Comparing Murray's stats to Edberg/Becker

[Nole_King]

Only talking about Murray peak level in that post. I know the 80s was a crazy strong era you had like hefty number of ATGs.

Well my point was the there will be many players whose tally of slams may not be true reflection of their peak play, and that is probably not an aberration because sustaining close to the peak level is what makes someone an ATG ..

 

[Nole_King]

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.

Nice backdoor exit when you know you dont have any argument.

 

[RS]

Well my point was the there will be many players whose tally of slams may not be true reflection of their peak play, and that is probably not an aberration because sustaining close to the peak level is what makes someone an ATG ..

I was tackling about Murray not getting enough credit for is peak level but I suppose that is the case for some other players with the slam counts not reflecting.

 

[Nole_King]

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.

Probably because you are comparing that play against Murray playing in today's conditions. I have followed Edberg Becker very closely and I dont see Murray surviving against them on Murray's best surface (grass) in late 80s/90s. With Murray's game hard to see him advancing beyond first couple of rounds at Wimbledon.

 

[Nole_King]

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.

You can't argue with someone looking at past through present's lenses. Drop Murray in the late 80s/90s and he would be a headless chicken not knowing where to run.

 

[Nole_King]

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.

That infact tells when you started following tennis. There's a reason why you have only one example and that too of an ATG like Agassi to have a baseliner to win Wimbledon in 90s. Just go and have a look and highlights of WImbledon finals in the 90s. The grass was completely worn out at the net. Compare that to post 2000. Also keep in mind that it was quite a wet wimbledon in 92 which made Agassi's achievement even more special.

Imagine what would Sampras do to Murray at Center court.

 

[Nole_King]

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.

Or mug like Murray who couldn't take slams off people in their 30s thereby inflating their tally.

 

[Nole_King]

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?

Maybe not 4 but definitely more than Murray.

 

[Druss]

Put Murray in the 1985-93 era and he'd be lucky to win 3 slams. Is there anyone who really thinks that Muzza would be cleaning up in what is arguably the most competitive period in OE history? He certainly has a case to be placed alongside Courier or Vilas.....But Becker and Edberg? That would be an insult.

 

[Nole_King]

Becker only lost three Davis Cup matches? WOW.

Two of those to one player, Sergio Casal.

 

[mike danny]

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.

That's why saying he is on their level just because he has had the Big 3 to deal with is erroneous. Roddick had Federer to deal with, does that mean he is on Becker/Edberg's level? Because it's very likely he would have won 5-6 slams in total without Fed.

 

[mike danny]

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?

But does Murray really win more than 3 slams against other ATGs when he us unproven against other ATGs?

 

[Third Serve]

Put Becker or Edberg in Murray’s era and they would probably only win slightly more than Murray with the Big 3 around. Put Murray in the Becker/Edberg era and I feel pretty confident that he’d win considerably less than them.

 

[mike danny]

Put Becker or Edberg in Murray’s era and they would probably only win slightly more than Murray with the Big 3 around. Put Murray in the Becker/Edberg era and I feel pretty confident that he’d win considerably less than them.

This.

Some people want their cake and to eat it too.

It's easy for them to rationalize that Becker/Edberg would win less in the Big 3 era, but it's unfathomable for them to even accept that Murray would not win more in the Becker/Edberg era.

 

[Deleted member 748597]

 

[NoleFam]

He's comparable to them statistically in every way except Slam final conversion rate. Edberg is 6-5 in Slam finals, Becker is 6-4 and Murray is 3-8, having played Djokovic or Federer in 10/11 Slam finals. That's solely where the difference in their careers lie if you are being honest.

 

[NoleFam]

Murray is closer to Wawrinka and Courier not Becker and Edberg

Did Becker and Edberg go 2-25 against the top 5 ?

I don't know but Murray has a higher win rate against top 5 and top 10 than Edberg. 44% against the top 5 and 55% against the top 10 for Murray; 40% against the top 5 and 46% against the top 10 for Edberg.

 

[mike danny]

He's comparable to them statistically in every way except Slam final conversion rate. Edberg is 6-5 in Slam finals, Becker is 6-4 and Murray is 3-8, having played Djokovic or Federer in 10/11 Slam finals. That's solely where the difference in their careers lie if you are being honest.

I like how wveryone assumes Murray is a lock agaibst the likes of Becker/Edberg/Lendl/Wilander

 

[NoleFam]

I like how wveryone assumes Murray is a lock agaibst the likes of Becker/Edberg/Lendl/Wilander

I'm pretty sure that assumption is not in this post you replied to.

 

[mike danny]

I'm pretty sure that assumption is not in this post you replied to.

You said that's where the difference lies, which implies that Murray would win just as much in Becker/Edberg's era as them.

 

[NoleFam]

You said that's where the difference lies, which implies that Murray would win just as much in Becker/Edberg's era as them.

I said statistically that's where the difference is meaning the only difference between them career wise. I never said anything about how much he would win in their era.

 

[California]

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.

They played in the era that included McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, Sampras, Agassi, Courier, etc... very tough competition. They didn't play in the era of three fantastic players are all the rest are scrubs! There is no challenge from any of the players under 30 than is why the big 3 have so many titles. And hey Murray fans, he isn't one of the big 3 in case that isn't clear....

 

[Meles]

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​
Slams	3	6	6
Overall Titles	46	49	41
Masters	14	13	8
WTFs	1	4	1
Olympics	2 Golds (Singles)	1 Gold (Doubles)	0 (Bronze Medalist)
Win %	77%	77%	75%
Year-End Number Ones	1	0	2
Weeks at Number One	41	12	72
Slam Finals	11	10	11
Slam Records	189-45 (81%)	163-40 (80%)	178-47 (79%)
Wins vs top 10 players	102	121	99
Multi-slam years	0	1	0
YE Rankings	1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 6	2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6	1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 5, 5, 5, 5, 7
Davis Cups	1 (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

it's amazing the closeness of their games won on hardcourt percentages. even the slam semi finals is close.

 

[Meles]

But fact is he is far less great than fanboys like you would like to believe.

We did scenarios long ago on what would happen if one of the big four did not play. Murray did not pick up that many slams. Roddick moved up nicely considering he only has one. Federer would have an insane number of slams. Nadal not that much more.

 

[Deleted member 774170]

We did scenarios long ago on what would happen if one of the big four did not play. Murray did not pick up that many slams. Roddick moved up nicely considering he only has one. Federer would have an insane number of slams. Nadal not that much more.

Nothing beats Peak Hypothetical Alternate Universe Federer

 

[Meles]

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.

I'd easily give Murray the edge. all three are very close.

 

[Mainad]

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.

But Stan is a unique anomaly. Nobody else in the open era has won that many Slams whilst winning virtually nothing else (MC being the lone exception).

 

[Meles]

Nothing beats Peak Hypothetical Alternate Universe Federer

on the goat sweepstakes it really isn't close and the guy was taken down by mono.

 

[California]

Probably because you are comparing that play against Murray playing in today's conditions. I have followed Edberg Becker very closely and I dont see Murray surviving against them on Murray's best surface (grass) in late 80s/90s. With Murray's game hard to see him advancing beyond first couple of rounds at Wimbledon.

Murray's problem playing on old grass is his defensive style and playing passive and too deep in the court. That is not going to work against serve and volliers and attacking players. People mention Agassi, Murray doesn't play like Agassi. He stood on the baseline with incredible reflexes and was a very aggressive baseliner and returner and he only won one Wimbledon thanks to choke artist Goran. That is why earlier I compared him to Muster. It is his style of play, reactionary, defensive, and passive. That didn't work back in the 80s and 90s on grass or fast hard courts.

The game is different today. Slow, slower, and slowest. 32 seeds, no surface specialist since they all play the same.... slow. It is why one style wins today. It didn't use to be like that. You had to have more than ground strokes, it wasn't war of attrition from the back of the court.

 

[Mainad]

Murray's problem playing on old grass is his defensive style and playing passive and too deep in the court. That is not going to work against serve and volliers and attacking players. People mention Agassi, Murray doesn't play like Agassi. He stood on the baseline with incredible reflexes and was a very aggressive baseliner and returner and he only won one Wimbledon thanks to choke artist Goran. That is why earlier I compared him to Muster. It is his style of play, reactionary, defensive, and passive. That didn't work back in the 80s and 90s on grass or fast hard courts.

The game is different today. Slow, slower, and slowest. 32 seeds, no surface specialist since they all play the same.... slow. It is why one style wins today. It didn't use to be like that. You had to have more than ground strokes, it wasn't war of attrition from the back of the court.

The best players adapt their games to the conditions of the time. I'm pretty confident Murray would have done this if his gamestyle wasn't getting him the results he wanted.

 

[NoleFam]

Murray's problem playing on old grass is his defensive style and playing passive and too deep in the court. That is not going to work against serve and volliers and attacking players. People mention Agassi, Murray doesn't play like Agassi. He stood on the baseline with incredible reflexes and was a very aggressive baseliner and returner and he only won one Wimbledon thanks to choke artist Goran. That is why earlier I compared him to Muster. It is his style of play, reactionary, defensive, and passive. That didn't work back in the 80s and 90s on grass or fast hard courts.

The game is different today. Slow, slower, and slowest. 32 seeds, no surface specialist since they all play the same.... slow. It is why one style wins today. It didn't use to be like that. You had to have more than ground strokes, it wasn't war of attrition from the back of the court.

Murray is actually better on faster surfaces than slower ones though. He performed better against Djokovic and Federer on faster surfaces than slower ones which is something quite a few people don't realize. Faster surfaces force him to be more aggressive and dictate more. Nothing to suggest he would not have done well in a previous era because of the speed. Look at his carpet record at ages 18-20.

 

[NonP]

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.

I see you're still peddling your bean-counting "system" that hews to the ATP standard with no additional context whatsoever. Since you seem incapable of entertaining the possibility that maybe a Slam is worth more than two Masters here some additional numbers you and your ilk fail to take into account:

- As I noted earlier, Becker rivals Lendl, Pete, Fed and Rafa in career win % vs. the top 10 (65.1%). That alone should put to rest this nonsense about Murray being even remotely in the same league as Boris.

- Courier won 64.3% of his games on clay in '92 and '93, compared to Murray's own career high of 60.1% in '15 which, FYI, doesn't even surpass Sampras' 60.3% in '93. And at '92 RG he did one better by winning 67.5% - the 22nd-highest % of all Slam runs in the Open Era and the 5th-most dominant run of all FO champs sans Borg and Nadal (or 3rd if you take out '73 Nastase's and '77 Vilas' runs due to depleted fields). Even his 61.7% at '93 RG is better than any run Murray put together.

- But we all knew Courier was a better dirtballer than Murray, you say? OK, so let's look at the AO since you cited Andy's opposition as the main reason why he never won a title there. No argument with Fed and Novak being the two most accomplished AO players since '69.... but that doesn't mean jack squat unless you can show that Murray would likely be cleaning up Down Under in the late '80s-'90s. And I've got more inconvenient #s for you: Courier's 65.2% in '92 is the 11th-highest AO outing of the Open Era (or 8th if you remove Rosewall's and Edberg's wins on grass in '72 and '87 - more on the latter shortly - and Mac's unceremonious run in '90 before his 4th-round default), just barely below Fed's own career-high 65.2% in '04, and quite comparable to Novak's 65.4% in '08 and '12 and only a slight notch below his career-high 67.4% in '11. That prime-time Courier was able to nab just two AOs and yet you think Murray would do just as well or better in the '90s? Sorry I don't see it.

- That's 2 out of 3 surfaces where Courier (arguably) has Murray beat prime for prime. Now let's move on to grass where Andy admittedly has a big advantage because you really can't argue with 2 vs. 0 Wimbledons. But do you really expect Andy to do much better if at all vs. Sampras, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Stich and other top grass-courters in the '90s or vs. Mac, Connors, Becker, Edberg, Cash and their peers in the '80s? Even if you take one of 'em out as a replacement I still don't see Andy faring a whole lot better. So maybe Jim's edge in the game's two most important shots had something to do with his extra Slam after all?

- Ah but the courts were faster back then, right? OK, but it's also agreed (not in either case by me but let's set that aside for now) that the old high-bouncing AO grass was slower than the one at Wimbledon of yore. Well guess what, Edberg won 65.6% of his games at the '87 AO, which as you should've noticed by now is the 6th-highest % of the Open Era. And I've already mentioned his justly celebrated demolition of Courier in the '92 USO final. When did Murray ever put on a jaw-dropping exhibition like that?

This is hardly the 1st time I'm making this point but no borderline great like Murray suddenly doubles his Slam tally when transported to another era (except maybe the very current one, go figure). Looking at the total # of points/titles or win %s is a lazy way to compare players of different eras/generations. History tends to even things out, and if you think whoever would've done a whole lot better/worse if not for xxx, you're very likely wrong.

 

[California]

Murray is actually better on faster surfaces than slower ones though. He performed better against Djokovic and Federer on faster surfaces than slower ones which is something quite a few people don't realize. Faster surfaces force him to be more aggressive and dictate more. Nothing to suggest he would not have done well in a previous era because of the speed. Look at his carpet record at ages 18-20.

Yeah maybe against today's players. I can see that because there aren't any true fast court players today. Against real fast court players? Edberg, Becker, Sampras, Rafter, etc.... no chance.

 

[clout]

He's comparable to them statistically in every way except Slam final conversion rate. Edberg is 6-5 in Slam finals, Becker is 6-4 and Murray is 3-8, having played Djokovic or Federer in 10/11 Slam finals. That's solely where the difference in their careers lie if you are being honest.

If one of Becker or Edberg replaces Murray in the big 4 era then yes they’d win less than they originally did since they would always have to go up against Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.

However, if you placed Murray in their era I’m not sure he would’ve won more than 3 slams either. In the mid/late 80’s he’d have to go through Lendl, Wilander, one of Becker/Edberg then on the early 90’s he’d have to hold off Pete, AA, and Courier.

 

[clout]

Yeah maybe against today's players. I can see that because there aren't any true fast court players today. Against real fast court players? Edberg, Becker, Sampras, Rafter, etc.... no chance.

Honestly I feel like this faster court theory is overblown. Speeding up or slowing down courts doesn’t magically make someone’s talent disappear. This isn’t the Monstars in Space Jam lol

 

[NoleFam]

Yeah maybe against today's players. I can see that because there aren't any true fast court players today. Against real fast court players? Edberg, Becker, Sampras, Rafter, etc.... no chance.

As if Murray, a guy who loves fast surfaces and servebots, isn't going to score multiple wins against those guys.

 

[NoleFam]

If one of Becker or Edberg replaces Murray in the big 4 era then yes they’d win less than they originally did since they would always have to go up against Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.

However, if you placed Murray in their era I’m not sure he would’ve won more than 3 slams either. In
the mid/late 80’s he’d have to go through Lendl, Wilander, one of Becker/Edberg then on the early 90’s he’d have to hold off Pete, AA, and Courier.

That's another argument entirely though. I'm pretty sure Murray would rather take his chances in that era than the one where he could only win 27% of Slam finals though. Tbh, Edberg's Slam draws were tougher than Becker's.

 

[Tostao80]

Yeah maybe against today's players. I can see that because there aren't any true fast court players today. Against real fast court players? Edberg, Becker, Sampras, Rafter, etc.... no chance.

Did i just read this right? Andy Murray can beat Fed and Novak, but would have no chance of beating Pat Rafter on a fast court? People really believe this?

 

[ND-13]

I don't know but Murray has a higher win rate against top 5 and top 10 than Edberg. 44% against the top 5 and 55% against the top 10 for Murray; 40% against the top 5 and 46% against the top 10 for Edberg.

The ineptitude of the last 2 generations is so apparent. I value the wins against Big 3 at big stages.

 

[Tostao80]

If one of Becker or Edberg replaces Murray in the big 4 era then yes they’d win less than they originally did since they would always have to go up against Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.

However, if you placed Murray in their era I’m not sure he would’ve won more than 3 slams either. In the mid/late 80’s he’d have to go through Lendl, Wilander, one of Becker/Edberg then on the early 90’s he’d have to hold off Pete, AA, and Courier.

You're wrong about the early to mid 90s especially. There were many slams where a player didn't have to go through a combination of Pete, AA or Courier. Those 3 (Pete much less so) just weren't as consistent as the big 3 have been. I mean, how many consecutive slam quarters did Fed make for example. The window of opportunity for Andy to win slams would have been much greater.

 

[NoleFam]

The ineptitude of the last 2 generations is so apparent. I value the wins against Big 3 at big stages.

He has hardly played the newest generation since he hasn't been a big factor since his hip injury. Regardless, you implied Edberg was better in that regard but he's not.

 

[ND-13]

He has hardly played the newest generation since he hasn't been a big factor since his hip injury. Regardless, you implied Edberg was better in that regard but he's not.

Not sure how 'Becker/Edberg not being 2-25 against top 3' has anything to do with that

 

[California]

The best players adapt their games to the conditions of the time. I'm pretty confident Murray would have done this if his gamestyle wasn't getting him the results he wanted.

I agree with this statement. He is a great athlete, he has the ability to adapt. The real question is would he? Who knows for certain. The extra slow court conditions stifled any variation of play for the most part, heck even Fed turned turned mainly into a baseliner with today's conditions.

 

[NoleFam]

Not sure how 'Becker/Edberg not being 2-25 against top 3' has anything to do with that

You said top 5 though, not top 3. Regardless whether he went 0-25 against the top 5, he still performed better against the top 5 over his career than Edberg did.

 

[California]

Did i just read this right? Andy Murray can beat Fed and Novak, but would have no chance of beating Pat Rafter on a fast court? People really believe this?

Yes. And here is why. There are no fast courts today. None. Murray is not set up to beat fast court players of the past with how he plays or what he has shown. Rafter was a great fast court player, ask Pete or Andre, or Jim Courier.

 

[buscemi]

You're wrong about the early to mid 90s especially. There were many slams where a player didn't have to go through a combination of Pete, AA or Courier. Those 3 (Pete much less so) just weren't as consistent as the big 3 have been. I mean, how many consecutive slam quarters did Fed make for example. The window of opportunity for Andy to win slams would have been much greater.

Let's look at 1990-1995 at the non-French Open Majors. If we transport Murray back to those tournaments, he might need to beat:

AO 1990: Lendl, Edberg, and Wilander/Becker​

AO 1991: Becker, Lendl, and Edberg​

AO 1992: Courier, Edberg, and Lendl/Krajicek​

AO 1993: Courier, Edberg, and Sampras/Stich​

AO 1994: Sampras, Martin, and Edberg/Courier​

AO 1995: Agassi, Sampras, and Chang/Courier​

​

WI 1990: Becker, Edberg, and Ivanisevic/Lendl​

WI 1991: Stich, Becker, and Edberg​

WI 1992: Agassi, Ivanisevic, and Sampras/McEnroe​

WI 1993: Sampras, Courier, and Edberg/Becker​

WI 1994: Sampras, Ivanisevic, and Becker/Martin​

WI 1995: Sampras, Becker, and Ivanisevic/Agassi​

​

UO 1990: Sampras, Agassi, and Becker/McEnroe​

UO 1991: Edberg, Courier, and Lendl​

UO 1992: Edberg, Sampras, and Courier/Chang​

UO 1993: Sampras, Pioline, and Masur/Volkov​

UO 1994: Agassi, Stich, and Martin​

UO 1995: Sampras, Agassi, and Becker/Courier​

Those are brutal draws other than the 1993 U.S. Open, where Murray would still need to beat peak Sampras in the finals. If Murray were born in, say, 1970, it's tough to see him winning more than 2-4 Majors, which is no knock on him. He's right there w/Courier below Edberg/Becker/Wilander.

 

[Gazelle]

He's comparable to them statistically in every way except Slam final conversion rate. Edberg is 6-5 in Slam finals, Becker is 6-4 and Murray is 3-8, having played Djokovic or Federer in 10/11 Slam finals. That's solely where the difference in their careers lie if you are being honest.

But Murray played in the homogenized era, where it's easier to be consistent. I'm more impressed by 11 finals in the 80's, than the same number in modern era. For me to even consider Murray at same level as Becker/Edberg he needs more finals (and more wins would help too)

 

[NoleFam]

But Murray played in the homogenized era, where it's easier to be consistent. I'm more impressed by 11 finals in the 80's, than the same number in modern era. For me to even consider Murray at same level as Becker/Edberg he needs more finals (and more wins would help too)

This is speculative and subjective. Numbers are not subjective and he has them except in Slam finals. I think the "homogenized era" is way too exaggerated since the main difference is there is no carpet anymore and the grass composition changed to make it more durable.

 

[Gazelle]

This is speculative and subjective. Numbers are not subjective and he has them except in Slam finals. I think the "homogenized era" is way too exaggerated since the main difference is there is no carpet anymore and the grass composition changed to make it more durable.

You want numbers? Murray 3 slams, Beckberg 6. Not subjective, no 'but he played against big 3'.

 

[NoleFam]

You want numbers? Murray 3 slams, Beckberg 6. Not subjective, no 'but he played against big 3'.

Yes this correct and it's a better argument than the invention of how easier it was to compete in Murray's era or what you are more impressed by. Fact is, the difference between Edberg/Becker and Murray comes down to 3 matches in Slam finals. He has equaled them in everything else across the board, more or less.