Comparing Murray's stats to Edberg/Becker

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?
Murray has never beaten a good Federer or Djokovic in a slam though, except 2012 USO where wind was a massive factor. Still perplexed how sad Djokovic was in the '13 WB final for no good reason.
 
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.
Becker's YEC >> mury's olympix
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
Murray has never beaten a good Federer or Djokovic in a slam though, except 2012 USO where wind was a massive factor. Still perplexed how sad Djokovic was in the '13 WB final for no good reason.
Calling anything about that match good is a massive stretch. Wind started to die down by 3rd/4th set but quality was still terrible. 04 QF 5th set was in far tougher conditions and it was still way way better than that horror show.
 
Calling anything about that match good is a massive stretch. Wind started to die down by 3rd/4th set but quality was still terrible. 04 QF 5th set was in far tougher conditions and it was still way way better than that horror show.
Windassi > Windovic of course, that we know.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
1 becker YEC title > 1 Murray olympix title
3 Becker YEC titles >> 1 Murray YEC title + 2 Olympic titles
Plus, Becker's total YEC record >>>> Murray's YEC record anyway, even lolympic titles can't bridge the chasm.
Becker never won the YEC undefeated so all 3 times, he won 4 matches to win it. This is supposed to be greater than Murray's Olympic gold runs where he won 6 matches, especially the won where he beat Djokovic and Federer back to back?

Becker's 3 YEC's (12 wins) > Murray's 1 YEC + 2 OGs (17 wins)??

You didn't think this one through fully did you?
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Agassi 04 sure better than Djok 12 at USO. Djok played like a drunk noob in that one. Explains how Murray won.
Well of course. Murray has a habit of making his final opponents play like 'drunk noobs'. Have you only just figured this out?
 

ChrisRF

Legend
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.
The key are the modern racquets, not so much the surface. With modern racquets no serve and volley player would beat Murray on a regular basis. The returns and passing shots would be too good.

And of course I have watched in the 90s. And by the way I believe that Murray would be just as successful as Agassi if he doesn’t have to compete against the Big 3, if not even more so. He was much more consistant.
 

RS

Talk Tennis Guru
The key are the modern racquets, not so much the surface. With modern racquets no serve and volley player would beat Murray on a regular basis. The returns and passing shots would be too good.

And of course I have watched in the 90s. And by the way I believe that Murray would be just as successful as Agassi if he doesn’t have to compete against the Big 3, if not even more so.
Murray barely has a higher peak level than L Hewitt.
 

ChrisRF

Legend
Murray barely has a higher peak level than L Hewitt.
Even if that was true (which I don’t believe), then it would still be valid. Remember Hewitt was the player who actually demonstrated that the serve and volley era was over with some easy wins over Sampras. He didn't need to be an ATG for that, he was just there at the right time because he grew up with the right style and equipment to do so.
 

Tostao80

Rookie
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.
Why have you decided to omit a whole Slam (french)? Your whole argument lost validity the moment you did that.
Your assessment of a brutal draw is wide off the mark, and frankly, suspect. Having to beat Todd Martin and Agassi/ Stich is brutal? Really? For a guy who has had to fight Rafa/ Novak/ Roger?
 

timnz

Legend
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.
Consistency and going deep again and again should count for something and in that measure Murray has it all over Wawrinka and Courier
 
Why have you decided to omit a whole Slam (french)? Your whole argument lost validity the moment you did that.
Your assessment of a brutal draw is wide off the mark, and frankly, suspect. Having to beat Todd Martin and Agassi/ Stich is brutal? Really? For a guy who has had to fight Rafa/ Novak/ Roger?
Murray lost to Anderson at a slam in his absolute prime, of course he can lose to Martin lol.
 
Becker never won the YEC undefeated so all 3 times, he won 4 matches to win it. This is supposed to be greater than Murray's Olympic gold runs where he won 6 matches, especially the won where he beat Djokovic and Federer back to back?

Becker's 3 YEC's (12 wins) > Murray's 1 YEC + 2 OGs (17 wins)??

You didn't think this one through fully did you?
TIL IW > YEC because 6 > 5. leeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel you're still a dummy.
 

Third Serve

Talk Tennis Guru
Becker never won the YEC undefeated so all 3 times, he won 4 matches to win it. This is supposed to be greater than Murray's Olympic gold runs where he won 6 matches, especially the won where he beat Djokovic and Federer back to back?

Becker's 3 YEC's (12 wins) > Murray's 1 YEC + 2 OGs (17 wins)??

You didn't think this one through fully did you?
I don’t think counting wins is the way you want to go. By this logic, 3 Indian Wells or Miami titles (assuming byes in the first round) would equate to 18 wins. Far superior to Becker’s YECs and Murray’s YEC + Olympic Gold. By extension, 3 IW titles would be worth more than anyone’s 3 YEC titles, yet the latter is the more prestigious tournament.
 
Last edited:

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
I don’t think counting wins is the way you want to go. By this logic, 3 Indian Wells or Miami titles (assuming byes in the first round) would equate to 18 wins. Far superior to Becker’s YECs and Murray’s YEC + Olympic Gold.
It is though in this context because an Olympic gold is roughly on the same level as a WTF title with a BO5 final. I'm just showing how easily his argument can be dissected and rendered useless with no proof of why Becker's titles are supposedly greater.
 

Third Serve

Talk Tennis Guru
It is though in this context because an Olympic gold is roughly on the same level as a WTF title with a BO5 final. I'm just showing how easily his argument can be dissected and rendered useless with no proof of why Becker's titles are supposedly greater.
Yeah, but you really don't want to use number of wins when the YEC is involved even in such a comparison as this. Olympics draws are quite bigger but the level of competition is typically nowhere near the level of the YEC. So the number of matches is quite easily cancelled out by the quality of wins. This particularity is best viewed by comparing Olympics and YEC draws of the same year.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah, but you really don't want to use number of wins when the YEC is involved even in such a comparison as this. Olympics draws are quite bigger but the level of competition is typically nowhere near the level of the YEC. So the number of matches is quite easily cancelled out by the quality of wins. This particularity is best viewed by comparing Olympics and YEC draws of the same year.
Typically Olympics aren't on the level of a YEC but Murray's 2012 draw was tough with playing Wawrinka, Djokovic and Federer. I can easily make an argument that playing more matches is more physically taxing as well so it can't just easily be cancelled out unless you just run through your draw over lower ranked opponents.
 
Typically Olympics aren't on the level of a YEC but Murray's 2012 draw was tough with playing Wawrinka, Djokovic and Federer. I can easily make an argument that playing more matches is more physically taxing as well so it can't just easily be cancelled out unless you just run through your draw over lower ranked opponents.
Beating early rounders shouldn't be taxing unless you make it difficult and that's on you.
2012 Olympics was one of Murray's career peak tournaments, 2016 was relatively feeble though.
 
Now seriously, counting Olympics for much in this comparison is quite unfair since it was less important and he had no good opportunities after skipping the very first official tennis Olympic event in '88, which must not be held against him as half the top players missed it showing it wasn't that important right away. The '92 Olympics was held on clay, and Becker couldn't play the '96 edition since he was injured. With a tournament as infrequent as the olympix, circumstances don't even out. At any rate, it's easy to balance out by giving Becker's sub-slam titles more weight due to BO5 finals, particularly the sub-masters tier, which as we know was closer to the 'masters' tier than now and attracted top players more often and had cool BO5 finals.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
An argument can be made against Becker and that is one of tech chnage with the advent of the graphite racket and the bigger serving it allowed. The problem with that is they were more adapters (like Fed with poly strings) and the real graphite babies were the Americans led by Agassi, which then had Becker and Edberg at a disadvantage late in their careers.
 

Nole_King

Hall of Fame
Slam finals vs GOATs:

Murray 10
Becker 1
Edberg 1

Of course Murray is in their same category.
Two of Becker's winning slams were at age 17 and 18. IMHO, it doesn't matter if someone at that age wins Wimbledon and then defends it next year and doesnt play any GOAT candidate. None of Murray's achievement is comparable to that.

However it is another matter that 3 of Becker's slam wins were against Lendl who you probably consider nothing.
 

Nole_King

Hall of Fame
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.
What could Murray do to his gamestyle to prevent regular spanking at AO?
 

Nole_King

Hall of Fame
Whoa had never realized how people overrate Murray... talk about recency bias...

I like Andy, he's a nice player, but a step below Becker and Edberg. As usual, Slams tell the story.
Actually there are only 2 or 3 of them. But they do make noise of plenty of dozens
 

Nole_King

Hall of Fame
It is though in this context because an Olympic gold is roughly on the same level as a WTF title with a BO5 final. I'm just showing how easily his argument can be dissected and rendered useless with no proof of why Becker's titles are supposedly greater.
Late 80s and 90s, Davis Cup held much more prestige than Olympics. Look at the field that participated in Davis Cup. And Becker was a major force winning the title for West Germany two times (almost single handedly). He had a record of 38-3 and two of his losses were quite a shock coming to an unknown Spaniard.

Becker's record in Davis Cup dwarfs whatever Murray achieved at Olympics.
 

Tostao80

Rookie
Murray lost to Anderson at a slam in his absolute prime, of course he can lose to Martin lol.
Thats not the point that was made though. The point made was that beating Tod Martin then Agassi/ Stich was a "brutal draw". If you offered Andy the choice of beating Rafa/ Roger/ Novak or Martin/ Agassi/ Stich, who would he rather play?
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
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.
What pretty much convinced me that Murray is not on their level is the fact that even in a weak year like 2016, he still couldn't win multiple slams.
 

mike danny

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. 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
Slams366
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 Distribution0 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
Becker/Edberg defended slams and/or had multi slam years. Murray has never accomplished any of these feats.
 
Top