Courier vs Murray- who is the better tennis player

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.
 

Antonio Puente

Hall of Fame
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.

You summed it up there, and Courier would have no FOs in this era.

Even though he played in this era, I suspect Murray may eventually catch or pass him in terms of achievements, so I'll say Murray.
 
I wouldn't be sure Courier would win no FOs is he peaked in this era. The Courier from RG 92, 93, even 91 could possibly have beaten a clearly far below his former clay best Nadal in 2011-2013. It would have depended when he hit hi peak. Of course he couldn't beat the Nadal of 2005-2010 at RG, but the current one quite possibly, but only if he was fortunate to hit his all time peak exactly now.

Courier at his best is a better clay court player than either Djokovic or Federer IMO.
 

President

Legend
Murray had much tougher top flight competition than Courier. There was no weaker period where he could rack up big wins with 3 all time greats playing well for his entire prime.
 

President

Legend
I wouldn't be sure Courier would win no FOs is he peaked in this era. The Courier from RG 92, 93, even 91 could possibly have beaten a clearly far below his former clay best Nadal in 2011-2013. It would have depended when he hit hi peak. Of course he couldn't beat the Nadal of 2005-2010 at RG, but the current one quite possibly, but only if he was fortunate to hit his all time peak exactly now.

With that BH? A right handed inside out forehand (Courier's big shot on clay) goes straight into the Nadal forehand. It's the same problem Federer had, and Roger moved a lot better on clay as well. Courier's BH is nowhere near good enough to punish Nadal like Djokovic and Soderling were able to on clay. He would have to rely on his FH, and would run into the aforementioned problem. Without a great backhand there is no chance of beating Nadal on clay. Someone like Kuerten or even Kafelnikov would have a better chance IMO.
 

Antonio Puente

Hall of Fame
The Courier from RG 92, 93, even 91 could possibly have beaten a clearly far below his former clay best Nadal in 2011-2013.

Sure he could. :)

The only place Nadal loses on clay is in the hypothetical. In the hypothetical, he's lucky to be a .500 player on clay - everyone can beat him.
 
I guess what you are saying makes sense. I just think Courier of Roland Garros 1992 for instace was scary good and would have a real shot vs the 60% of his prime clay level Nadal who has even stuggled with Djokovic (IMO not a great clay courter) the last several years on clay
 

President

Legend
I guess what you are saying makes sense. I just think Courier of Roland Garros 1992 for instace was scary good and would have a real shot vs the 60% of his prime clay level Nadal who has even stuggled with Djokovic (IMO not a great clay courter) the last several years on clay

Why is Djokovic not a great clay courter? He is consistent as hell on the surface since 2011 and is a lot better equipped to handle Nadal on clay IMO than Courier (much better BH).
 
All time Djokovic wouldn't even rate top 30 all time on clay at this point probably. Although if he wins RG he would be about equal to Federer, so roughly 15-20 all time. Djokovic plays a hard court game on clay essentialy.
 

President

Legend
All time Djokovic wouldn't even rate top 30 all time on clay at this point probably. Although if he wins RG he would be about equal to Federer, so roughly 15-20 all time.

That's because since 2011 (big turning point in his career) he lost twice to Nadal (in tight matches, and in 2012 Nadal was playing fantastic tennis) and once to an on-fire Federer in some of his best clay form. In terms of ability I don't think he is worse than Courier on the surface for the past 3 years. Djokovic grinds out points in really long rallies, hits heavy topspin, and has a backhand very capable of taking on Nadal's forehand. This isn't exactly Sampras on clay we are talking about. In fact, Courier played a hard court game on clay, he played more aggressively than Djokovic. Definitely not a prototypical claycourter.
 
Last edited:

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
All time Djokovic wouldn't even rate top 30 all time on clay at this point probably. Although if he wins RG he would be about equal to Federer, so roughly 15-20 all time. Djokovic plays a hard court game on clay essentialy.

Name the other 14 (or 19) players you would rank higher than Fed on clay.
 
Name the other 14 (or 19) players you would rank higher than Fed on clay.

All time (which is not just Open Era) I would say Nadal, Borg, Lendl, Wilander, Lendl, Cochet, Lacoste, Rosewall, Wilding, quite easily and all by a very large margin. Others I would say are probably superior to Federer on clay are Borotra, Laver, Drobny, Pietrangeli. Then ones of a similar level to Federer on clay who could easily be rated ahead or behind would be Vilas, Courier, Muster, Von Cramm, Santana, Gimeon, Orantes, Emerson, Nastase. That would ultimately put him somewhere just inside the top 20 I estimate (although he could even be just outside too).
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I wouldn't be sure Courier would win no FOs is he peaked in this era. The Courier from RG 92, 93, even 91 could possibly have beaten a clearly far below his former clay best Nadal in 2011-2013. It would have depended when he hit hi peak. Of course he couldn't beat the Nadal of 2005-2010 at RG, but the current one quite possibly, but only if he was fortunate to hit his all time peak exactly now.

Courier at his best is a better clay court player than either Djokovic or Federer IMO.
Courier sure as heck would not beat fed in his 2011 form at RG. Fed would atack that weak backhand all day long
 
Courier sure as heck would not beat fed in his 2011 form at RG. Fed would atack that weak backhand all day long

You really think an old past his prime Federer would beat the Courier of 91-93 on clay? I highly doubt it, but to each their own. Nadal in his poorest clay form ever, and getting routined by Djokovic on clay all year even was able to beat him fairly comfortably.

I think people forget Courier's performance at the 92 French especialy. He had a super tough draw full of clay specialists, way tougher than any Nadal has ever had at RG for instance, and blew threw the event losing only 1 set .
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Look at Courier's dominant run to the 1992 French Open title:

R128: Jim Courier def. Nicklas Kroon (7-6, 6-4, 6-2)
R64: Jim Courier def. Thomas Muster (6-1, 6-4, 6-4)
R32: Jim Courier def. Alberto Mancini (6-4, 6-2, 6-0)
R16: Jim Courier def. Andrei Medvedev (6-1, 6-4, 6-2)
QF: Jim Courier def. Goran Ivanisevic (6-2, 6-1, 2-6, 7-5)
SF: Jim Courier def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 6-2, 6-2)
FR: Jim Courier def. Petr Korda (7-5, 6-2, 6-1)
 

Indio

Semi-Pro
All time (which is not just Open Era) I would say Nadal, Borg, Lendl, Wilander, Lendl, Cochet, Lacoste, Rosewall, Wilding, quite easily and all by a very large margin. Others I would say are probably superior to Federer on clay are Borotra, Laver, Drobny, Pietrangeli. Then ones of a similar level to Federer on clay who could easily be rated ahead or behind would be Vilas, Courier, Muster, Von Cramm, Santana, Gimeon, Orantes, Emerson, Nastase. That would ultimately put him somewhere just inside the top 20 I estimate (although he could even be just outside too).

It truly surprises me how little respect Federer (and Djokovic) get as clay courters. That first statement "...by a very large margin" is amazing to say the least. Nadal and Borg are better, no question, but those others? What possible reasoning can you or anyone provide that would support the claim that the level of play of those earlier clay courters was higher than that of RF and ND?
 
If I gave little respect to Federer on clay I would rate him below people with vastly inferior achievments on clay. I did not, I rated him clearly below people with far superior achievements on clay (the entire first list of people I gave), probably behind others who also had superior achievements on clay, and about on par with people who had some better and some weaker achievements on clay (the last group of people I gave). Achievements are only the first thing that determines who is best. After all isn't that Federer fans keep trumpeting with the 10 page long list of stats that give. Well then it applies here too.

As for level of play, a really old Kuerten way past his prime crushed prime Federer at Roland Garros, so that would indicate in favor of the more decorated players being better than Federer on clay too. The faced Nadal excuse is only two fold. Yes he faced Nadal, but this clay era is one of the most shallow and least deep in history, so it balances out, and thus his all time placement should be about where his achievements slate him. Same would apply to Nadal, who is #1 all time on clay only since his achievements now clearly place him there, but certainly not due to tough clay competition. Nadal is in fact quite lucky as he has dominated one of the worst clay fields in history, and had he been in another era might not be the clay GOAT he currently is.


Anyway lets get this thread back on topic. It is meant to be about Murray vs Courier as players, not Courier vs Federer on clay.
 
Last edited:
I used to hate Courier since he kept beating my favorite player ever Andre Agassi and my 2nd favorite player ever Stefan Edberg in the semis and finals of every slam. The 91 French final Agassi lost to Courier was the worst. Agassi outplayed Courier in everyway, even outpowering him off the ground which he rarely was able to do back then, and still lost the match through a combination of choking on big points and bad luck. It wasn't Courier's fault but I never forgave him for that.

The later on when Courier was overtaken by Sampras, never got the U.S Open title he badly wanted, lost all these big matches to Sampras, I began to warm to him and feel sorry for him. Especialy as while his game was an eyesore (he was a great player but horrible to watch) it later showed he was a really nice and cool guy.

Anyway Murray is a better tennis player. Murray in most eras would win 5 or 6 slam titles. Courier is better on clay. I wouldn't be sure Courier is easily better at the Australian Open. Murray made 3 Australian Open finals but lost to the Australian Open GOAT Djokovic in 2 of them, and the GOAT Federer in the other.
 

90's Clay

Banned
Nothing Murray has done thus far makes me think he can top a PEAK Courier who was insanely good on both clay and hards
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
If I gave little respect to Federer on clay I would rate him below people with vastly inferior achievments on clay. I did not, I rated him clearly below people with far superior achievements on clay (the entire first list of people I gave), probably behind others who also had superior achievements on clay, and about on par with people who had some better and some weaker achievements on clay (the last group of people I gave). Achievements are only the first thing that determines who is best. After all isn't that Federer fans keep trumpeting with the 10 page long list of stats that give. Well then it applies here too.

As for level of play, a really old Kuerten way past his prime crushed prime Federer at Roland Garros, so that would indicate in favor of the more decorated players being better than Federer on clay too. The faced Nadal excuse is only two fold. Yes he faced Nadal, but this clay era is one of the most shallow and least deep in history, so it balances out, and thus his all time placement should be about where his achievements slate him. Same would apply to Nadal, who is #1 all time on clay only since his achievements now clearly place him there, but certainly not due to tough clay competition. Nadal is in fact quite lucky as he has dominated one of the worst clay fields in history, and had he been in another era might not be the clay GOAT he currently is.


Anyway lets get this thread back on topic. It is meant to be about Murray vs Courier as players, not Courier vs Federer on clay.

Basing one match win of Kuerten over Fed is like saying Federer will beat Sampras all the time at Wimbledon , just because he won once.

The reason why the tennis world regards Fed so highly is because if not for Nadal , he would be a 5 time winner there.

Drawing hypotheses based on numbers should be done over a career , not based on a single match or a single opponent.

Besides the point, i think Courier as on date has much more achievements than Murray. Courier has reached all major finals, was a contender everywhere.

Perhaps top 3 forehand of all time.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Murray is better on grass and fast hardcourts, Courier is better on clay and slow hardcourts. The only real main advantage Courier has over Murray is the forehand though.
 
Nothing Murray has done thus far makes me think he can top a PEAK Courier who was insanely good on both clay and hards

Where are his U.S Open titles? Such a great hard court player should have won the biggest hard court event atleast once. He also never won the Miami Masters, so he hasn't even won 2 of the 3 biggest. Only the Australian Open which he won. Also the 2 times he won the Australian Open his only great opponent was Edberg whose high kicking serve is not suited to the bouncy courts which Courier capatilized on. Had Agassi played the Australian those years, Courier probably would have seen his titles go to Agassi.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Where are his U.S Open titles? Such a great hard court player should have won the biggest hard court event atleast once. He also never won the Miami Masters, so he hasn't even won 2 of the 3 biggest. Only the Australian Open which he won. Also the 2 times he won the Australian Open his only great opponent was Edberg whose high kicking serve is not suited to the bouncy courts which Courier capatilized on. Had Agassi played the Australian those years, Courier probably would have seen his titles go to Agassi.

Courier won Miami in 1991, after winning Indian Wells just before it. As for Agassi, Courier won every match against him in 1991 and 1992.
 
Courier won Miami in 1991, after winning Indian Wells just before it. As for Agassi, Courier won every match against him in 1991 and 1992.

I know Courier owned Agassi in 91-92, but had they played on grass (Courier's worst surface) or rebound ace (Agassi's best surface) I still would have favored Courier on either. They didn't ever play on those two surfaces until 96 and a slumping Agassi still beat Courier.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
I know Courier owned Agassi in 91-92, but had they played on grass (Courier's worst surface) or rebound ace (Agassi's best surface) I still would have favored Courier on either. They didn't ever play on those two surfaces until 96 and a slumping Agassi still beat Courier.

Agassi never played the Australian Open when Bollettieri coached him. This Agassi is a different player from the Agassi under Gilbert.
 
Agassi never played the Australian Open when Bollettieri coached him. This Agassi is a different player from the Agassi under Gilbert.

I found Agassi more exciting under Bollettieri. He hit the ball much harder I found. Under Gilbert he had a more measured game plan and was fitter, but I didn't find him as exciting anymore. He was more successful under Gilbert but IMO he was a good enough player to win slams even with Bollettieri. He got very unlucky in some big events he didn't win- 1990 French, 1991 French, 1993 Wimbledon.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
..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.
I disagree with some of this.

In sheer one-hit tennis Courier was the better player than Murray which means he'd be difficult on grass for Murray if he could hit enough forehands. He was super aggressive too which would be in his favour the faster the surface. There's a reason he got to a Wimbledon final and lost in a pretty close 4-set match to one of the greatest grass court players of all time.

Murray by contrast would likely get the better of Courier on slower hard courts like the Aussie Open, not the other way around. With sure footing, more time to play runner and a surface that rewards 'safe' players over dominant styles Murray would not be at any disadvantage at the AO in the modern court conditions.

On clay Courier simply had a better grasp of the movement and patterns than Murray has shown most of the time.

Side-by-side Murray is a better player because he is very solid off both wings and moves better than Courier. In Courier's favour was his courage to hit out and his forehand variety. His backhand would be an issue though as it was only solid, but rarely all that spectacular unlike Murray. But in their accomplishments versus the field Courier far exceeds Murray so far. He remains the youngest person to make it to the finals of all four majors (only 22) and also defended both majors he won - no minor feats.
 
Last edited:
Didn't Courier lose early rounds most times at Wimbledon? I don't think we would have even seen many Courier vs Murray matches on grass to begin with.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Didn't Courier lose early rounds most times at Wimbledon? I don't think we would have even seen many Courier vs Murray matches on grass to begin with.

Jim Courier's record at Wimbledon
1989: Round of 128 Loser (lost to Robert Seguso)
1990: Round of 32 Loser (lost to Mark Woodforde)
1991: Quarter Final Loser (lost to Michael Stich)
1992: Round of 32 Loser (lost to Andrei Olhovskiy)
1993: Runner-up (lost to Pete Sampras)
1994: Round of 64 Loser (lost to Guy Forget)
1995: Round of 64 Loser (lost to Cedric Pioline)
1996: Round of 128 Loser (lost to Jonathan Stark)
1997: Round of 128 Loser (lost to Michael Stich)
1998: Round of 128 Loser (lost to Thomas Johansson)
1999: Round of 16 Loser (lost to Tim Henman)
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
peak to peak,

courier easily on clay
about even on slow HC, probably slight edge to courier
grass, easily murray
fast HC, easily murray
 

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
Murray's longevity in at the top of the chasing pack has a lot to do with surface homogenization. I do not believe his AO performances would have been similar had he playe dont he same surface as Courier did. The same goes for the USO in some years.
 
Top