Comparing Andy Murray with Guillermo Vilas

#1
It actually is a very close thing if you only look at their achievements from Masters 1000 equivalent and up.

Note: I am using the current ATP points allocation for each event to provide weighting. (I am doing that in the absence of any agreed standard of weighting events - the ATP is the only one we have).

Murray - (Slams 2 x 2000) + (WTF 0 x 1500) + (Slam Runner-ups 6 x 1200) + (Masters 1000's 10 x 1000) = 21200

Vilas - (Slams 4 x 2000) + (WTF 1 x 1500 *) + (Slams Runner-ups 4 x 1200) + (Masters 1000 equivalents 7 x 1000) = 21300

** Vilas was unbeaten (in the round robin, and semi's and final) at the WTF in Melbourne in 1974 so he deserves the full 1500 points for his win.

So 21300 to Vilas and 21200 to Murray. Wow, that is close.

What do people think?

(Yes, I know that Vilas was the defacto number 1 of 1977 and also has 62 titles vs 33 for Murray - but I was just looking at top level tournament achievements here).
 
Last edited:
#2
Geez¡¡¡ never thought about it but could make some sense.

Tell us which are Vilas master 1000 equivalents, please
 
#3
Geez¡¡¡ never thought about it but could make some sense.

Tell us which are Vilas master 1000 equivalents, please
1974 Toronto
1975 Washington D.C.
1976 Toronto
1977 Washington D.C.
1978 Hamburg
1980 Rome
1982 Monte Carlo

(Interestingly all of them were on clay)
 
Last edited:
#4
Didn´t Vilas win Johannesburg and Boston? big titles whatsoever

He also dominated the Buenos Aires tournament; the best tournament held in South America.
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
#5
I've said this before, but I believe Masters titles have become significantly more important in today's game.

During Lendl's era, they were somewhat important (nothing compared to today) but they lost said value going into the 90s and early 2000s.

Today, Masters titles are the pinnacle of tennis.

An unfair comparison in my opinion. Vilas is better, if only by a small amount. Murray still belongs to the Lleyton Hewitt and Marat Safin tier..
 
#6
I've said this before, but I believe Masters titles have become significantly more important in today's game.

During Lendl's era, they were somewhat important (nothing compared to today) but they lost said value going into the 90s and early 2000s.

Today, Masters titles are the pinnacle of tennis.

An unfair comparison in my opinion. Vilas is better, if only by a small amount. Murray still belongs to the Lleyton Hewitt and Marat Safin tier..
Disagree with being the absolute pinnacle, but they are very important.
 
#8
OP forgets Boston 1982 and SA Open 1977
I am open. Tell me about the SA open in 1977. I was under the impression it stopped being a big tournament in 1973 or 1974 relative to other tournaments out there. Similarly with Boston in 1982. Wasn't its heyday in the 1970's?
 

Boom-Boom

Hall of Fame
#9
I've said this before, but I believe Masters titles have become significantly more important in today's game.

During Lendl's era, they were somewhat important (nothing compared to today) but they lost said value going into the 90s and early 2000s.

Today, Masters titles are the pinnacle of tennis.

An unfair comparison in my opinion. Vilas is better, if only by a small amount. Murray still belongs to the Lleyton Hewitt and Marat Safin tier..
Very well said. This M1000 comparison over time is flawed. You can't give them the same weight. Only 7 'M1000' equivalent for Vilas sounds wrong.
 
#11
Very well said. This M1000 comparison over time is flawed. You can't give them the same weight. Only 7 'M1000' equivalent for Vilas sounds wrong.
Other than the 7 tournaments I listed, what other titles would qualify as masters 1000 equivalents in your mind? There very well might be some, it would be good to clarify them :)
 
Last edited:
#12
I am open. Tell me about the SA open in 1977. I was under the impression it stopped being a big tournament in 1973 or 1974 relative to other tournaments out there. Similarly with Boston in 1982. Wasn't its heyday in the 1970's?
Yes, but still big enough to be a comparable 1000 Masters

in the early 80´s Johannesburg recovered old lust as the top players went there.
 
#13
Yes, but still big enough to be a comparable 1000 Masters

in the early 80´s Johannesburg recovered old lust as the top players went there.
But aren't you talking about the 1977 Johannesburg event? Also wasn't Boston a big event on clay as a warm up to the U.S. open? But when the U.S. open switched to hard court in 1978, Boston remained on clay. Did this diminish its importance?

You may be right about Jo. Burg in 1977, but which Jo. Burg event was larger - the November event that Vilas won or the one earlier in the year that Vilas was a finalist (final against Borg rained out ). Which of these two events was in the line of the early joburg events when it was regarded as a top end event?

Tehran in 1977 may be another candidate
 
Last edited:
#14
Well, you are right that the SA Open was the non slam biggest title to win from 1967 till 1974 or so.It diminished but had a recovery in 1982 to 1984 I think.

Boston had a great tradition.Look at the records.In 1982 Vilas and Lendl played the event.Purcell beat Lendl and Vilas won the final against Purcell.I may agree it went downwards from 1982.In fact, not sure it was still played in 1983...
 
#15
Vilas at the tie-break of the 5th !!!!

It actually is a very close thing if you only look at their achievements from Masters 1000 equivalent and up.

Note: I am using the current ATP points allocation for each event to provide weighting. (I am doing that in the absence of any agreed standard of weighting events - the ATP is the only one we have).

Murray - (Slams 2 x 2000) + (WTF 0 x 1500) + (Slam Runner-ups 6 x 1200) + (Masters 1000's 10 x 1000) = 21200

Vilas - (Slams 4 x 2000) + (WTF 1 x 1500 *) + (Slams Runner-ups 4 x 1200) + (Masters 1000 equivalents 7 x 1000) = 21300

** Vilas was unbeaten (in the round robin, and semi's and final) at the WTF in Melbourne in 1974 so he deserves the full 1500 points for his win.

So 21300 to Vilas and 21200 to Murray. Wow, that is close.

What do people think?

(Yes, I know that Vilas was the defacto number 1 of 1977 and also has 62 titles vs 33 for Murray - but I was just looking at top level tournament achievements here).
Very interesting thread.

I can not choose, perhaps.

In my opinion the two majors of Murray, apply 4 to Vilas because the Australian end 70years was not worth a Master1000 and RG there was Connors who was number one. And above all that Borg on red clay beat him always.
The US Open, however, was a memorable victory.

As YEC Vilas has a BIG way.
Murray not.

Master1000 better Murray, because he has a few more titles, also his Master in 1000 have a greater weight.

Master500: much better Vilas, Murray won only four titles, Vilas more and has a dozen that look like Master1000 (Washington 79, the three Louisville and 4 tournaments of 1982, Rotterdam, Milan, Boston and Madrid).

Murray gave the impression of being closer to Federer / Nadal / Djoker than Vilas vs. Connors / Borg / Mac.

But I choose Vilas, because in 1977 he earned the number one even if for a few weeks, because I think at the end of year Connors was the number one correct.

Vilas was number one hypothetical, or otherwise has touched the roof of the world.

... But at the end of Murray career, it will exceed.
 

BGod

Hall of Fame
#16
Can't believe this wasn't revisited after 2016. It's extremely close.

Vilas gets a bump because of fairly hollow AO draws but Murray has 2 Olympic Golds that were not available to Vilas.

VERY close.
 
#20
It actually is a very close thing if you only look at their achievements from Masters 1000 equivalent and up.

Note: I am using the current ATP points allocation for each event to provide weighting. (I am doing that in the absence of any agreed standard of weighting events - the ATP is the only one we have).

Murray - (Slams 2 x 2000) + (WTF 0 x 1500) + (Slam Runner-ups 6 x 1200) + (Masters 1000's 10 x 1000) = 21200

Vilas - (Slams 4 x 2000) + (WTF 1 x 1500 *) + (Slams Runner-ups 4 x 1200) + (Masters 1000 equivalents 7 x 1000) = 21300

** Vilas was unbeaten (in the round robin, and semi's and final) at the WTF in Melbourne in 1974 so he deserves the full 1500 points for his win.

So 21300 to Vilas and 21200 to Murray. Wow, that is close.

What do people think?

(Yes, I know that Vilas was the defacto number 1 of 1977 and also has 62 titles vs 33 for Murray - but I was just looking at top level tournament achievements here).
Murray slams 2×2000? 2 Wimbledons and a USO?
 
#23
When posted, I think it was very close between them. At this point, I think Murray has the better career resume. Vilas has 4 "slam" wins to Murray's 3, but I think Andy offsets this with 11 finals to Vilas' 8, and 10 of those finals were against guys named Federer and Djokovic. Murray also made it to YE #1, and held the top spot for 41 (?) weeks. Too much points to Murray being slightly more accomplished, and a more versatile player as well.
 
Last edited:

Towny

Professional
#25
Got to go with Murray here. Bear in mind that 2 of Vilas' slams were the AO, which in the 70s weren't as highly regarded. He also won his lone RG title in the year which Borg skipped. Murray isn't a lot better but I think he clearly has the edge here.
 
#30
That moment you realize this thread will soon be consigned to the Former Pro section :cry:

Jim Courier is also really close to these guys, just a bit higher up on the list IMO, but this is almost too tough to call. I give Vilas the ever-so-slight edge for his extra Slam and the sheer volume of match/title wins. It took Nadal until 2017 to beat Vilas's clay title haul.
 
Top