Comparing Murray's stats to Edberg/Becker

Nole_King

Hall of Fame
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.
Courier was literally a set away from winning French 3 times in succession. He beat Agassi both times he won, once in final and once in semi. Who else you wanted Courier to beat in order for you to consider his wins as legitimate.

Also which ATG did Murray beat in 2016 Wimbledon to win the title. So shall we consider this Wimbledon of his illegimate?
 

Nole_King

Hall of Fame
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.
That win of Krajicek is comparable to Soderling's against Nadal. But for some braintards that will be a proof that Sampras was not a beast at Wimbledon
 

Nole_King

Hall of Fame
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.
True. Wawrinka went through either Nadal or Novak or both in his 3 slam wins. Better than Murray. Laughable to consider that Becker/Edberg wont be able to do the same. Giving Becker no chance at Wimbledon is simply hilarious.

Why only the winners draw? Murray could just have likely ended up in the opposite half to Krajicek, thereby meeting him in the final.
And getting blown away. Did you see Krajicek's level at that Wimbledon?

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.
Are you in any way casting an aspersion over Sampras' wimbledon reign to make your point look valid? Because seriously that takes out any seriousness that your posts may seem to have.
 

Tostao80

Rookie
Are you in any way casting an aspersion over Sampras' wimbledon reign to make your point look valid? Because seriously that takes out any seriousness that your posts may seem to have.
[/QUOTE]

I was responding to the post that said every single Wimbledon draw between 90 and 99 (bar 96) was tough. A washed up Becker in 97 (retired after the tournament), Woodbridge and the mighty Pioline was not a tough draw. It was as easy as they come. That much is irrefutable.
 

buscemi

Hall of Fame
Are you in any way casting an aspersion over Sampras' wimbledon reign to make your point look valid? Because seriously that takes out any seriousness that your posts may seem to have.
I was responding to the post that said every single Wimbledon draw between 90 and 99 (bar 96) was tough. A washed up Becker in 97 (retired after the tournament), Woodbridge and the mighty Pioline was not a tough draw. It was as easy as they come. That much is irrefutable.
[/QUOTE]

That wasn't the point. The point was that a version of Murray born in 1970 would have had tougher Wimbledon draws from 1990-2000 than he draws he had in 2013 and 2016. In 1997, Murray would have needed to beat Sampras, probably one of Stich, Becker, or Henman, and Pioline/Woodbridge. Sampras alone makes that draw tougher.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
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.
Please go and watch for Edberg's peak level
1. Edberg vs Courier in USO 91 final
2. Edberg vs Wilander in AO 90 semi (I'd say this AO match was Edberg's best on HC, @NonP )
3. Edberg vs Lendl in Wim 90 semi

Edberg beat Lendl and Becker b2b in Wim 90
he beat a murderous draw of Krajicek, Chang, Lendl and Sampras to win USO 92
etc.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
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.

sure, if by good chance, here you mean like 5%
(I mean 5% chance that Murray beats peak Courier in a FO final)
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
Why only the winners draw? Murray could just have likely ended up in the opposite half to Krajicek, thereby meeting him in the final.
Where Krajicek would be the clear favorite.

Also Martin would be a fairly tough opponent for Murray on grass (I'd say he's at least as good as Tsonga on grass, maybe not the 1 match peak, but overall better than Raonic or Berdych) but of course given that choke of a lifetime Murray won't lose to him.
 
Last edited:

thrust

Legend
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.
Rosewall won 2 French titles, one at 18, the other at 33. He also won 4 French Pro titles at RG, beating the likes of: Gonzalez, Hoad, Gimeno. He probably would have won more French Pro at RG had they not moved that event indoors on wood, where he beat Laver in 4 consecutive finals. France seems to have been Ken's lucky Country. Therefore, Ken should be at least in the top 5 clay court players of ALL-Time, as he won many more titles on clay besides the French.
 

thrust

Legend
Edberg- Due to YE and Weeks at #1, 6 slams, 2 in 3 different slams
Becker- 6 slams, great indoor wins, but no YE at #1 and very few weeks at #1
Courier- Great slow court player, clay and hard, 4 slams
Murray- Great player competing against the 3 greatest of all-time, 3 slams, 1 YE at #1, which could put Andy above Jim.
 
Top