Comparing Murray's stats to Edberg/Becker

clout

Hall of Fame
I'll be honest I never really looked at Murray's stats compared to the first group of ATGs to see just how close they are to one another. Most posters use their emotions to rate this so here are the hard numbers. I didn't include Wilander as he has 7 slams, the same as Johnny Mac who is unquestionably an ATG.
Stats/Players
Murray
Becker
Edberg
Slams3 66
Overall Titles464941
Masters14138
WTFs141
Olympics2 Golds (Singles)1 Gold (Doubles)0 (Bronze Medalist)
Win % 77%77%75%
Year-End Number Ones102
Weeks at Number One411272
Slam Finals111011
Slam Records189-45 (81%)163-40 (80%)178-47 (79%)
Wins vs top 10 players10212199
Multi-slam years01 0
YE Rankings1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 62, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 61, 1, 2, 2, 3, 5, 5, 5, 5, 7
Davis Cups1 (40-8 record)2 (38-3 record)4 (35-15 record)
Slam Distribution 0 AO (5 RUs), 0 RG (1 RU), 2 WI (1 RU), 1 US (1 RU) 2 AO, 0 RG, 3 WI (4 RUs), 1 USO 2 AO (3 RUs), 0 RG (1 RU), 2 WI (1 RU), 2 US
 

clout

Hall of Fame
Honestly, Murray's numbers are quite similar to Becker and Edberg's in most metrics, but of course, the fact that they both double Sir Andeh in slams is hard to overlook. I mean there's a greater difference in slams there than between Edberg/Becker and Lendl/Connors/Agassi which typically seen as one tier apart.
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
I'll be honest I never really looked at Murray's stats compared to the first group of ATGs to see just how close they are to one another. Most posters use their emotions to rate this so here are the hard numbers.
What about the posters who actually watched Becker and Edberg play live, practice, and watched hundreds of their matches throughout their careers? We don't need to look at stats or blather on about emotions, we experienced Becker and Edberg, who were obviously by far the greater players than Andy Murray. There's nobody except Judy Murray (and possibly Mainad) who would ever disagree. They aren't close to each other at all, since both Stefan and Boris have twice the number of major titles. And you forget that Stefan actually has an OGM from LA in 1984, though it was an exhibition sport then, but with a stronger field than in later years when it was an official Olympic event.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
What about the posters who actually watched Becker and Edberg play live, practice, and watched hundreds of their matches throughout their careers? We don't need to look at stats or blather on about emotions, we experienced Becker and Edberg, who were obviously by far the greater players than Andy Murray. There's nobody except Judy Murray (and possibly Mainad) who would ever disagree. They aren't close to each other at all, since both Stefan and Boris have twice the number of major titles.
I was there to watch both for the run of their careers, and there's no comparison between Becker and Edberg to...Murray. Its trying to shift numbers, or rather place importance on any category that would "lift" Murray's boat, so to speak. Becker and Edberg easily surpass Murray where it counted most.
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
What about the posters who actually watched Becker and Edberg play live, practice, and watched hundreds of their matches throughout their careers? We don't need to look at stats or blather on about emotions, we experienced Becker and Edberg, who were obviously by far the greater players than Andy Murray. There's nobody except Judy Murray (and possibly Mainad) who would ever disagree. They aren't close to each other at all, since both Stefan and Boris have twice the number of major titles. And you forget that Stefan actually has an OGM from LA in 1984, though it was an exhibition sport then, but with a stronger field than in later years when it was an official Olympic event.
Well I disagree.

Unless you can prove I'm either @Mainad or Judy Murray then you're factually wrong.

Oh and Wawrinka is phat
 

BorgTheGOAT

Hall of Fame
Six slams vs three slams actually sets the debate already. What is also interesting is that the only stats Murray is leading are either useless stats like slam finals, or metrics which were far less important during Becker’s and Edbergs time like masters or Olympics.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Six slams vs three slams actually sets the debate already. What is also interesting is that the only stats Murray is leading are either useless stats like slam finals, or metrics which were far less important during Becker’s and Edbergs time like masters or Olympics.
Always the sign of a hater when they try to dismiss stats from a player they don't like by coming out with the well-worn "but they weren't as important back then" blather.
 

RS

Talk Tennis Guru
What hurts Murray is 5-20 in slams vs big 3. Murray had the game to win at least a couple more of those 20 losses.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Hall of Fame
Always the sign of a hater when they try to dismiss stats from a player they don't like by coming out with the well-worn "but they weren't as important back then" blather.
Sure I am a Murray hater never denied this. Anyways if you think one can compare Becker’s and Murray’s master titles at face value just check how many Becker skipped even during his prime. Also it is a well known fact that players in the 80s/90s did not take them as seriously as players nowadays.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Sure I am a Murray hater never denied this. Anyways if you think one can compare Becker’s and Murray’s master titles at face value just check how many Becker skipped even during his prime. Also it is a well known fact that players in the 80s/90s did not take them as seriously as players nowadays.
Well, I am not going to discuss anything with someone who readily admits he is a hater because that automatically means you're hopelessly biased and it is therefore impossible to have a rational discussion with you about anything to do with him. So we have to leave it there.
 

California

Semi-Pro
What about the posters who actually watched Becker and Edberg play live, practice, and watched hundreds of their matches throughout their careers? We don't need to look at stats or blather on about emotions, we experienced Becker and Edberg, who were obviously by far the greater players than Andy Murray. There's nobody except Judy Murray (and possibly Mainad) who would ever disagree. They aren't close to each other at all, since both Stefan and Boris have twice the number of major titles. And you forget that Stefan actually has an OGM from LA in 1984, though it was an exhibition sport then, but with a stronger field than in later years when it was an official Olympic event.
Amen. It isn't really close. These two were legendary players battling on all surfaces when they actually were different! Plus they had had many, worthy competitors and surfaces specialist. Murray has had the Big 3 to deal with, but the rest? A collection of weak, underachievers!
 

ChrisRF

Legend
What about the posters who actually watched Becker and Edberg play live, practice, and watched hundreds of their matches throughout their careers? We don't need to look at stats or blather on about emotions, we experienced Becker and Edberg, who were obviously by far the greater players than Andy Murray. There's nobody except Judy Murray (and possibly Mainad) who would ever disagree. They aren't close to each other at all, since both Stefan and Boris have twice the number of major titles. And you forget that Stefan actually has an OGM from LA in 1984, though it was an exhibition sport then, but with a stronger field than in later years when it was an official Olympic event.
The 1984 field at the Olympics certainly wasn’t stronger than any later one. It was a demonstration event restricted for players up to 21 years old and the only other top player present was Pat Cash.


Apart from that just remember against whom Murray had to play all his Slam finals and imagine how many Slams Becker and especially Edberg would have won under that circumstances. I have watched tons of Becker/Edberg matches and wouldn’t bet on any of them in a match against Murray, apart from maybe Becker on indoor carpet.
 

California

Semi-Pro
The 1984 field at the Olympics certainly wasn’t stronger than any later one. It was a demonstration event restricted for players up to 21 years old and the only other top player present was Pat Cash.


Apart from that just remember against whom Murray had to play all his Slam finals and imagine how many Slams Becker and especially Edberg would have won under that circumstances. I have watched tons of Becker/Edberg matches and wouldn’t bet on any of them in a match against Murray, apart from maybe Becker on indoor carpet.
You wouldn't bet on Edberg or Becker against Murray on grass? Are we talking old school grass with real balls or current grass with oversized soft balls? Edberg has 4 majors on grass and Becker 3 and you are talking Murray? Murray beat Raonic in one of his Wimbledon wins, and a early Novak and he is going to beat Edberg and Becker? Again, slamless, underachiever, Raonic. Let that sink in for a minute....

I am amazed at how much people overrate today's players. They have flaws too. They generally are great ground strokers, yes, I agree. Better than the guys from the past, well most of them. But what else? The game is more than ground strokes. Thank god for today's players that the surfaces and balls have been slowed down. Huge plus that surface specialists have disappeared too....

Keep this in mind too. Edberg was 10 and 0 against Muster. Muster is a back court player with great ground strokes, stood far behind the baseline, didn't volley well, mediocre serve, not much variety. He sounds like a lot of today's players doesn't he? Think about that for a minute.
 

NonP

Hall of Fame
So Becker rivals the likes of Lendl, Pete, Fed and Rafa in career H2H vs. the top 10 (65.1%) and Edberg's masterclass in the '92 USO final is widely considered among the all-time greatest performances, neither of which peaks Murray has yet to match, and yet you'd bet on a 3-time Slammer against either of these two certified ATGs? The problem with the kids these days is not what they don't know, but what they think they know but don't.
 

ChrisRF

Legend
You wouldn't bet on Edberg or Becker against Murray on grass? Are we talking old school grass with real balls or current grass with oversized soft balls? Edberg has 4 majors on grass and Becker 3 and you are talking Murray? Murray beat Raonic in one of his Wimbledon wins, and a early Novak and he is going to beat Edberg and Becker? Again, slamless, underachiever, Raonic. Let that sink in for a minute....

I am amazed at how much people overrate today's players. They have flaws too. They generally are great ground strokers, yes, I agree. Better than the guys from the past, well most of them. But what else? The game is more than ground strokes. Thank god for today's players that the surfaces and balls have been slowed down. Huge plus that surface specialists have disappeared too....

Keep this in mind too. Edberg was 10 and 0 against Muster. Muster is a back court player with great ground strokes, stood far behind the baseline, didn't volley well, mediocre serve, not much variety. He sounds like a lot of today's players doesn't he? Think about that for a minute.
Come on, you cannot compare Muster to today’s top players, especially the Big 4, is. Also you are massively underrating 2013 Djokovic by saying who "only" beats him would lose to Edberg or Becker. I mean, can you imagine 2013 Djokovic losing to Edberg? I’m sure Djokovic would have crushed the Edberg serve. And yes, Edberg is one of the best volley players in history, but he wouldn’t have a chance to make something countable out of this.

The old grass COULD be different though, but still prime Murray is such a great returner that I don’t see much chance with serve and volley against him. I think he would win Wimbledon in Agassi 1992 style.

Also what does it say that Edberg won 4 Slams on grass? The Australian Open was on grass too, and he won 2 of them. In Wimbledon he won twice just like Murray. There is absolutely no sign that he is better on grass. Remember that Murray lost 2 times to Federer (whom he defeated an an Olympic final on grass) and 3 times to Nadal at Wimbledon. None of the 90s guys had to play against them.

I’m convinced that a guy with the prime and consistancy of Murray would have had a better career than Agassi if he didn’t have to face the Big 3.
 

citybert

Hall of Fame
@clout Lets come back in 15 yrs and add coaching stats. Id say Murray coaches FAA / Alacaraz / Sinner one of them to GS titles. nice table!

Does anyone know why edberg retired at 31? Seemed even a yr or two early even in his day. And he generally played shorter points. I remember something with kids, back then it was more difficult but cant remember
 
Last edited:

timnz

Legend
Murray is closer to Wawrinka and Courier not Becker and Edberg

Did Becker and Edberg go 2-25 against the top 5 ?
Murray has around 3 x career ATP points compared to Wawrinka . He is much closer to Edberg and Becker than courier and Wawrinka. Seriously look at who murray lost to in his slam finals. Eg the Australian open - he lost 5 finals against the two best Australian open players in history.
 

Tostao80

Rookie
Murray is closer to Wawrinka and Courier not Becker and Edberg

Did Becker and Edberg go 2-25 against the top 5 ?
Did Edberg and Becker play in the same era as the THREE greatest players of all time? Something tells me that had something to do with it.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Murray has around 3 x career ATP points compared to Wawrinka . He is much closer to Edberg and Becker than courier and Wawrinka. Seriously look at who murray lost to in his slam finals. Eg the Australian open - he lost 5 finals against the two best Australian open players in history.
But Wawrinka defeated one of them to win the AO.

You can't say Murray is closer to Becker/Edberg when he doesn't even have more slams than Wawrinka.
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
But Becker and Edberg played against other ATG.
so any rando mug with 6-14 Slams is the same category as 17-20?

Because that goes entirely against the premise that Murray shouldn't be in.

Oops.

O wait I forgot the entire argument is based on cherry picking and inconsistency.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
so any rando mug with 6-14 Slams is the same category as 17-20?

Because that goes entirely against the premise that Murray shouldn't be in.

Oops.

O wait I forgot the entire argument is based on cherry picking and inconsistency.
Point is, there's no proof that Murray would be incredibly successful agaibst the likes of Becker, Edberg, Lendl and Wilander.
 

Tostao80

Rookie
No, but they had other ATGs to deal with. Would Murray really be incredibly successful against those? No proof of that.
There's a huge difference between "other ATGs" and the 3 greatest tennis players of all time (who will end up with 60 plus slams when they are finished). You're not suggesting that Beckers records would be the same if he played in this era? You think he wins 4 YE championships whilst Novak and Roger are playing?
 

Tostao80

Rookie
Point is, there's no proof that Murray would be incredibly successful agaibst the likes of Becker, Edberg, Lendl and Wilander.
Of course there is no proof. Then what is the point of threads? We're here to offer opinions based on what we know about these players.
 

Nole_King

Hall of Fame
What about the posters who actually watched Becker and Edberg play live, practice, and watched hundreds of their matches throughout their careers? We don't need to look at stats or blather on about emotions, we experienced Becker and Edberg, who were obviously by far the greater players than Andy Murray. There's nobody except Judy Murray (and possibly Mainad) who would ever disagree. They aren't close to each other at all, since both Stefan and Boris have twice the number of major titles. And you forget that Stefan actually has an OGM from LA in 1984, though it was an exhibition sport then, but with a stronger field than in later years when it was an official Olympic event.
Fixed it for you.
 

Nole_King

Hall of Fame
Always the sign of a hater when they try to dismiss stats from a player they don't like by coming out with the well-worn "but they weren't as important back then" blather.
Always the sign of a blind supporter when they try to dismiss the gap in slams that is actually equal to tally of their idol.
 
Top