Courier vs Murray

[Mazz Retic]

Who is the greater player out of Courier and Murray and who do you think would win more often then not had they played?

I understand Murray's career still has much more mileage in it but at this stage I do see some parallels between the two. Both year end #1's, won 4 and 3 slams respectively (so far), reached finals of all 4 slams, and competed against a strong field which had ATGs (often preventing them from further success).

Obviously surface comes into play but it is not so clear to me. Courier achieved more success on slower surfaces and I argue would adapt very well to current conditions. He was very good on faster surfaces too. Murray similarly is well suited to slower conditions however his slams have come from historically faster surfaces (even if they aren't as much now).

Stats for both:
Courier:
4/3 in slams (2 AO, 2 FO)
36 singles titles
5 masters
2 YEC finals
58 weeks at #1

Murray:
3/8 in slams (2 Wimbledon, 1 USO)
45 singles titles
14 masters
2 Olympic gold
1 WTF
20 weeks at #1 (and counting)

So, who's your pick?

 

[Waspsting]

Murray - mostly because of consistency and longevity.

Courier came up fast and faded fast. 7/10 slam finals from 91 to 93 (I believe all his masters titles came in this short window too). Not even 2 years at around the top.

Murray's been playing slam finals and winning masters for 9 years now - and he's only just peaked.

----

As for their play, I think Courier would do better today than he did in his time but not as well as murray has.

Sledgehammer forehand, solid backhand but defence wasn't the best. Bossed people about on slow courts basically, he'd have enjoyed the current climate



big difference is heart and guts.

Murray has a reputation for being soft but I think that's a bit unfair. He's hung in there for a decade while mostly being 4th best. Most players would've just faded quietly away but he hasn't.

Compare that to Courier, who just crumpled before Sampras, and that was that for him

 

[ultron1969]

Depends on surface and what age courier was. That 91-93 Jim was mental beast. That guy might just be able to pancake Andy with will alone. Jim would get more free points on his first serve I would think. On red clay I don't see Andy doing much. Hardcourt? Hmmmm idk. And for grass? People say the grass is different now so who the heck knows.

 

[NatF]

Peak Courier was better and more dominant than Murray has ever been. But in terms of career I think Murray probably clinches this.

 

[70後]

Courier's backhand in rallies was just a baseball bunt. It was good as a return of serve against big servers, but once the rally ball started, he did nothing but camp ad court corner and run around the backhand for his forehand. Inside in, inside out, inside in....until the other guy is battered senseless. That's it. When he did play the backhand, he shoved it into play. It was a shoved shot. When they played, Pete simply opened wide the deuce court, sliced again into the bh corner and came in behind it. Pete had the depth of shotmaking to beat Courier any way he wanted. Very early on Pete knew how to beat him. It was one way traffic between them. Then once Courier declined physically, his game was EXTREMELY physical, it was straight downhill from there. For a 2 hander, Courier's bh was just weak compared to his rivals, whether 1 or 2 hander. It's also a reason why somebody so bad from the back and with a poor return of serve like Stich, who was mostly dominated by strong competent baseliners (Lendl, Korda, Agassi), managed to have a winning record against Courier.

Murray will mostly beat Courier, is my guess.

 

[PMChambers]

Courier's backhand in rallies was just a baseball bunt. It was good as a return of serve against big servers, but once the rally ball started, he did nothing but camp ad court corner and run around the backhand for his forehand. Inside in, inside out, inside in....until the other guy is battered senseless. That's it. When he did play the backhand, he shoved it into play. It was a shoved shot. When they played, Pete simply opened wide the deuce court, sliced again into the bh corner and came in behind it. Pete had the depth of shotmaking to beat Courier any way he wanted. Very early on Pete knew how to beat him. It was one way traffic between them. Then once Courier declined physically, his game was EXTREMELY physical, it was straight downhill from there. For a 2 hander, Courier's bh was just weak compared to his rivals, whether 1 or 2 hander. It's also a reason why somebody so bad from the back and with a poor return of serve like Stich, who was mostly dominated by strong competent baseliners (Lendl, Korda, Agassi), managed to have a winning record against Courier.

Murray will mostly beat Courier, is my guess.

I think Courier was also worked out, his decline was not all physical. Although his BH was "strange" it was good enough on slow surfaces, I think initially players tried to hit to it too much and forgot to play the FH. Also he hit the off FH far too often to be a weapon, became to much of a set play.

 

[70後]

Courier's running forehand when Pete used the wide play against him was a big weakness too. Courier didn't have a good running forehand cc, unlike Pete. Part of the tradeoff for that grip he used.

Of course, eastern grip guys love the running forehand cc. Delpo, Fed, Pete. etc.

And as you say, people figured out how to play him.