Comparing Murray's stats to Edberg/Becker

mike danny

Bionic Poster
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.
But Becker/Edberg have more wins in slam finals over ATG than Murray.

And also they had ATGs at every turn from nearly every generation.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
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?
Well, apparently even the Nishikori Wawrinka combo wasn't easy for Murray.
 

Tostao80

Rookie
But Becker/Edberg have more wins in slam finals over ATG than Murray.

And also they had ATGs at every turn from nearly every generation.
Becker/ Edberg would have won less Slam finals, if they had played players of the calibre of Novak and Roger. Ultimately, that is the difference. There are ATGs, and there are 2 of the 3 greatest players ever, huge difference.
 

RS

Talk Tennis Guru
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.
He lost Djokovic in-form at AO/RG finals in 2016 .....

2016 did not become more open until the 2nd part anyway.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Becker/ Edberg would have won less Slam finals, if they had played players of the calibre of Novak and Roger. Ultimately, that is the difference. There are ATGs, and there are 2 of the 3 greatest players ever, huge difference.
Sure, but some are making it seem like Murray would easily bulldoze through other ATGs that are not Big 3.

Murray could very well win only 3 slams in Becker/Edberg's era too.
 

buscemi

Hall of Fame
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?
I omitted the French b/c there's no way a version of Murray born in 1970 is winning the French Open from 1990-1995. Under his current timeline, Murray didn't even win a clay title until 2015 and had one top 10 win on clay before 2015. An argument that 1970 Murray wins the French from 1990-1995 would lose validity.

And, in terms of 1990-1995 fields vs. the fields Murray faced, I'm not saying they're stronger than the fields Murray faced in his current timelines. I'm saying that Murray would be hard pressed to win Majors in the 18 tournaments I posted. The UO 1994 field is probably the second weakest of the eighteen, and, even then, Murray would be a big underdog against Agassi and easily could have lost against Stich who was playing great that tournament but just sucked against Agassi.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Of the same calibre as Djokovic, Federer and Nadal?
No, but apparently some of you guys think Murray would easily waltz through those other ATG just because he lost to the Big 3 a lot :laughing:

I guess ATG means nothing today if said player is not Big 3.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
No, but apparently some of you guys think Murray would easily waltz through those other ATG just because he lost to the Big 3 a lot :laughing:

I guess ATG means nothing today if said player is not Big 3.
No one said he would waltz through them. You can use ATG how much you want but having to beat Djokovic, Federer and Nadal in every tournament you play is no ordinary task. Your chances are greatly diminished. Becker and Edberg never competed against such high level opponents that are way above their calibre.
 

Tostao80

Rookie
No one said he would waltz through them. You can use ATG how much you want but having to beat Djokovic, Federer and Nadal in every tournament you play is no ordinary task. Your chances are greatly diminished. Becker and Edberg never competed against such high level opponents that are way above their calibre.
Indeed. He's basically saying that Becker, Agassi and Edberg are as difficult opponents as Novak, roger and Rafa. They're not. Becker and Edberg don't win as many slams in the era of the greatest 3 players ever. Becker does not win 4 YEC in the era of Novak and Roger.
 

RS

Talk Tennis Guru
Not sure how Murray in other
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.
Were do you see a big difference between them though? Anyways I am just trolly these days.

Sampras lost to Safin using the same play as well.
 
Usually you're considered an ATG when you've won matches when it mattered. But apparently Murray's case is that he lost matches when it mattered o_O
 

buscemi

Hall of Fame
Indeed. He's basically saying that Becker, Agassi and Edberg are as difficult opponents as Novak, roger and Rafa. They're not. Becker and Edberg don't win as many slams in the era of the greatest 3 players ever. Becker does not win 4 YEC in the era of Novak and Roger.
I look at this way: Edberg and Becker competed in a tough era and fully deserve their 6 Majors each. Courier competed in a tough era and fully deserved his 4 Majors. The question being addressed here is whether Murray lost out on Majors and would have been (1) a 5 Major winner (i.e., better than Courier) if born in 1970 (Courier's birth year); or (2) a 6 Major winner (i.e., equal to Becker/Edberg) if born in 1966/1967 (the birth years of Edberg & Becker).

If we first start with the Courier hypo, it's really tough to find 5 Majors for Murray if he's born in 1970.
 

Tostao80

Rookie
I omitted the French b/c there's no way a version of Murray born in 1970 is winning the French Open from 1990-1995. Under his current timeline, Murray didn't even win a clay title until 2015 and had one top 10 win on clay before 2015. An argument that 1970 Murray wins the French from 1990-1995 would lose validity.

And, in terms of 1990-1995 fields vs. the fields Murray faced, I'm not saying they're stronger than the fields Murray faced in his current timelines. I'm saying that Murray would be hard pressed to win Majors in the 18 tournaments I posted. The UO 1994 field is probably the second weakest of the eighteen, and, even then, Murray would be a big underdog against Agassi and easily could have lost against Stich who was playing great that tournament but just sucked against Agassi.
You're overating the quality of RG draws in that period. Andy Murray would have had a good chance of reaching at least 1 or maybe more French Open finals. The mighty Petr Kordas route to his final in 92 included Cherkasov and Henry Laconte. Berisategui to get to his 94 final had to beat Magnus Larsson and Henrik Dreekman.
Murray would have been more successful in that clay period than Rafas era.
 

Tostao80

Rookie
I look at this way: Edberg and Becker competed in a tough era and fully deserve their 6 Majors each. Courier competed in a tough era and fully deserved his 4 Majors. The question being addressed here is whether Murray lost out on Majors and would have been (1) a 5 Major winner (i.e., better than Courier) if born in 1970 (Courier's birth year); or (2) a 6 Major winner (i.e., equal to Becker/Edberg) if born in 1966/1967 (the birth years of Edberg & Becker).

If we first start with the Courier hypo, it's really tough to find 5 Majors for Murray if he's born in 1970.
How would Murray win less, being born in 70 if he's instead playing players that are vastly inferior to the ones he ended up playing? He wins 3 Slams in the era of Rafa, Roger and Novak, but what, would win the same or less if he played Becker, Courier, Edberg? Am i missing something?
 

buscemi

Hall of Fame
You're overating the quality of RG draws in that period. Andy Murray would have had a good chance of reaching at least 1 or maybe more French Open finals. The mighty Petr Kordas route to his final in 92 included Cherkasov and Henry Laconte. Berisategui to get to his 94 final had to beat Magnus Larsson and Henrik Dreekman.
Murray would have been more successful in that clay period than Rafas era.
Murray was born in 1987. If Murray were born in 1970, his 2007 would be 1990 (2007-17=1990). Murray's French results:

2007/1990: DNP​
2008/1991: Third round loss to Almagro​
2009/1992: QF loss to Gonzo​
2010/1993: 4R loss to Berdych​
2011/1994: SF loss to Nadal (beat Troicki in the 4R, 7-5 in the fifth set)​
2012/1995: QF loss to Ferrer​

And, again, Murray had one top 10 win on clay and no titles on clay until 2015, which would be 1998 under the adjusted timeline. There's no way he's winning the French from 1990-1995 in this scenario.
 

buscemi

Hall of Fame
How would Murray win less, being born in 70 if he's instead playing players that are vastly inferior to the ones he ended up playing? He wins 3 Slams in the era of Rafa, Roger and Novak, but what, would win the same or less if he played Becker, Courier, Edberg? Am i missing something?
Take Wimbledon, where Murray won 2/3 Majors under his current timeline. Here are the years where Murray made the SF or better, subtracting 17 years b/c he's now born in 1970:

2009/1992: has to beat Agassi, Ivanisevic, Sampras or McEnroe, and Edberg or Becker​
2010/1993: has to beat Sampras, Courier, and Becker or Edberg​
2011/1994: has to beat Sampras, Ivanisevic, and Becker or Martin​
2012/1995: has to beat Sampras, Becker, and Agassi or Ivanisevic​
2013/1996: has to beat Krajicek, Washington, and someone like Martin or Ivanisevic​
2015/1998: has to beat Sampras, Ivanisevic, and Krajicek or Henman​
2016/1999: has to beat Sampras, Agassi, and Rafter or Henman​

Murray's best shot is in 1996 against a redlining Krajicek. Outside of 1996, it's tough to see him winning another Wimbledon.
 

Tostao80

Rookie
Murray was born in 1987. If Murray were born in 1970, his 2007 would be 1990 (2007-17=1990). Murray's French results:

2007/1990: DNP​
2008/1991: Third round loss to Almagro​
2009/1992: QF loss to Gonzo​
2010/1993: 4R loss to Berdych​
2011/1994: SF loss to Nadal (beat Troicki in the 4R, 7-5 in the fifth set)​
2012/1995: QF loss to Ferrer​

And, again, Murray had one top 10 win on clay and no titles on clay until 2015, which would be 1998 under the adjusted timeline. There's no way he's winning the French from 1990-1995 in this scenario.
Talking of Murrays no clay titles. How many clay titles did the mighty Petr Korda win in his whole career. Yes, a big fat zero. So, he can get to a RG final but Andy Murray would have no chance? Put Ferrer back to 90 - 95, he would have excelled.
 
How would Murray win less, being born in 70 if he's instead playing players that are vastly inferior to the ones he ended up playing? He wins 3 Slams in the era of Rafa, Roger and Novak, but what, would win the same or less if he played Becker, Courier, Edberg? Am i missing something?
Doesn't work like that, or else Djokovic would not have lost three slams to Wawrinka.
 

buscemi

Hall of Fame
Talking of Murrays no clay titles. How many clay titles did the mighty Petr Korda win in his whole career. Yes, a big fat zero. So, he can get to a RG final but Andy Murray would have no chance? Put Ferrer back to 90 - 95, he would have excelled.
But this thread and my post are not about making finals. They're about winning them. I don't have any problem w/the argument that 1970 Murray could have made the 1992 French final like Korda did. But that version of Murray, who lost in 4 to Gonzo in the QF in his original timeline, was not going to beat peak Courier in the final
 
Outside of 2012-13 Murray has few great showings in slams to fantasize about him besting ATGs. 2015 RG SF is his most competitive loss to an ATG and still the fifth set was a breadstick (and the first two sets were one-sided too, credit to Murray for going five sets but Djokovic should have won in straights by the level differential).
 

Tostao80

Rookie
But this thread and my post are not about making finals. They're about winning them. I don't have any problem w/the argument that 1970 Murray could have made the 1992 French final like Korda did. But that version of Murray, who lost in 4 to Gonzo in the QF in his original timeline, was not going to beat peak Courier in the final
Peak Courier is not a scary animal. Murray is capable of beating him.
 

RS

Talk Tennis Guru
I cannot decide if Murray is more hated on or gloryified. Why cant most somebody just be somewhere in the middle of the two ends.
 

buscemi

Hall of Fame
Peak Courier is not a scary animal. Murray is capable of beating him.
2009 Murray lost to Gonzo: 6-3, 3-6, 6-0, 6-4 in the QF, w/Gonzo winning 56% of the points. A version of Murray who lost 56% of the points to Gonzo and ate a bagel is getting crushed by peak Courier in 1992 if Murray were born in 1970.
 

Tostao80

Rookie
2009 Murray lost to Gonzo: 6-3, 3-6, 6-0, 6-4 in the QF, w/Gonzo winning 56% of the points. A version of Murray who lost 56% of the points to Gonzo and ate a bagel is getting crushed by peak Courier in 1992 if Murray were born in 1970.
Its a grand slam final, Andy would up his game. He would have a good chance of winning. Courier wasn't that great.
 
Courier is totally weak, I mean he even made less FO semis than Murray lol so obviously goatray is altogether greater and better and ruins the overrated mug easily even on clay let alone anywhere else. Such is the objective truth, fanboys! /lel/
 
Top