. Just go watch his matches against Sampras.



Hewitt's lob is the best lob (as well as slice), but Safin's lob was better than Murray's.
 
metsman said:
Talking about Kuerten not Federer
Click to expand...

OK Kuerten of 97, 99, 2000, 2001 I could see possibly beating Rafa of 05, 06, 2011, 2013, 2014 at RG I agree. I wouldnt say he would be certain to or even neccessarily favored any of those years, but could see them possibly splitting those meetings. Being that he is a MUCH better clay courter than either Fed or Djokovic. He isnt as bad a match up for Rafa as Djokovic is, but he is a better clay courter and tougher mentally at RG which would still make him a tougher foe.
 
May be better than Guga but only because Guga career was cut short. Murray is not better than Jim, Jim is actually quite underrated guy on this forum , 4 slam with two defense on different surface put him ahead.
I am not even going to talk about Agassi.
 
How does a new user know my likes and dislikes? ;)

I think Edberg played intermittently very well indeed in 1987, and achieved a good deal of success across the year as a whole. It was one of his only four years in the top two (1987, 1990, 1991, 1992) and one of only two years in which he won seven titles (the other being 1990). He also made the semis or better of three of the four Slams. However, I do agree that he had some emotional maturing to do in big matches. In 1987, he still tended to wilt at key moments. In many ways, he blew the 1987 Wimbledon semi-final against Lendl - e.g. losing serve from 40-0 up when serving to stay in the second set at 4-5 - and he shouldn't have lost the year-end semi to Wilander just a day after demolishing him in the round robin. The surface wasn't Edberg's favorite, but he was much better on it than was Wilander. I think that his ability to win Wimbledon 1988 when not really on the best of form - he lost at least one set in six of his seven matches - helped him a lot going forward. He would still choke from time to time, but he became a somewhat better big-match player. Technically, though, I don't think he made major improvements after 1987.

RenaRafa said:
Pointing out win percentage is pointless when Hewitt played like 10 years after his prime. That plus nobody will check their win percentage except the biggest diehards or stats nerds. The only people whose win percentage get examined are the GOATS or GOATS on a specific surface, so nobody will look up the win percentages of Hewitt and Lendl on grass.

Novotna's win percentage is only 3% or something better than Seles on grass, so by this logic Novotna is only a slightly better grass courter than Seles. Federer has something like a 9% better win percentage on clay than Kuerten, do you consider Federer the better (or for a good laugh the much better) grass courter?

Edberg was not in his prime in 87. His prime was clearly 88-92, as @helterskelter who is a long time fan(atic) of Edberg would vouch for I am sure. In 86-87 he was still a good player but didnt have the mental toughness to win big matches or big events (the Australian wasnt really a big event yet, but I am sure glad he won it twice when it wasnt anyway to compensate for his bad luck there later). I would agree that was a better win than any Hewitt had there though, but it isnt Hewitt's fault he got a super easy draw which he clearly didnt need in 2002, and the first good player he ran into both 2004 and 2005 was the one guy he couldnt beat- Federer. Lendl sure as heck wouldnt in a million years come close to beating Fed on grass either, I would be amazed if he could even get a set (which atleast Hewitt can do). Had Hewitt played say Agassi at Wimbledon 2002 he likely would have won, and that would be a bigger win than pre prime Edberg, but unfortunately in that respect Agassi chose to take a bad loss early rather than go on to his expected finals or semis loss to Hewitt. Had Hewitt played Roddick at Wimbledons 2004 and 2005 he would have won in 2005, and might have won in 2004 (I would guess Roddick but almost a toss up) and those would be huge wins, probably bigger than pre prime Edberg too, but he didnt get the chance.

Lets say Lendls prime on grass was 2002-2005 instead, we know he wouldnt have done any better than Hewitt in those years apart from 2003 probably, but even in 2003 he falls to any of Federer, Roddick, Phillipoussis, or Agassi later on probably. Best case in 2002 he wins with the same easy draw Hewitt had, but given his blowout loss to Cash in 87 dont be surprised if Henman with his serve and volley game beats him either. 2004 and 2005 obviously best case is he loses to Federer at the same stage Hewitt does, it would be comical to suggest Lendl beating Fed either of those years. Have Hewitt switch places with Lendl and I believe he still wins a Wimbledon, maybe more than one. I could definitely see him beating Cash in 87. It wouldnt be easy at all since Cash was in great form and played tennis worthy of being the Wimbledon Champ, but Hewitt is excellent at countering that kind of player. He was a nightmare match up for Rafter who is probably better than Cash, and extremely similar in playing styles/strengths in every respect. I could see Hewitt having a shot at Wimbledon 89 and 90 if he played Becker in the semis in 89 and 90 (he would have no chance vs final version Becker of 89 and semi version of Edberg in 90, but if he played Becker 89 in the semis instead and Edberg in 90 in the final in good but less ominous form he definitely has a shot).
Click to expand...
 
metsman said:
Why is it an excuse for why he fails to bring his best in slam finals time and time again? Plenty of other people have brought their best in slam finals despite playing ATG, most of them not even as good as Murray.

"So much better than Courier"...yeah ok, you know what you're talking about...
Click to expand...
It is an excuse when you constantly face the best guys to play the game in finals. And he is so much better than Courier look at his stats. He has won many more titles with a little luck he would have already had six to eight slams. Courier had like two good years. I'm not silly to compare Murray to Agassi but compared to the other two he is better. Win percentage does matter non gs titles do matter and opponents in finals do matter. The fact that he keeps coming back is huge as most greats once headed by a new challenger have tended to fade. On top of this he has had to deal with being British which in itself is a major handicap as they are sports greatest losers.
 
Murray let himself down with too many embarrassing slam SF/final performances. Namely every AO final, 2016 FO, 2012 W vs a grandad for god sakes then 2015 W SF vs a geriatric grandad.

Even his wins he avoided peak Fedal. Like 2016 Wimbledon he needed Raonic to GOAT his way past choking geriatric grandad Federer otherwise it would've been yet another pigeon performance from Murray vs Fed at a slam.
 
1982mathew said:
Yeah Andy is that good... Consider he is playing in the era of 3 GOAT player
Click to expand...
Percentages matter mainly if you're even on major accomplishments.

Courier won four majors, and each major he also defended which Murray has never come close to doing.

Courier was also #1 for more than a year (58 weeks).

Andy may have more Masters titles (non-compulsory in Courier's era) and better percentages but in pinnacle achievements he still trails Courier in some key ways.

Overall... it's arguable either way.
 
metsman said:
94 AO semis not finals (that's maybe the best match I've ever seen Sampras play at the AO he was insane). And throw in the 95 AO quarters in there too. Courier fought extremely hard in the 93 Wimby final and 95 AO/USO matches too so they could be matches he could have won against an inferior opponent. But yeah your point is spot on. Courier still has 1 more major, a much better WTF record, and more time at #1 despite it being a pretty strong era. Murray wins on longevity but Courier has a better peak and better resume in the three biggest categories. No way I am giving Murray the edge based on a few extra slam finals, slam finals he was garbage in. If Murray bridges the gap in the three biggest categories (slams, WTF, #1) then he will move ahead sure. But he still has a ways to go to get there.
Click to expand...
weak era
 
metsman said:
Irrelevant, Scud, Puerta and Tsonga all played much better than Raonic did. I get Murray is a little unfortunate facing Federer/Djokovic right from the get go but that is no excuse for why he doesn't bring his best in slam finals years and years later. And at the 2011 for instance AO Djokovic was contesting his 4th slam final and Murray his 3rd yet Djokovic brought his A game while Murray played a terrible match. He doesn't get bonus points just for facing ATG in slam finals when he has played poorly in a lot of them. Hewitt and Safin played Sampras in their first slam finals and that didn't stop them from playing their best tennis. Roddick faced peak Fed on grass in his second and that didn't stop him from playing his best and putting up one hell of a fight. Yet, Murray is a better player but can't do the same? It's a mental mental issue.
Click to expand...
Murray is a very clutch player. He's a notch below peak Nadal on hard courts, and two notches below Fed and Nole. Like most of TTW you just keep missing the mark.
pi%C3%B1ata-o.gif

Murray has done extremely well grabbing what he can. Finally has some semblance of back health and a real opportunity to add to his legacy. Roddick was about in the same boat as Murray, but truly repulsive in the Pushdick stage of his career. Murray rather amazing now at the end. And the world does not revolve around Fed.:mad:

Murray is overall better than Courier, but not even close to Agassi.
 
NatF said:
Stop chatting BS. If you had some objectivity you could actually evaluate matches without getting your knickers in a twist. No one is saying "only Murray doesn't win his slam matches". You're putting words in peoples mouths. However the fact is Raonic was worse than those players mentioned on the day - he was far from the worse slam finalist ever though. And tbh considering the OP maybe you should reign in your righteous indignation.

One of the biggest hypocrites on the board :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Mainad is over the top, but the Fed fools on here are ridiculous. Look at Murray's stats outside of these matches and he's a class below the big 3. Is it any suprise he has a losing record in big matches against them?
 
NatF said:
No one said anything that remotely implied that. The mentality of you guys sheesh.

Murray wasn't horrible but he wasn't great either. He played very well for half the match, but then pretty much gave up in the 3rd set of each. I suppose you think Murray was fine in sets 2-4 of the FO final this year too...
Click to expand...
This is just getting ridiculous. Thiem gets blasted for folding up against Djokovic after and grueling QF on here. Murray screwed the pooch opening the French with two five setters. He showed his potential in the final in the first set, but then simply ran out of gas.

You guys are raping Murray.
 
NatF said:
Sounds like that way to you because of your clique mentality and insecurity maybe. It's obvious that's not what was being said.

Murray was great in the first set but was spraying errors for the rest of the match. Call a spade a spade. Yes Djokovic upped his game and yes tactically he was spot on but Murray was still poor. Murray's game plan completely disappeared and he became much more reactive and tentative off the ground - even when in neutral positions. Wimbledon 2012 was a far far far better match from Murray and you thought that was what decent? The double standards are hilarious :D

Sometimes you're not allowed to play your best and sometimes you hit 13 winners and 33 UE's in 3 sets. I've seen you talk about how bad Hewitt was at the USO in 2004 but he didn't hit 33 errors in 3 sets...different surface I know but the fact is you'd tearing in the performance if it was anyone else.
Click to expand...
You forget to mention he served like utter garbage.:rolleyes: Physical issue plain and simple and the mole hill is turned into a mountain..:rolleyes:
 
Meles said:
Mainad is over the top, but the Fed fools on here are ridiculous. Look at Murray's stats outside of these matches and he's a class below the big 3. Is it any suprise he has a losing record in big matches against them?
Click to expand...

I most certainly am not. I have never ever claimed anything for Murray that he is not. The problem is too many people underestimating him and putting him down. You sometimes fall into that category too unfortunately. o_O
 
Mainad said:
I most certainly am not. I have never ever claimed anything for Murray that he is not. The problem is too many people underestimating him and putting him down. You sometimes fall into that category too unfortunately. o_O
Click to expand...
You all fail to use stats to inform. Stats can mislead some of the time, but its better than what has been going on in this thread.:confused:

Really impressed with your fight in this thread, but you know you are a diehard Murray fan and that is going to bias your views.

I use the stats and the facts to put Murray in his place. Once this is understood, one then understands that Murray is the strongest of competitors. I'm not aware of too many real opportunities that Murray has let slip by.
 
Meles said:
You all fail to use stats to inform. Stats can mislead some of the time, but its better than what has been going on in this thread.:confused:
Click to expand...

I almost always use stats to back up my arguments (albeit not as comprehensively as you maybe).

Meles said:
Really impressed with your fight in this thread, but you know you are a diehard Murray fan and that is going to bias your views.
Click to expand...

I am indeed a die-hard Murray fan but that does not blind me to his faults and weaknesses. I repeat that I have never claimed anything for him that isn't true. Point out to me anything I have said that isn't true.

Meles said:
I use the stats and the facts to put Murray in his place. Once this is understood, one then understands that Murray is the strongest of competitors. I'm not aware of too many real opportunities that Murray has let slip by.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
1982mathew said:
Yeah Andy is that good... Consider he is playing in the era of 3 GOAT players.
His achievement is impressive, he has much MORE MASTERS than all of them. He has plenty of GS finals, titles, winning percentage. He will end up with 7 slams, so i rank him on Andre Agassi level in advance.
Cheers...
And if someone thinks i am troll looks his winning percentage on all surfaces. Give me one argument why he is not better than Courier and Kuerten and why he should not equal Agassi...He still has like 3 years of prime.
Click to expand...

i agree with you that murray is playing in the era of 3 GOATS
 
Meles said:
Mainad is over the top, but the Fed fools on here are ridiculous. Look at Murray's stats outside of these matches and he's a class below the big 3. Is it any suprise he has a losing record in big matches against them?
Click to expand...

Meles said:
This is just getting ridiculous. Thiem gets blasted for folding up against Djokovic after and grueling QF on here. Murray screwed the pooch opening the French with two five setters. He showed his potential in the final in the first set, but then simply ran out of gas.

You guys are raping Murray.
Click to expand...

Meles said:
You forget to mention he served like utter garbage.:rolleyes: Physical issue plain and simple and the mole hill is turned into a mountain..:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Not sure what your issue is? Everything I said is spot on :D

Murray didn't play a good final at the FO, the number of great slam finals he's played is quite low compared to the number he's been in - that's why he's not an ATG yet. The thread is comparing him to Agassi, for example do you think Agassi would go 0-5 in AO finals for example?

Murray has a chance to up his numbers and when/if he does he get his due from me but not before.
 
****igrade said:
BH is not close at all. One has a very good BH, the other had the best backhand ever.

Pass? Uh, it's widely known that Safin was one of the best passers in the game. Just go watch his matches against Sampras.



Hewitt's lob is the best lob (as well as slice), but Safin's lob was better than Murray's.
Click to expand...

Backhands are very close.

Murray's passing shots are better off of both wings.

Murray has one of the few best lobs ever and can do so off of both wings.
 
buscemi said:
Courier could easily have five more Majors if not for losses to Edberg (1991 U.S. Open final), Sampras (1992 U.S. Open SF), Sampras (1993 Wimbledon final), Sampras (1994 Australian Open SF), and Sampras (1995 U.S. Open SF). He was also likely the second best clay court player at the 1993 and 1994 French Opens when he lost to Bruguera in the finals and SF. Courier also has 2 WTF finals (losses to Sampras and Becker) vs. none for Murray. He also has 58 weeks at #1 and year-end #1 in 1991 vs. no weeks at #1 for Murray.

So, Courier leads Murray in each of the big 3 criteria (Major titles, WTF performance, and weeks at #1), and, as you can see from the above, it was matches against ATGs like Sampras, Edberg, and Becker (as well as Agassi [1990 French Open and 1996 Australian Open) that kept him from accumulating even more big titles.
Click to expand...
Good post! Courier is a much underrated player. Accomplishment wise: Agassi, Courier then Murray. Andy, of course could surpass Jim in the near future.
 
thrust said:
Good post! Courier is a much underrated player. Accomplishment wise: Agassi, Courier then Murray. Andy, of course could surpass Jim in the near future.
Click to expand...
Great post. Courier is CRIMINALLY underrated. Not only was he the only American after 85 to consistently do jack on Clay, he made the Final of Wimbledon as a total baseliner in the middle of the era where it was impossible to play from the baseline and we had winners such as Pat "I'm 50 percent sure I had an affair" Cash. One of the few truly well rounded players of his era who could do well on ANY surface.
 
YellowFedBetter said:
Great post. Courier is CRIMINALLY underrated. Not only was he the only American after 85 to consistently do jack on Clay, he made the Final of Wimbledon as a total baseliner in the middle of the era where it was impossible to play from the baseline and we had winners such as Pat "I'm 50 percent sure I had an affair" Cash. One of the few truly well rounded players of his era who could do well on ANY surface.
Click to expand...
Lol, where I come from this would mean he was the only American to not do much on clay after 85. ;)
 
Meles said:
Mainad is over the top, but the Fed fools on here are ridiculous. Look at Murray's stats outside of these matches and he's a class below the big 3. Is it any suprise he has a losing record in big matches against them?
Click to expand...
Once again you and everyone else misses the point. It's not that he has a losing record, it's that in most of his big matches against them he has not shown up. Roddick/Hewitt/Safin despite having inferior stats challenged peak Federer more at majors than Murray did late prime and grandpa Federer. Courier has slightly better stats than Murray and also showed up to 6 of his 7 slam finals. It's Murray's credit that he has gotten to so many slam finals but it's hilarious how so many just cannot accept the fact that he hasn't brought his best game to the majority of them.
 
Murray DOB 15/5/1987
Djokovic DOB 22/5/1987

What a great week that was for the history of this great sport of ours. Two of the best players to ever grace this great sport born just seven days apart. :):):)

Take this week away and the course of history would've changed completely :(:(:(
 
Should have definitely beaten Federer more. Tsonga and Berdych have more slam wins against him than Murray does. Federer has also done awful against his main rival (Nadal) and has lost quite often to Djokovic as well. He has to regret not beating Federer a couple more times. Should have also beaten Djokovic a couple more times. Not equal to Agassi, who is no doubt an all time great of the game. Still has a chance to build an ATG legacy in the future though.
 
metsman said:
Once again you and everyone else misses the point. It's not that he has a losing record, it's that in most of his big matches against them he has not shown up. Roddick/Hewitt/Safin despite having inferior stats challenged peak Federer more at majors than Murray did late prime and grandpa Federer. Courier has slightly better stats than Murray and also showed up to 6 of his 7 slam finals. It's Murray's credit that he has gotten to so many slam finals but it's hilarious how so many just cannot accept the fact that he hasn't brought his best game to the majority of them.
Click to expand...
I'd say Murray's weak serve leaves him not at his best at the end of Slam in many cases. Much easier for a big player like Roddick of even Safin to deliver. Again its not all about Federer.:rolleyes:;) Courier played in a weakish window on tour. It just really comes down to Murray's weak serve for most of his career.
 
Meles said:
I'd say Murray's weak serve leaves him not at his best at the end of Slam in many cases. Much easier for a big player like Roddick of even Safin to deliver. Again its not all about Federer.:rolleyes:;) Courier played in a weakish window on tour. It just really comes down to Murray's weak serve for most of his career.
Click to expand...
Courier did not play in a weak era that's a bunch of bs. Most of his slam runs came through tough opposition and he lost slams to Sampras/Edberg as well.
 
Meles said:
I'd say Murray's weak serve leaves him not at his best at the end of Slam in many cases. Much easier for a big player like Roddick of even Safin to deliver. Again its not all about Federer.:rolleyes:;) Courier played in a weakish window on tour. It just really comes down to Murray's weak serve for most of his career.
Click to expand...

The early to mid 90's were very competitive.
 
Anyone who thinks Murray as a player or Murray's career "is as good as Agassi's" is either:

A) Fours old
B) Started watching tennis last week
C) Sucking on the crack pipe
D) All of the above
 
metsman said:
96 wasn't that bad...probably a little stronger than today, probably on a similar level to 2014 or something, maybe even a bit better. 97-early 99 and today are the weakest periods in open era history.
Click to expand...
Washington in a GS final though. :oops:
 
Agassi and Courier more exciting no pushery at all and even though Kuerten moonballed sometimes but was more exciting than Muzzler
most pushers today are just a product of what the ATP and other tennis elites have forced upon all current players by Homogenization.
 
BeatlesFan said:
Anyone who thinks Murray as a player or Murray's career "is as good as Agassi's" is either:

A) Fours old
B) Started watching tennis last week
C) Sucking on the crack pipe
D) All of the above
Click to expand...

Murray has three majors after 12 years in the business. Agassi didn't get his 4th until his 14th year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Razer
'I’ve been world No 1 and won slams - Novak Djokovic isn’t better than these six players' : Gustavo Kuerten
3 4 5
Replies
211
Views
9K
hoodjem
hoodjem
F
Courier out of retirement and partners Agassi
Replies
7
Views
1K
erik-the-red
E
Zardoz7/12
Are we agreed or not that Murray is placed within Courier and Kuerten in some kind of "list"?
2
Replies
92
Views
6K
Zardoz7/12
Zardoz7/12
zvelf
Why Andy Murray is underrated
3 4 5
Replies
209
Views
15K
D.Nalby12
D
S
Masters Series Interesting Stats
Replies
6
Views
1K
rhubarb
R
Back
Top