robertharris
Banned
Right now Courier is obviously the greater and more accomplished player between him and Murray. Courier has 4 slams, defended 2 different slam titles, and was a year end #1. However who do you think is the better player as far as ability.
Courier was obviously far more dominant at this best. However while the overall field was a very good and deep one, as far as competition for #1 and dominance apart from a prime Edberg his competition wasn't all that much. It was before Sampras hit his prime, and once he did Jim was quickly displaced, while Agassi was floundering a bit (and Jim owned him anyway), Becker was in a visible slump, Lendl was aged and barely a factor, and the rest of the top guys were either wildly inconsistent (Stich, Ivanisevic, Korda) or simply not #1 caliber players (Chang). It was a bit of a transition period, after the Lendl/Becker/Edberg era and prior to the Sampras era.
Murray has remained a top player a lot longer. Courier lasted only about 6 years as even a top 10 player, and only about 3 as a top 5. Like Courier he has a surface he struggles on- grass for Courier and clay for Murray. I believe Murray is well ahead in Masters titles too.
Who was the better player as far as their game and abilities as players, forgetting their achievements. I believe in their primes together that Courier would dominate Murray on slower courts like the Australian Open, clay of course, and some of the other slower hard court events; while Murray would have the edge mostly on fast courts, and a big edge on grass. So overall I would say they are about equal.
Courier was obviously far more dominant at this best. However while the overall field was a very good and deep one, as far as competition for #1 and dominance apart from a prime Edberg his competition wasn't all that much. It was before Sampras hit his prime, and once he did Jim was quickly displaced, while Agassi was floundering a bit (and Jim owned him anyway), Becker was in a visible slump, Lendl was aged and barely a factor, and the rest of the top guys were either wildly inconsistent (Stich, Ivanisevic, Korda) or simply not #1 caliber players (Chang). It was a bit of a transition period, after the Lendl/Becker/Edberg era and prior to the Sampras era.
Murray has remained a top player a lot longer. Courier lasted only about 6 years as even a top 10 player, and only about 3 as a top 5. Like Courier he has a surface he struggles on- grass for Courier and clay for Murray. I believe Murray is well ahead in Masters titles too.
Who was the better player as far as their game and abilities as players, forgetting their achievements. I believe in their primes together that Courier would dominate Murray on slower courts like the Australian Open, clay of course, and some of the other slower hard court events; while Murray would have the edge mostly on fast courts, and a big edge on grass. So overall I would say they are about equal.