Courier: Wawrinka and Murray's Career

[a10best]

Jim Courier commented last night during the match between Stan and Tiafoe, whom he defeated in straights and in vintage form.

"I know Murray and Stan each won 3 slams but I'll take peak Stan over peak Murray vs. the big 3 anytime.
Stan's peak form was just a bully against the Big 3 in slams. Murray wasn't."

"Career wise you take Murray for sure but if it's one match against the big 3 in peak form, Stan all day.
When he retires we will miss that sweet backhand and of course Stan's pajama shorts at the French."

He did mention the difference between these two with Murray having 14 Masters 1000 titles to Stan's 1, a Gold singles medal and being more consistent.

Stan has easy power off both fh and bh as well as a very good unreadable serve. When you think about it's odd Stan wasn't as consistent as Murray in master's. Higher risk game I guess.

For me Stan has the most beautiful 1hbh ever. Ever! Yes, better than Musetti, Fed, Pete, Stefan, Lendl, Dimitrov and Gasquet. No need to post videos because they won't change my mind.

 

[TheNachoMan]

Stan's peak form was just a bully against the Big 3 in slams.

Bully against Djokovic, mostly.

Yeah, he had nice wins against Fedal at AO 2014 and RG 2015 but he was owned apart from those matches. Murray’s H2H is much closer against the big 3 too. Even against Djokovic, Stan is 6-21. Not great.

 

[Hitman]

On Clay and hard, sure, but sorry Courier, not on grass. Peak Murray any day over peak Wawrinka at W.

 

[Rebel-I.N.S]

Don’t let this distract you from the fact that Murray has a better career than Courier.

 

[TheNachoMan]

Don’t let this distract you from the fact that Murray has a better career than Courier.

Bro is known more for his interviews than his tennis.

 

[Musterrific]

Don’t let this distract you from the fact that Murray has a better career than Courier.

3 slams is better than 4?

 

[BeatlesFan]

Stan's peak form was just a bully against the Big 3 in slams.

Courier is full of it here. Stan never bullied Roger in slams, Fed's H2H against him is an insane 23-3 and Roger is 7-1 against Stan in slams. Roger beat Stan on every surface in slams: HC, grass and clay and beat him at all four majors. The only time Stan defeated Roger in a major was 2015 RG when Fed could barely move because of a bad back.

So Stan may have bullied Nadal or Djokovic in majors, but not Fed.

 

[a10best]

Courier is full of it here. Stan never bullied Roger in slams, Fed's H2H against him is an insane 23-3 and Roger is 7-1 against Stan in slams. Roger beat Stan on every surface in slams: HC, grass and clay and beat him at all four majors. The only time Stan defeated Roger in a major was 2015 RG when Fed could barely move because of a bad back.

So Stan may have bullied Nadal or Djokovic in majors, but not Fed.

yeah, I didn't fully believe that detail either. Maybe he's practicing how to be a politician. If you say something 80% accurate and add in a false fact, some will believe the whole story.

 

[duaneeo]

Jim Courier commented last night during the match between Stan and Tiafoe, whom he defeated in straights and in vintage form.

"I know Murray and Stan each won 3 slams but I'll take peak Stan over peak Murray vs. the big 3 anytime.
Stan's peak form was just a bully against the Big 3 Djokovic in slams."

Corrected for Courier.

 

[No_Kwan_Do]

Bully against Djokovic, mostly.

Yeah, he had nice wins against Fedal at AO 2014 and RG 2015 but he was owned apart from those matches. Murray’s H2H is much closer against the big 3 too. Even against Djokovic, Stan is 6-21. Not great.

I don't get this notion that Wawrinka never bent over at a slam for the big 3 when he went 1-7 against Federer and 1-3 against Nadal. With 7 of those 10 defeats coming in straight sets. Rose-tinted glasses are definitely a thing when it comes to how people remember Wawrinka. Admittedly, he has a respectable record (4-5) against Novak though.

Stan's issue is that he peaked a handful of times over a 20 year career, and that's the only thing people tend to remember him for. They forget the amount of times he was murdered by the big 3 year round going 12-63 (16%). Murray had his own issues with the big 3 but he still managed 29 wins against them. 29-56 (34%).

 

[messiahrobins]

Jim Courier commented last night during the match between Stan and Tiafoe, whom he defeated in straights and in vintage form.

"I know Murray and Stan each won 3 slams but I'll take peak Stan over peak Murray vs. the big 3 anytime.
Stan's peak form was just a bully against the Big 3 in slams. Murray wasn't."

"Career wise you take Murray for sure but if it's one match against the big 3 in peak form, Stan all day.
When he retires we will miss that sweet backhand and of course Stan's pajama shorts at the French."

He did mention the difference between these two with Murray having 14 Masters 1000 titles to Stan's 1, a Gold singles medal and being more consistent.

Stan has easy power off both fh and bh as well as a very good unreadable serve. When you think about it's odd Stan wasn't as consistent as Murray in master's. Higher risk game I guess.

For me Stan has the most beautiful 1hbh ever. Ever! Yes, better than Musetti, Fed, Pete, Stefan, Lendl, Dimitrov and Gasquet. No need to post videos because they won't change my mind.

Courier is very transparent. Its not really about stan v murray.

 

[Zardoz7/12]

Stan had the higher ceiling, Murray was the more consistent, the tale of the tape between them proves that.

Despite the higher ceiling I believe that Murray should have won more slams and I think he would have vultured more over the last 6 years if his hip didn't expire, I think Lendl should have been his coach before 2012 because it was obvious when he faced the very best at slams he usually folded like a cheap suit. Doesn't anyone remember the old saying in Men's tennis about Murray? He majored at minors was the old joke about him, he won so many top titles in a best of 3 set scenario but at the slams he would always fold.

As for Wawrinka it was all mental with him too, Magnus Norman (Who is one of my favourite coaches) tamed Soderling into a top player and did the same with Wawrinka, both were headcases back in the day.

 

[Federev]

Courier is full of it here. Stan never bullied Roger in slams, Fed's H2H against him is an insane 23-3 and Roger is 7-1 against Stan in slams. Roger beat Stan on every surface in slams: HC, grass and clay and beat him at all four majors. The only time Stan defeated Roger in a major was 2015 RG when Fed could barely move because of a bad back.

So Stan may have bullied Nadal or Djokovic in majors, but not Fed.

Backerer or not, Stan wasn’t losing in 2015 to anyone at RG except some peak form of Nadal.

 

[mahatma]

Stan has a higher ceiling - that’s a right statement.

Murray has a better career - that’s a right statement

If it’s one match against big 3 peak vs peak - choosing Stan as he probably has more tools to win a point.

Murray is too defensive for my liking

 

[ActualTennisPlayer]

Not sure if I agree.

Murray had the following good runs:
- Beating Djokovic and Federer at the Olympics 2012 to win the title (aided by feds fatigue after Delpo).
- Beating djokovic at us Open 2012 to win the title (aided by the wind)
- Beating Federer at Australian open 2013 (but losing in the final to djokovic)
- Beating djokovic at Wimbledon 2013 to win the title

Stan had the following good runs:
- Beating djokovic at Australian open 2014 and then Rafa to win the title (possibly aided by Rafa’s injury)
- Beating federer and djokovic to win Roland garros 2015
- Beating djokovic at us open 2016 to win the title (aided by Djokovic’s injury)

In my opinion both are equal.

(You could also add Stan beating injured djokovic at US open 2018, but then you also have Murray beating Rafa at 2008 us open and injured Rafa at AO 2010)

 

[ActualTennisPlayer]

To add:

Interestingly the head to head of Murray and wawrinka is 3-4 for wawrinka. This includes wawrinka‘s win in 2020 RG. Excluding that win it would be 3-3
This also shows to me that their peak level is equal

 

[Wurm]

I know Murray and Stan each won 3 slams but I'll take peak Stan over peak Murray vs. the big 3 anytime.

That'll go well at Wimbledon.

 

[abmk]

Murray on grass, indoors and faster HC
Stan on clay and slower HC

definitely depends on conditions

 

[jl809]

Jim Courier commented last night during the match between Stan and Tiafoe, whom he defeated in straights and in vintage form.

"I know Murray and Stan each won 3 slams but I'll take peak Stan over peak Murray vs. the big 3 anytime.
Stan's peak form was just a bully against the Big 3 in slams. Murray wasn't."

"Career wise you take Murray for sure but if it's one match against the big 3 in peak form, Stan all day.
When he retires we will miss that sweet backhand and of course Stan's pajama shorts at the French."

He did mention the difference between these two with Murray having 14 Masters 1000 titles to Stan's 1, a Gold singles medal and being more consistent.

Stan has easy power off both fh and bh as well as a very good unreadable serve. When you think about it's odd Stan wasn't as consistent as Murray in master's. Higher risk game I guess.

For me Stan has the most beautiful 1hbh ever. Ever! Yes, better than Musetti, Fed, Pete, Stefan, Lendl, Dimitrov and Gasquet. No need to post videos because they won't change my mind.

Sure, well done Stan for beating injured Nadal and doing what Gulbis did vs Fed the year before at RG. Peak Stan really bullied Fed on hard and grass didn’t he

 

[ojo rojo]

Don’t let this distract you from the fact that Murray has a better career than Courier.

 

[jondice]

Wasn't Rafa 19-3 against Stan? Sure, Stan beat Rafa at the Aussie. But it was pretty clear Rafa was hurt. Stan still might have won, of course.
Regardless, I don't think 19-3, even with one Slam win, is bullying anyone.

I love Stan, but Murray had such a superior career it's not funny.

 

[D.Nalby12]

If Wawrinka had Murrays consistency - he would probably win 6-7 Slams. In fact he has won 3 despite being so inconsistent itself shows he must have got very high peak level.

 

[Terenigma]

I would take both Murray and Wawrinka's 2023 form over Jim Courier.

His opinion is meaningless anyways. Wawrinka peaked for what? 3 years at an absolute push and most of that was during Federer's poor period so it was probably the replacement "Swiss factor" helping him. Murray was consistently competing with the top players his ENTIRE career. Including beating Wawrinka in a final half a year after his hip surgery. Peak Murray is leagues above peak Wawrinka and only haters could possibly disagree. Stan is one of the most overrated players in tennis (imo)

 

[Backspin1183]

Courier is full of it here. Stan never bullied Roger in slams, Fed's H2H against him is an insane 23-3 and Roger is 7-1 against Stan in slams. Roger beat Stan on every surface in slams: HC, grass and clay and beat him at all four majors. The only time Stan defeated Roger in a major was 2015 RG when Fed could barely move because of a bad back.

So Stan may have bullied Nadal or Djokovic in majors, but not Fed.

Stan has never bullied Nadal. Nadal is 19-3 against him. It's usually Nadal bullying Stan when they play each other. Stan's only significant victory over Nadal came when Nadal could barely move due to a back injury.

He didn't really "bully" Federer outside of clay either. He beat Roger in straights only on clay.

 

[mike danny]

I would take both Murray and Wawrinka's 2023 form over Jim Courier.

His opinion is meaningless anyways. Wawrinka peaked for what? 3 years at an absolute push and most of that was during Federer's poor period so it was probably the replacement "Swiss factor" helping him. Murray was consistently competing with the top players his ENTIRE career. Including beating Wawrinka in a final half a year after his hip surgery. Peak Murray is leagues above peak Wawrinka and only haters could possibly disagree. Stan is one of the most overrated players in tennis (imo)

Well, you can thank Djokovic for that. He has a knack for creating tough competition for himself.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Well, you can thank Djokovic for that. He has a knack for creating tough competition for himself.

Well, the tour sure as hell wasn't going to do it for him.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Don’t let this distract you from the fact that Murray has a better career than Courier.

Does he? Courier leads both in slams and in weeks at No.1. Tough to argue against the two most important metrics.

 

[mike danny]

Don’t let this distract you from the fact that Murray has a better career than Courier.

I'm not sure he does. You can argue about eras and such, but it's a fact that Courier won more slams and spent more weeks at no.1 so objectively speaking Murray's career isn't better.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

It's true that Wawrinka didn't do very well vs Nadal and Federer, compared to how he did against Djokovic.

But neither did Murray. He got one win vs Federer at slams and it came on Federer's worst year. Vs Nadal he usually had disappointing performances after that great USO 2008 breakthrough.

Overall I'd take Wawrinka peak vs peak too. He played a great match vs Federer at AO 2017 and even on his worst surface and Federer's best put up a pretty good performance at Wimbledon 2014. Against Nadal he didn't play much since his 2.0 version, beat him at the AO final and then they played in Roland Garros in one of Nadal's best years there, so not much anyone could have done in that case.

And vs Djokovic I'd take Wawrinka instead of Murray outside grass.

 

[Rebel-I.N.S]

I'm not sure he does. You can argue about eras and such, but it's a fact that Courier won more slams and spent more weeks at no.1 so objectively speaking Murray's career isn't better.

Murray smokes him in every other category and was relevant at the top of the game for far, far longer.

Murray has 46 career titles, Courier has 23.

Murray has 20 big titles, Courier has 9.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Yeah, if I needed one of them to play for my survival, this would be the guy. Just look at that leather jacket.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Murray smokes him in every other category and was relevant at the top of the game for far, far longer.

Murray has 46 career titles, Courier has 23.

Murray has 20 big titles, Courier has 9.

Career titles and “big titles” take a back seat to slams and weeks at No.1. Murray had greater longevity but never dominated like Courier. And let’s be serious: if it wasn’t for the big three slump in 2016 he wouldn’t have any weeks at No.1, once Fedal came back in 2017, this ****e was cut really quickly.

 

[jl809]

Career titles and “big titles” take a back seat to slams and weeks at No.1. Murray had greater longevity but never dominated like Courier. And let’s be serious: if it wasn’t for the big three slump in 2016 he wouldn’t have any weeks at No.1, once Fedal came back in 2017, this ****e was cut really quickly.

So much wrong here… firstly, literally all this does is show how misleading the weeks at number 1 stat is. Courier wouldn’t have had a single week at number 1 in the big 3 era. He wouldn’t have even had them in 2016, he doesn’t beat 2016 Murray on grass or at the Olympics and 2016 Djokovic would beat him at the 2 slams he’s best at

Murray also got a hip injury in 2017. Sure he was in a slump for the first half of the year but had recovered by RG. It’s not like the reason he didn’t win titles in 2018 is because he was beaten by Djokodal

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Literally all that does is show how misleading the weeks at number 1 stat is. Courier wouldn’t have had a single week at number 1 in the big 3 era

If one of his peak years covered 2016 why not? Fedal were out of the show for the most part and Novak started his crap with Pepe Imaz. If Murray could do it, so could Courier. It is not that Jim faced easy competition during his No.1 reign in 1992. In fact, 91/92 is easily stronger than 2016.

 

[ibbi]

In general, I sort of agree, but I also think Stan's record is kind of flattered by the specific circumstances of the 2014 AO final and 2016 US Open final. Do we not think Andy could have won those two matches given the context of them?

2015 RG final is beyond Murray's finest hour, for sure, but what else did he ever really do? He had a total block against Roger, and in near enough every instance that really counted with Rafa outside that one night (he literally had never won a set against him before that match). He worked Djokovic harder in general than Murray did. That's literally all there is to it.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

In general, I sort of agree, but I also think Stan's record is kind of flattered by the specific circumstances of the 2014 AO final and 2016 US Open final. Do we not think Andy could have won those two matches given the context of them?

2015 RG final is beyond Murray's finest hour, for sure, but what else did he ever really do? He had a total block against Roger, and in near enough every instance that really counted with Rafa outside that one night (he literally had never won a set against him before that match). He worked Djokovic harder in general than Murray did. That's literally all there is to it.

Well his 2014 AO win against Djokovic is also beyond what Murray could muster. Agree though, that his record against Fedal is abysmal and his reputation is solely built on the fact that he put up a challenge to Djokovic at slams. Winning against an old Fed at the French or an injured Nadal at the AO does not really cut it, but one has to admit that his four slam wins against prime Novak are quite impressive, especially given that on this specific time span his slam record against him is better than both Fedal’s. On the other hand, one has to admit that Murray’s record against the big three should definitely be better for a player of his calibre. I mean freaking Berdych did slightly better than him.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

So much wrong here… firstly, literally all this does is show how misleading the weeks at number 1 stat is. Courier wouldn’t have had a single week at number 1 in the big 3 era. He wouldn’t have even had them in 2016, he doesn’t beat 2016 Murray on grass or at the Olympics and 2016 Djokovic would beat him at the 2 slams he’s best at

Murray also got a hip injury in 2017. Sure he was in a slump for the first half of the year but had recovered by RG. It’s not like the reason he didn’t win titles in 2018 is because he was beaten by Djokodal

Changed your initial post? Anywho: whether prime Courier (93 version) would be so helpless against Murray on grass is debatable , it is not that Murray is a Sampras on grass. It is irrelevant anyways, because in the hypothetical scenario we are talking, Murray in 2016 would be swapped by Courier so they wouldn’t have to play each other. Prime Courier without a Murray would have really good chances to win Wimbledon 2016 and same with the USO 2016 which was in general a rather weak slam. He wouldn’t win the AO 16 obviously, but even at the French I can see peak Courier overcoming Novak. At his very best, Jim was scary on clay and Novak is not Nadal. So yea all in all, Jim’s chances to get to No.1 in 2016 are quite high, I also can’t see him losing against freaking Mischa Zverev at the AO the following year. So all in all, put 1992/93 Courier into 2016/17 and he likely spends more weeks at No.1 than Murray.

 

[mike danny]

In general, I sort of agree, but I also think Stan's record is kind of flattered by the specific circumstances of the 2014 AO final and 2016 US Open final. Do we not think Andy could have won those two matches given the context of them?

I don't think Murray would beat Djokovic at the AO, for example.

 

[Olli Jokinen]

I'm not sure he does. You can argue about eras and such, but it's a fact that Courier won more slams and spent more weeks at no.1 so objectively speaking Murray's career isn't better.

I'd still prefer to have Murray's career. Courier probably would too.

 

[mike danny]

I'd still prefer to have Murray's career. Courier probably would too.

I agree, just saying that not all the numbers favor Murray. Courier even managed a multi slam year.

 

[Subway Tennis]

I agree with your comment about Stan’s backhand. I think in isolation it’s one of the greatest ever shots in tennis.

 

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

What is babbling about? He only gave Djoker trouble. He was feds lapdog and he only beat Nadal cause of injuries in Australia

 

[Rebel-I.N.S]

Career titles and “big titles” take a back seat to slams and weeks at No.1. Murray had greater longevity but never dominated like Courier. And let’s be serious: if it wasn’t for the big three slump in 2016 he wouldn’t have any weeks at No.1, once Fedal came back in 2017, this ****e was cut really quickly.

And if it wasn’t for a monumental Agassi choke in ‘91 then Courier doesn’t end up with 4 slams.

Your hypotheticals are cheap and half-baked.

Look at the circumstances of Murray’s ascension and what was required of him in ‘16 - it was still highly improbable and went to the last match of the season.

If you want to speak in things that we can never prove, how about this: if Murray doesn’t need surgery in late ‘13, and his momentum carries in ‘14 (Murray was in big slump that year), he likely reaches #1 sooner.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

And if it wasn’t for a monumental Agassi choke in ‘91 then Courier doesn’t end up with 4 slams.

Your hypotheticals are cheap and half-baked.

Look at the circumstances of Murray’s ascension and what was required of him in ‘16 - it was still highly improbable and went to the last match of the season.

If you want to speak in things that we can never prove, how about this: if Murray doesn’t need surgery in late ‘13, and his momentum carries in ‘14 (Murray was in big slump that year), he likely reaches #1 sooner.

There is a difference between players being out due to injury etc. and players choking in individual matches. Not sure what momentum you are talking about in 2013. The best players there were clearly Nadal and Djokovic. No way Murray gets to No.1 with any in-form Nadal or Djokovic in the mix. What exactly did he win in 2013 that let you believe he could have done?

 

[Rebel-I.N.S]

There is a difference between players being out due to injury etc. and players choking in individual matches. Not sure what momentum you are talking about in 2013. The best players there were clearly Nadal and Djokovic. No way Murray gets to No.1 with any in-form Nadal or Djokovic in the mix. What exactly did he win in 2013 that let you believe he could have done?

You don’t think there’s a huge gulf in quality between 2013 Murray and the 2014 version who went 0-8 against the Big 3? You don’t think Murray’s own slump altered the competitive landscape at the top of men’s Tennis? Or is it solely Murray whose achievements are caveated because other players were injured for a portion of the year?

It’s hypothetical (as were your points) but Murray’s abrupt injury-enforced slump curtailed his momentum, ability to win slams and chase the #1 ranking - he lost a significant year of his prime in 2014.

 

[Holmes]

3 slams is better than 4?

Welcome to Talktennis

 

[jl809]

Welcome to Talktennis

True, although lots of people, of which I am one, thought that a certain person’s 19 slams was sort of better than another person’s 20 (and 20 better than that person’s 21, 6 months later) when the 19 was more balanced and came with a bunch of other stats along the way…

 

[JoshDragon]

Bully against Djokovic, mostly.

Yeah, he had nice wins against Fedal at AO 2014 and RG 2015 but he was owned apart from those matches. Murray’s H2H is much closer against the big 3 too. Even against Djokovic, Stan is 6-21. Not great.

Murray was not particularly successful at the slams.

He made a lot of finals at the Australian Open but didn't win any of them.

Stan was better at converting on his chances. Although, he had far fewer opportunities than Murray.

 

[abmk]

Well his 2014 AO win against Djokovic is also beyond what Murray could muster. Agree though, that his record against Fedal is abysmal and his reputation is solely built on the fact that he put up a challenge to Djokovic at slams. Winning against an old Fed at the French or an injured Nadal at the AO does not really cut it, but one has to admit that his four slam wins against prime Novak are quite impressive, especially given that on this specific time span his slam record against him is better than both Fedal’s. On the other hand, one has to admit that Murray’s record against the big three should definitely be better for a player of his calibre. I mean freaking Berdych did slightly better than him.

Wawa was up a set and break vs Nadal in AO 14 before Nadal's injury.
and he'd have won even without Nadal getting injured IMO.

 

[mahatma]

What is babbling about? He only gave Djoker trouble. He was feds lapdog and he only beat Nadal cause of injuries in Australia

Fit Nadal is still unbeaten on this tour