Andy Murray vs Boris Becker

[George Turner]

250 titles
Andy Murray 16 titles 6 runners up
Boris Becker 16 titles 5 runners up

500 titles
Andy Murray 9 titles, 1 runner up
Boris Becker 9 titles 5 runners up

Masters titles
Andy Murray 14 titles, 7 runners up
Boris Becker 13 titles, 8 runners up

Major titles
Andy Murray 3 titles, 8 runners up
Boris Becker 6 titles, 4 runners up

Becker leads Murray 3-1 in year end titles, but murray has 2 olympic gold medals in singles.

Overall titles
Andy Murray 45 + 2 gold medals
Boris Becker 49

Take away Murrays losing record in major finals and their careers are remarkably similar. Murray is 0-5 in AO finals having faced an ATG in top form every time. This is the equivalent of Becker facing Sampras in all his Wimbledon finals, who Becker admitted he couldn't beat at Wimbledon.

This does alot to show how unlucky Murray has been to play in this era.

 

[NatF]

lol

 

[ChrisRF]

It is no secret that Murray is a great player but underachieved at Slams. It clearly had to do with facing the Big 3 so often, but considering he could regularly beat them at Masters tournaments, he should have at least a few more wins at Slams as well.

But then, his coach Lendl was exactly the same kind of player one level higher. So it’s only fitting that now he coaches Zverev, again the same kind of player a level lower than Murray.

 

[Kalin]

Boris Becker (on court)- a supreme combination of power, flair and utter excitement
Andy Murray (on court)- a stifling combination of pushing, boredom and watching paint dry in very humid weather

Boris Becker (off court) - impulsive, stupid decisions both in private and in business life
Andy Murray (off court) - smart, considerate (maybe a touch too much) and hardly putting a foot wrong

You could not have found two more different players if you tried However, both seem to possess a great sense of humour, so not all is lost.

In seriousness, excellent comparison; Andy has been indeed quite unlucky. But, whom would you rather watch play the game??

Note: @Mainad Please don't send assassins... I still love Judy Murray

 

[Red Rick]

Boris Becker (on court)- a supreme combination of power, flair and utter excitement

Note: @Mainad Please don't send assassins... I still love Judy Murray

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

lol

re-lol

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Not just quite more accomplished, Becker was more consistent than mury at his favourite slam even, really this is a silly comparison.

 

[Sport]

re-lol

Tri-lol.

 

[uscwang]

250 titles
Andy Murray 16 titles 6 runners up
Boris Becker 16 titles 5 runners up

500 titles
Andy Murray 9 titles, 1 runner up
Boris Becker 9 titles 5 runners up

Masters titles
Andy Murray 14 titles, 7 runners up
Boris Becker 13 titles, 8 runners up

Major titles
Andy Murray 3 titles, 8 runners up
Boris Becker 6 titles, 4 runners up

Becker leads Murray 3-1 in year end titles, but murray has 2 olympic gold medals in singles.

Overall titles
Andy Murray 45 + 2 gold medals
Boris Becker 49

Take away Murrays losing record in major finals and their careers are remarkably similar. Murray is 0-5 in AO finals having faced an ATG in top form every time. This is the equivalent of Becker facing Sampras in all his Wimbledon finals, who Becker admitted he couldn't beat at Wimbledon.

This does alot to show how unlucky Murray has been to play in this era.

Interesting comparison. Murray has a YE #1 and more weeks at #1, while BB has like two weeks?
BB has much higher winning percentage vs. Top 10 players, and probably more respectable H2H against other ATG of his time.

 

[Shaolin]

re-lol

Quad-lol

 

[ghostofMecir]

Take away Murrays losing record in major finals and their careers are remarkably similar. Murray is 0-5 in AO finals having faced an ATG in top form every time. This is the equivalent of Becker facing Sampras in all his Wimbledon finals, who Becker admitted he couldn't beat at Wimbledon.

This does alot to show how unlucky Murray has been to play in this era.

It’s true, but those matches simply can’t go away, even if Murray is unlucky.

The other thing is that Becker was an underachiever. At his best, he was better than anyone until Pete started winning. So many strange matches in which Becker lost to clearly inferior players in strange ways in which he looked like he was fighting against himself...he should have won more.

Becker really shines when looked at how he did playing against the best players of his time. 18-17 against #1s with 4 losses when he was 17-18, 60-40 vs the top 5,
109-64 vs. the top 10.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Becker has twice as many majors, he's by far the greater player historically.

 

[Red Rick]

It’s true, but those matches simply can’t go away, even if Murray is unlucky.

The other thing is that Becker was an underachiever. At his best, he was better than anyone until Pete started winning. So many strange matches in which Becker lost to clearly inferior players in strange ways in which he looked like he was fighting against himself...he should have won more.

Becker really shines when looked at how he did playing against the best players of his time. 18-17 against #1s with 4 losses when he was 17-18, 60-40 vs the top 5,
109-64 vs. the top 10.

Murray on the other hand played almost 50% of his top 10 matches vs Big 3 players.

He has no losing H2H over 5 matches vs anyone other than Djokovic, Nadal or Federer

 

[Towny]

In before the @Lew II brigade come to say Murray is better than McEnroe

 

[NatF]

Murray on the other hand played almost 50% of his top 10 matches vs Big 3 players.

He has no losing H2H over 5 matches vs anyone other than Djokovic, Nadal or Federer

Helped largely by the fact there's been utter trash since his generation hit the scene...

 

[Red Rick]

Helped largely by the fact there's been utter trash since his generation hit the scene...

So they all utter trash apart from Big 3?

It's not like the mid to late 70's generations were utter genius.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

lol

One word* says a thousand words.

*'word'

 

[Mainad]

Boris Becker (on court)- a supreme combination of power, flair and utter excitement
Andy Murray (on court)- a stifling combination of pushing, boredom and watching paint dry in very humid weather

Boris Becker (off court) - impulsive, stupid decisions both in private and in business life
Andy Murray (off court) - smart, considerate (maybe a touch too much) and hardly putting a foot wrong

You could not have found two more different players if you tried However, both seem to possess a great sense of humour, so not all is lost.

In seriousness, excellent comparison; Andy has been indeed quite unlucky. But, whom would you rather watch play the game??

Note: @Mainad Please don't send assassins... I still love Judy Murray

Well, everyone's entitled to their opinion, however bizarre and ill-informed. Agree with you about Boris of course but you don't need me to tell you what I think of the rest!

PS. I'd avoid Judy if I were you!

 

[RaulRamirez]

It is interesting how similar their achievements are. Even at slams, Murray has 11 finals to Boris' 10. Of course, Boris cashed in on 6 to Andy's 3, so he clearly gets the nod.

In my opinion, at this point, I'd say Murray overall is closer to Becker than Wawrinka is to Murray.

 

[NatF]

So they all utter trash apart from Big 3?

It's not like the mid to late 70's generations were utter genius.

No great players from two successive generations.

The mid to late 70's was bad too, but it at least produced Kuerten. The best of the generation after Murray is a hot debate between a poor man's Roddick and a poor man's Davydenko.

The generation after Becker was PETE anyway.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Becker also won the WCT and GSC, which are basically YEC tier

 

[tennis_pro]

Becker leads Murray 3-1 in year end titles, but murray has 2 olympic gold medals in singles.

 

[Mainad]

Interesting comparison. Murray has a YE #1 and more weeks at #1, while BB has like two weeks?

Murray has 41 weeks at #1, Becker has 12 (surprisingly low).

BB has much higher winning percentage vs. Top 10 players, and probably more respectable H2H against other ATG of his time.

Becker is 121-65 against top 10 players (0.651), Murray is 101-82 (0.628).

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Murray has 41 weeks at #1, Becker has 12 (surprisingly low).



Becker is 121-65 against top 10 players (0.651), Murray is 101-82 (0.628).

Beceker is 64.7% (121-66) and Murray is 55.2% (101-82)

 

[Kalin]

Well, everyone's entitled to their opinion, however bizarre and ill-informed. Agree with you about Boris of course but you don't need me to tell you what I think of the rest!

PS. I'd avoid Judy if I were you!

He-he, it's all in good fun; I knew it would light a fire under you. Making fun of Andy and the Bull are one of the few consistent joys I have here; don't take them away from me.

But, seriously, which part of my comparison is that unreasonable? Again, strictly comparing Boris vs Andy. Say what you want about Boris but he was a true entertainer and a joy to watch. Andy, with all due respect, isn't either of those. That was the gist of my comparison, albeit a bit exaggerated. Only a bit, mind you.

Compared to someone like Carreno Busta, sure, Andy is a riot on court. So would be a frozen, handcuffed corpse, of course. But I was comparing him to Boom-Boom.

As for Judy, I have no argument... she should be admired only from a distance.

 

[Mainad]

Becker is ahead of Murray in Slam titles won (6 v 3), YECs (3 v 1) and in total titles won (49 v 45).

Murray is ahead in weeks at #1 (41 v 12), YE #1s (1 v 0), Slam Finals played (11 v 10) Masters/Super 9 titles won (14 v 13), has made Slam finals on all 3 surfaces v 2 for Becker, has won titles on all 3 surfaces v 2 for Becker.

 

[Mainad]

He-he, it's all in good fun; I knew it would light a fire under you. Making fun of Andy and the Bull are one of the few consistent joys I have here; don't take them away from me.

But, seriously, which part of my comparison is that unreasonable? Again, strictly comparing Boris vs Andy. Say what you want about Boris but he was a true entertainer and a joy to watch. Andy, with all due respect, isn't either of those. That was the gist of my comparison, albeit a bit exaggerated. Only a bit, mind you.

Compared to someone like Carreno Busta, sure, Andy is a riot on court. So would be a frozen, handcuffed corpse, of course. But I was comparing him to Boom-Boom.

As for Judy, I have no argument... she should be admired only from a distance.

I stand by everything I said (or intimated) in my original reply to you.

 

[Sport]

It is interesting how similar their achievements are. Even at slams, Murray has 11 finals to Boris' 10. Of course, Boris cashed in on 6 to Andy's 3, so he clearly gets the nod.

In my opinion, at this point, I'd say Murray overall is closer to Becker than Wawrinka is to Murray.

Career achievements overall, you could be spot on. But Wawrinka's peak/prime level is closer to the Big 3 than Murray is. And Murray was indeed a very complete player who combined a great serve with solid defensive skills. But Wawrinka was more aggresive and his shots were generally more powerful. (I know Murray sometimes could hit some incredible forehands, but most of the time he didn't produce as aggresive shots as Wawrinka).

 

[Mainad]

Becker also won the WCT and GSC, which are basically YEC tier

But those events didn't exist in Murray's time so no point of comparison possible there.

 

[Mainad]

Not just quite more accomplished, Becker was more consistent than mury at his favourite slam even, really this is a silly comparison.

Interesting that all 4 of Becker's losing Slam finals came at Wimbledon which means he actually has a losing record of finals played there.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

But those events didn't exist in Murray's time so no point of comparison possible there.

And the OP brought up the Olympics, which didn't exist for a good chunk of Becker's career or had the same importance they have now.

 

[Mainad]

And the OP brought up the Olympics, which didn't exist for a good chunk of Becker's career or had the same importance they have now.

Nonetheless Olympic tennis began in 1988 so he obviously had plenty of opportunities to play it in contrast to Murray having no chance to play WCT and GSC.

 

[uscwang]

Beceker is 64.7% (121-66) and Murray is 55.2% (101-82)

BB 65.1% (121-65)
That's more like what I remembered. BB is top tier when it comes to Top 10 winning percentage (Nadal and Federer at 65.3%, Novak at 68.8%). He just didn't win enough the right matches.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Career achievements overall, you could be spot on. But Wawrinka's peak/prime level is closer to the Big 3 than Murray is. And Murray was indeed a very complete player who combined a great serve with solid defensive skills. But Wawrinka was more aggresive and his shots were generally more powerful. (I know Murray sometimes could hit some incredible forehands, but most of the time he didn't produce as aggresive shots as Wawrinka).

Yes, I was simply looking at their relative achievements. I enjoy watching A-level Stan more than A-level Andy, but A-level Andy was present much more often.

 

[Lew II]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Four_(tennis)

Here you can find many info on why Murray is an ATG.

 

[Sport]

Many players have won 3 ATP finals. Only one player has won two Olympic Gold in singles.

Murray's 2 OG in singles + 1 ATP final >>>>>>>>>>> Becker's 3 ATP finals.

Becker is over Murray because of the 3 Grand Slams of difference, not the extra ATP finals.

 

[tennis_pro]

Many players have won 3 ATP finals. Only one player has won two Olympic Gold in singles.

Only one player went 0-10 in ATP finals. Doesn't mean it's impressive.

WTF >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OG

 

[big ted]

imo becker was so much more mentally tough
and knew how to win big matches more than murray...
to win wimbledon at 17 and then defend it a year later is amazing..
id bet on becker if they hypothetically played eachother..

 

[Sport]

Only one player went 0-10 in ATP finals. Doesn't mean it's impressive.

WTF >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OG

Following that logic, "only one player won 8 Wimbledon titles. Doesn't mean it's imrpessive".

You are comparing a losing record (0-10 in ATP finals) with a winning record (2 OG), so it is an incorrect analogy. You should compare a winning record only hold by one person with another winning record only hold by one person.

OG in singles = ATP finals.

 

[tennis_pro]

OG in singles = ATP finals.

Not in a billion years

 

[big ted]

for those talking about murrays olympic medals, olympics
in tennis wasnt even that big deal back then...
in 1992 marc rossett won the olympic GOLD

 

[Kalin]

Becker really shines when looked at how he did playing against the best players of his time. 18-17 against #1s with 4 losses when he was 17-18, 60-40 vs the top 5,
109-64 vs. the top 10.

Pretty amazing numbers, especially given the fields at the time. It's a pity that most people know the flawed, goofy Boris of today and not the great player of yesteryear

 

[Sport]

for those talking about murrays olympic medals, olympics
in tennis wasnt even that big deal back then...
in 1992 marc rossett won the olympic GOLD

We are in 2019, not 1992. Times change and now the Olympics are important, unlike in the past. Following your logic, according to which only matters what was important in the past, then the Australian Open is irrelevant. Many players skipped the Australian Open before the 1990s.

Álex Corretja won the ATP finals back in 1998.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

I'd like to see them battle at the Bahamas. Find out which one is truly Nirvana lyrics.

 

[Red Rick]

Career achievements overall, you could be spot on. But Wawrinka's peak/prime level is closer to the Big 3 than Murray is. And Murray was indeed a very complete player who combined a great serve with solid defensive skills. But Wawrinka was more aggresive and his shots were generally more powerful. (I know Murray sometimes could hit some incredible forehands, but most of the time he didn't produce as aggresive shots as Wawrinka).

Wawrinka, who has 0 HC wins over 37 year old Federer, has a higher peak than Murray?

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

imo becker was so much more mentally tough
and knew how to win big matches more than murray...
to win wimbledon at 17 and then defend it a year later is amazing..
id bet on becker if they hypothetically played eachother..

Becker would completely destroy him. Becker actually quite underachieved he had surprisingly good H2H records against all ATG he ever crossed path with. His problem was more between the ears, when he lost motivation or badly wanted to show that he can beat his opponents from the baseliner instead of playing his usual attacking style. It is his upsets against mugs that really hurt his slam success.

 

[Sport]

Wawrinka, who has 0 HC wins over 37 year old Federer, has a higher peak than Murray?

Wawrinka only faced 37 years old Federer in Cincinnati. But that wasn't the best version of Wawrinka either. Anyway, it's impossible to determine highest level. You can argue either way, but there is no generally accepted criterion to put either Murray or Wawirnka as having the highest prime/peak level.

 

[Red Rick]

Wawrinka only faced 37 years old Federer in Cincinnati. But that wasn't the best version of Wawrinka either. Anyway, it's impossible to determine highest level. You can argue either way, but there is no generally accepted criterion to put either Murray or Wawirnka as having the highest prime/peak level.

You can argue either way as long as you argue that peak Wawrinka is like 6 matches in his career.

If you do that for every player, every player is unbeatable.

 

[-NN-]

Wawrinka, who has 0 HC wins over 37 year old Federer, has a higher peak than Murray?

Perhaps does on clay.

 

[Sport]

You can argue either way as long as you argue that peak Wawrinka is like 6 matches in his career.

If you do that for every player, every player is unbeatable.

That is the problem with determining highest prime/peak level. The comparison Soderling/Wawrinka or Soderling/Murray on clay has the same problem. We would be basing such a comparison in only two years of Soderling (2009, 2010).

In general, it is very difficult if not impossible to determine highest prime level in close comparisons. Of course, you can easily say that Federer had a higher prime than Schwartzmann. But in close comparisons like the Big 3, Wawrinka/Murray, etc. there is no generally accepted criterion to determine highest level.