Comparing Murray's stats to Edberg/Becker

Tostao80

Rookie
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/
Poor effort my friend. I didn't say that Murray was better or greater. I said he would have a good chance of beating him in the final. Try again.
 

buscemi

Hall of Fame
Its a grand slam final, Andy would up his game. He would have a good chance of winning. Courier wasn't that great.
You think a version of Murray that had managed one top 10 clay win (over #9 Davydenko) in his original timeline is going to enter the 1992 French final and have a good shot against defending champion Courier, who had just crushed Agassi in the SF? That's...a take. But I don't think it's one that would be shared by the vast majority of tennis fans.
 
Poor effort my friend. I didn't say that Murray was better or greater. I said he would have a good chance of beating him in the final. Try again.
Indeed, Courier is such a terrible overachiever that despite him being a set away from winning three straight RGs, he might well lose to a guy who won one set in his lone RG final. His peak wins and dominance are nothing but a product of feeble competition and a renowned claycourt beast like GOATray would show him where it's really at.
 

Tostao80

Rookie
Indeed, Courier is such a terrible overachiever that despite him being a set away from winning three straight RGs, he might well lose to a guy who won one set in his lone RG final. His peak wins and dominance are nothing but a product of feeble competition and a renowned claycourt beast like GOATray would show him where it's really at.
Dominance? How many clay titles did Courier win in his career? There is a rumour going round that there are 64 players (yes, you read that right) who have more clay titles than the dominant Courier. Say it aint so.
 
Dominance? How many clay titles did Courier win in his career? There is a rumour going round that there are 64 players (yes, you read that right) who have more clay titles than the dominant Courier. Say it aint so.
Winning all sorts of titles is now better than winning RG, yeahlol.
 

Tostao80

Rookie
Winning all sorts of titles is now better than winning RG, yeahlol.
Again, i didn't say that. Comprehend better. He said that Courier showed dominance. What clay dominance did Courier show? He won a measly 5 titles in his whole career. Muster was often dubbed the "the 90s king of clay", despite his1 RG. It wasn't Courier.
 
Again, i didn't say that. Comprehend better. He said that Courier showed dominance. What clay dominance did Courier show? He won a measly 5 titles in his whole career. Muster was often dubbed the "the 90s king of clay", despite his1 RG. It wasn't Courier.
He showed RG dominance. Coming within a set of winning three straight is highly dominant.

And that's why Courier > Muster on clay is an entirely valid position, because for all his peak clay goatish prolificness Muster managed to screw up all his RG campaigns except the one in his absolute peak year, whereas Courier made sure to give his best at RG every year in his prime and has two titles and a five-set final loss to show for it.
 

buscemi

Hall of Fame
Again, i didn't say that. Comprehend better. He said that Courier showed dominance. What clay dominance did Courier show? He won a measly 5 titles in his whole career. Muster was often dubbed the "the 90s king of clay", despite his1 RG. It wasn't Courier.
Between the 1991 French Open and the 1993 French Open, Courier played the French three times and the Italian Open twice (the only clay Masters Series event he entered). He went 32-1, beating Edberg, Stich, Agassi(x2), Muster(x3), Bruguera(x2), Costa, Medvedev, Ivanisevic(x2), Korda, Mancini, Chang, and Krajiceck. The only loss was the 1993 French final against Bruguera, which he dropped in 5 sets.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Between the 1991 French Open and the 1993 French Open, Courier played the French three times and the Italian Open twice (the only clay Masters Series event he entered). He went 32-1, beating Edberg, Stich, Agassi(x2), Muster(x3), Bruguera(x2), Costa, Medvedev, Ivanisevic(x2), Korda, Mancini, Chang, and Krajiceck. The only loss was the 1993 French final against Bruguera, which he dropped in 5 sets.
Courier was better than Djokovic and Federer on clay let alone Murray lol.
 

Tostao80

Rookie
He showed RG dominance. Coming within a set of winning three straight is highly dominant.

And that's why Courier > Muster on clay is an entirely valid position, because for all his peak clay goatish prolificness Muster managed to screw up all his RG campaigns except the one in his absolute peak year, whereas Courier made sure to give his best at RG every year in his prime and has two titles and a five-set final loss to show for it.
Muster underachieved at the French no doubt. But 1 Slam and 6 masters (and 33 other clay titles), is better than 2 Slams and 2 Masters (plus only 1 other clay title). Muster is generally considered greater of the two in most clay polls. Here's one for example:


Couriers 5 titles ultimately is to meagre, especially when we are talking all of clay.
 
Muster underachieved at the French no doubt. But 1 Slam and 6 masters (and 33 other clay titles), is better than 2 Slams and 2 Masters (plus only 1 other clay title). Muster is generally considered greater of the two in most clay polls. Here's one for example:


Couriers 5 titles ultimately is to meagre, especially when we are talking all of clay.
Muster's repeated failures at RG are ultimately too pathetic.
 

Tostao80

Rookie
Courier was better than Djokovic and Federer on clay let alone Murray lol.
Oh dear, ive heard it all now. Courier won 2 RG plus another final, and 2 Masters. Thats it, in his career. Novak has 1 RG, 4 finals, 9 masters and 7 wins over Rafael Nadal. In what world is Courier greater?
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
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.
You do realize the ATGs in Becker/Edberg's era (including the 2 of them) were still of a higher caliber than Murray himself, right?
 

NonP

Hall of Fame
So now we've gone from "Murray would've matched Becker and Edberg if not for the Big 3" (a popular fallacy that refuses to die) to "YEC = Olympics" and "Murray is another Agassi in a previous era." Just when you thought this "discussion" couldn't get more quixotic....

On to housekeeping:

Consistency and going deep again and again should count for something and in that measure Murray has it all over Wawrinka and Courier
I value consistency/longevity myself which is why I rate Murray over Wawrinka and about equal to Courier even though I think those two had a higher overall peak. But you didn't just say Murray is better than either of these guys, but rather that he's closer to Edberg and Becker because he would've achieved a lot more if not for the Big 3. Not only is this specious to begin with (check the above link) your comparison simply does not pass commonsense muster, hence my earlier dissertation.

Now I still remember you hyping up Ferrer's '13 FO run by pointing out, with some justification, that the guy had yet to lose a set. And Ferru was indeed on something of a historic roll, ultimately winning 65.2% of his games for the tournament. One would be forgiven to think the if-not-for-the-Big-3 logic does apply here... until/unless he found out that David won 59.0% for the whole CC season. That's still a good number, but far from dominant and indeed not even his career best (see below). I know you're not one of those ignorant teenyboppers but if you had trouble predicting the result of a single player/event maybe you should think twice before making such a bold comparison regarding two certified ATGs and a lower-tier one from two different eras?

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.
Not only that, I'd argue even the YEC held more prestige back in those days. Not just because of the best-of-5 finals, but because there was more recognition that this was a major leg of the tour, with a different surface (carpet) and more last-minute scrambling as the pre-2000 non-mandatory format made it possible to play just enough events to hold onto a ranking. I still remember the '08 YEC where they had trouble finding a replacement for Nadal and had to settle all the way down on Stepanek 'cause nobody else wanted to interrupt his vacation. Hard to envision that happening in the '80s or '90s.

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 talking to a kid that badly needs a crash course in elementary logic, no need to respond to his comical gotcha about your well-considered omission of the FO draws.

Of course anyone who touts Murray as any sort of elite clay-courter undone by circumstances beyond his control is not to be taken seriously. As I've noted his best CC GW% came at in '15, not '16 when he won 58.8%. Not a bad outing by any means, but nowhere near enough to confirm him as a strong would-be contender in previous eras where dangerous floaters at RG were a dime a dozen.

And I mean that almost literally. Forget about actual FO champs as most of 'em topped 60% or came close at least once in their career. Rather let's look at the best seasons of non-champs who reached at least one QF or higher at RG in their career, with their % of games won (sans DC and including TBs) in parentheses that are comparable to Murray's*:

1993 - Sampras** (60.3% or 60.8% sans Atlanta on green clay)
1994 - Sampras** (60.1%), Berasategui (58.1%)
1997 - Corretja (59.9%)
1998 - Rios (60.8%)
1999 - Norman (58.7%)
2000 - Corretja (59.8%), Norman (58.9%)
2003 - Coria (64.0%)
2004 - Coria (61.9%)
2005 - Coria** (58.5%)
2006 - Davydenko (59.4%)
2007 - Ferrer (58.5%)
2008 - del Potro (59.4%), Davydenko (58.9%)
2009 - Gonzalez (59.1%), Davydenko (59.0%)
2010 - Ferrer (59.6%)
2011 - Ferrer (61.4%), del Potro (60.6%)
2012 - Ferrer (61.0%)
2013 - Ferrer (59.0%)
2014 - Nishikori (58.8%)
2015 - Murray (60.4%), Ferrer (59.2%), Nishikori (58.9%)
2016 - Murray (58.8%)
2017 - Cilic (59.9%), Thiem (58.6%)
2020 - Sinner (58.1%)

*I'm listing only CC seasons with at least 100 service or return games. Stretching this rule a bit would've meant including Monfils who won 58.2% in '16. Nalbandian's 58.3% in '01 is a useless stat as he didn't play a single tour-level match during the regular CC season.)

**As I've noted elsewhere the World Team Cup was an exhibition in all but name, hence the omission of WTC stats for 1993-94 Sampras and 2005 Coria.

FYI that list is probably not exhaustive as I mostly focused on the question of who made the 60% Club and didn't look too closely at some of the other contenders who I knew were out. And you can see that apart from Delpo's one-off in '11 Ferrer is the only one besides the Big 3 who managed to break the 60% ceiling after '04, and there's a reason for that... because the remaining members all hail from the pre-Fedal era!

So Murray would have to deal with more world-class dirtballers in the '90s and yet you expect him to do better at RG? Forget about winning RG, he'd do well to make just one final vs. that field.

P.S. on 5/15/21: Edited the %s with TBs and added '20 Sinner.

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.
Indeed, Courier is such a terrible overachiever that despite him being a set away from winning three straight RGs, he might well lose to a guy who won one set in his lone RG final. His peak wins and dominance are nothing but a product of feeble competition and a renowned claycourt beast like GOATray would show him where it's really at.
No, no, no, you don't understand. The guy who won the highest % of games in a CC season since '91 except Nadal, and whose 67.5% at '92 RG is topped only by five iterations of Rafa, '86 Lendl and '93 Bruguera in the modern era, would somehow tremble before an opponent who could just barely crack the 60% ceiling only once. Never mind which of these two would win the topspin battle or dictate the majority of their rallies with his FH.
 
Last edited:

mike danny

Bionic Poster
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.
Wawrinka won 3 slams against the same competition as Murray, but sure, Becker/Edberg who are actual ATGs would be helpless against the Big 3.

If you say so...
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
You do realize the ATGs in Becker/Edberg's era (including the 2 of them) were still of a higher caliber than Murray himself, right?
Debatable.

Still not anywhere near the same caliber as big 3. Miles away. Not even close.
I dont know why you are still discussing this. I repeat, Murray had to knock out week in week out Djokovic, Federer and Nadal to win slams and masters. What more do I need to tell you for you to grasp that?
 

Tostao80

Rookie
He upped his game so much that he lost comfortably most of the time.
He played Novak and Roger in 10 of his 11 finals, 2 of the 3 greatest players that ever lived. Who did Courier play, that was as good as those 2? His final opponents were much easier than Andy Murray's opponents.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Debatable.

Still not anywhere near the same caliber as big 3. Miles away. Not even close.
I dont know why you are still discussing this. I repeat, Murray had to knock out week in week out Djokovic, Federer and Nadal to win slams and masters. What more do I need to tell you for you to grasp that?
Wawrinka won as many slams as Murray against the same competition. That's why Murray's struggles are overstated.

Knowing that Wawrinka won 3 slams against the Big 3, it's ludicrous to give Becker/Edberg incredibly small chances.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
He played Novak and Roger in 10 of his 11 finals, 2 of the 3 greatest players that ever lived. Who did Courier play, that was as good as those 2? His final opponents were much easier than Andy Murray's opponents.
You didn't refute what I said, instead you keep going on and on about Murray's opponents.

I don't care about how he would do against Courier. I am just arguing that him raising his level in slam finals hasn't done wonders to him. Him going 4 sets with the Big 3 in slam matches is no better than other guys.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Wawrinka won as many slams as Murray against the same competition. That's why Murray's struggles are overstated.

Knowing that Wawrinka won 3 slams against the Big 3, it's ludicrous to give Becker/Edberg incredibly small chances.
How did you come to Becker/Edberg having small chances? Where are you wandering off to now? We were talking about Murray having to deal with big 3 his whole career. Not how many slams Edberg and Becker would win against big 3. Please stay on topic for once.

Can you answer this if you havent already: Did Edberg and Becker face anywhere near as strong players such as Djokovic Federer and Nadal consistently in semis and finals? And by consistently, I mean every time like Murray had to do.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
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.
The USO 2012 final is one of my favourite matches. So it's horses for courses.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
How did you come to Becker/Edberg having small chances? Where are you wandering off to now? We were talking about Murray having to deal with big 3 his whole career. Not how many slams Edberg and Becker would win against big 3. Please stay on topic for once.

Can you answer this if you havent already: Did Edberg and Becker face anywhere near as strong players such as Djokovic Federer and Nadal consistently in semis and finals? And by consistently, I mean every time like Murray had to do.
No, but they compensated for it by facing othet ATGs many times. Murray would also find it very difficult in these circumstances.

Tennis isn't just about the Big 3. Big 3 or bust is such a shallow mentality.
 

PimpMyGame

Hall of Fame
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.
Kind of agree. Replace the word rackets with strings and you’re onto something. I know that modern racket technology is required for the strings, but it’s how the strings interact with the ball that’s changed the game.

Murray vs Edberg or Becker with modern equipment (including balls), Murray wins hands down. The same match with old tech and balls would be a reverse. All players mentioned have world class talent so I defy anyone to say any of these 3 couldn’t adapt their game if they were born in a different era.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Kind of agree. Replace the word rackets with strings and you’re onto something. I know that modern racket technology is required for the strings, but it’s how the strings interact with the ball that’s changed the game.

Murray vs Edberg or Becker with modern equipment (including balls), Murray wins hands down. The same match with old tech and balls would be a reverse. All players mentioned have world class talent so I defy anyone to say any of these 3 couldn’t adapt their game if they were born in a different era.
Imagining how Player A from Era B would match up against Player C from Era D is always going to be a pointless exercise.
 

Tostao80

Rookie
No, but they compensated for it by facing othet ATGs many times. Murray would also find it very difficult in these circumstances.

Tennis isn't just about the Big 3. Big 3 or bust is such a shallow mentality.
You keep arguing against a point no body had made. Nobody had said Andy would find it easy, or not difficult. He would find the 90s opponents less difficult than Roger, Rafa and Roger. Are you really disputing that? Are Edberg, Courier, Sampras, Agassi not less difficult opponents than the 3 greatest players that ever lived?
 

buscemi

Hall of Fame
You keep arguing against a point no body had made. Nobody had said Andy would find it easy, or not difficult. He would find the 90s opponents less difficult than Roger, Rafa and Roger. Are you really disputing that? Are Edberg, Courier, Sampras, Agassi not less difficult opponents than the 3 greatest players that ever lived?
The two years Murray won Wimbledon, he had:

2013: QF: Verdasco; SF: Janowicz; F: Djokovic​
2016: QF: Tsonga; SF: Berdych; F: Raonic​

That's 2 of Murray's 3 Majors. If Murray is born in 1970, he likely would have faced a tougher Wimbledon draw every year from 1990-2000.
 

Tostao80

Rookie
The two years Murray won Wimbledon, he had:

2013: QF: Verdasco; SF: Janowicz; F: Djokovic​
2016: QF: Tsonga; SF: Berdych; F: Raonic​

That's 2 of Murray's 3 Majors. If Murray is born in 1970, he likely would have faced a tougher Wimbledon draw every year from 1990-2000.
Nice try but wrong again. The great Malivai Washington's run to the final in 96 included Alex Radulescu (career high 51), Todd Martin and Richard krajitek. Thats a really tough draw. Beating Djokovic in the final has nothing on that group.
 

buscemi

Hall of Fame
Why only the winners draw? Murray could just have likely ended up in the opposite half to Krajicek, thereby meeting him in the final.
1996 is pretty much the only Choose Your Own Adventure draw from 1990-2000. From 1990-1995 and 1997-2000, Murray clearly would have had a tougher draw than he had in 2013 and 2016. In 1996, he could have had an easier draw, but he also could have had a brutal draw like Stich/Sampras/Krajicek.
 

Tostao80

Rookie
1996 is pretty much the only Choose Your Own Adventure draw from 1990-2000. From 1990-1995 and 1997-2000, Murray clearly would have had a tougher draw than he had in 2013 and 2016. In 1996, he could have had an easier draw, but he also could have had a brutal draw like Stich/Sampras/Krajicek.
Sampras last 3 opponents in 97, a washed up Becker (retired after the tournament), doubles specialist Woodbridge and the mighty Pioline. Example of another brutal draw.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
How did you come to Becker/Edberg having small chances? Where are you wandering off to now? We were talking about Murray having to deal with big 3 his whole career. Not how many slams Edberg and Becker would win against big 3. Please stay on topic for once.

Can you answer this if you havent already: Did Edberg and Becker face anywhere near as strong players such as Djokovic Federer and Nadal consistently in semis and finals? And by consistently, I mean every time like Murray had to do.
His point was that Wawrinka won 3 slams when facing the big 3, so Becker or Edberg could have won 6. Becker in particular, I would expect to take a few Wimbledon crowns off Novak Djokovic.
 

Tostao80

Rookie
His point was that Wawrinka won 3 slams when facing the big 3, so Becker or Edberg could have won 6. Becker in particular, I would expect to take a few Wimbledon crowns off Novak Djokovic.
The levels that Wawa reached to win those slams were superior to what Edberg ever reached. Can you imagine Edberg going toe to toe with Novak like Wawa did at the Aussie? That was some of the highest level tennis ever seen there. Not very likely does Edberg win at least 2 Aussies and 2 Wimbledon's in Roger/ Rafa/ Novak era.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
The levels that Wawa reached to win those slams were superior to what Edberg ever reached. Can you imagine Edberg going toe to toe with Novak like Wawa did at the Aussie? That was some of the highest level tennis ever seen there. Not very likely does Edberg win at least 2 Aussies and 2 Wimbledon's in Roger/ Rafa/ Novak era.
Yes, I can imagine Edberg doing that. The man beat Krajicek, Lendl, Chang and Sampras in successive matches to win the 1992 US Open, and beat Becker in two Wimbledon finals. There is nothing to suggest he couldn't have defeated Novak Djokovic at the AO, at his peak.
 

buscemi

Hall of Fame
Sampras last 3 opponents in 97, a washed up Becker (retired after the tournament), doubles specialist Woodbridge and the mighty Pioline. Example of another brutal draw.
You're missing the point. If Murray were born in 1970, he would need to beat Sampras in 1997 to take the Wimbledon title along w/players like Becker, Stich, or Henman.
 

NonP

Hall of Fame
1996 is pretty much the only Choose Your Own Adventure draw from 1990-2000. From 1990-1995 and 1997-2000, Murray clearly would have had a tougher draw than he had in 2013 and 2016. In 1996, he could have had an easier draw, but he also could have had a brutal draw like Stich/Sampras/Krajicek.
This kind of argument is ultimately circular and bogus as one player would replace another and different results would lead to different draws, so why don't we keep it simple: no version of Murray is beating Sampras or '96 Krajicek at Wimbledon, on any type of grass. I'd say the same goes even for Djokovic, though he'd have more than a puncher's chance in '98 vs. Pete/Goran/Krajicek and in '00 vs. Pete/Rafter/Agassi, depending on which Novak shows up.

Yes, I can imagine Edberg doing that. The man beat Krajicek, Lendl, Chang and Sampras in successive matches to win the 1992 US Open, and beat Becker in two Wimbledon finals. There is nothing to suggest he couldn't have defeated Novak Djokovic at the AO, at his peak.
Rating Wawa's peak level above Edberg's with such confidence is absolutely comical as Stefan's demolition of Courier in the '91 USO final (I had a brain fart/typo when I said '92) is widely celebrated among cognescenti as one of the greatest one-man shows in tennis history and his '87 AO run on high-bouncing grass a la today's Wimbledon is among the most dominant ever as opposed to Stan's own '14 AO run which is one of the least. (TBF Edberg's '85 AO campaign makes a dubious appearance of its own, but then his tough '92 USO slog can be attributed to that truly brutal draw which would test anyone.) Shows the level of ignorance we're dealing with here.
 

buscemi

Hall of Fame
This kind of argument is ultimately circular and bogus as one player would replace another and different results would lead to different draws, so why don't we keep it simple: no version of Murray is beating Sampras or '96 Krajicek at Wimbledon, on any type of grass. I'd say the same goes even for Djokovic, though he'd have more than a puncher's chance in '98 vs. Pete/Goran/Krajicek and in '00 vs. Pete/Rafter/Agassi, depending on which Novak shows up.
My point is just to say that, in this hypo, Murray could have a 1996 draw w/Krajiceck as his only tough opponent. In any other year from 1990-2000, he's playing at least 2 great grass players.
 
Why only the winners draw? Murray could just have likely ended up in the opposite half to Krajicek, thereby meeting him in the final.
Good luck beating the player who beat Sampras and retained that high level throughout. Beating prime Sampras in straight sets at WB already puts Krajicek's grass peak higher than Murray's, so Andy looks toast.
 
Top