Dont ever compare Wawrinka to Murray... EVER

Lleytonstation

Lleytonstation

Bionic Poster
Wawa is not even in the same category as Murray. It is laughable to say otherwise. I continue to see Wawa thrown in with the likes of Murray. Don't.

The argument is always the same: "they both have 3 slams."

Murray:
Slams: 3
Masters: 14
Gold's: 2
Number of weeks at #1: 41
Year end #1: 1
WTF: 1
Tourney wins: 46
Wins vs big 3: 29
Slam finals: 11
Slam SF: 20

Wawa:
Slams: 3
Masters: 1
Gold's: 0
Number of weeks at #1: 0
Year end #1: 0
WTF: 0
Tourney wins: 16
Wins vs big 3: 11
Slam finals: 4
Slam SF: 7


Enough said. They can not be compared, and are not even in the same stratosphere. This is what the "slam count" does to people...
 
OG means nothing.

Oh and Murray will never be considered strong competition.
 
I fully agree. Andy might want to be lobbed into the conversation but we all know who the man is that nobody wants to face in a big match.

One is a talentless, unremarkable grinder that is basically a poor man's reincarnation of Lleyton Hewitt. The other, well, he has at least one stroke that coaches and juniors would do well to emulate and has damaged at least one ATG, where and when it matters.
 
accidental said:
They both have 3 grand slams
Click to expand...
Njt.gif
 
Lleytonstation said:
I would say you have the big 3, then Murray, the the likes of Delpo, Cilic, and Wawrinka. Tier 1 is top 10 overall, and tier 2 is that 10-20 (Murray), and then you have tier 3 (20-30) range. Maybe wawa is in that tier 3 range.
Click to expand...

Cilic the choker isn't close, he's lucky he's managed to win a slam somehow avoiding choking.

Career-wise Fedalovic, Murray and Wawrinka are in different tiers for sure, but if you allow for historical terms such as Big 4, applied to a specific period of time, then Big 5 makes just as much sense, though for a shorter period obviously.
 
AnOctorokForDinner said:
Cilic the choker isn't close, he's lucky he's managed to win a slam somehow avoiding choking.

Career-wise Fedalovic, Murray and Wawrinka are in different tiers for sure, but if you allow for historical terms such as Big 4, applied to a specific period of time, then Big 5 makes just as much sense, though for a shorter period obviously.
Click to expand...
See, that is my point here, Wawa was never part of that day in and day out grueling fight for tourneys. Murray was winning on the big stage constantly, while Wawa had literally a few good moments.

As a whole, the stats I provided show this. 14 masters for Murray shows he was in the fight with the big 3, while 1 for Wawa shows he was not, except for a few slams.

Big 4 made sense because it was a 4-5 year period. The big 5 was only for a few tourneys, mainly against Djoker.
 
yokied said:
I fully agree. Andy might want to be lobbed into the conversation but we all know who the man is that nobody wants to face in a big match.
Click to expand...

Who's that then?

yokied said:
One is a talentless, unremarkable grinder that is basically a poor man's reincarnation of Lleyton Hewitt. The other, well, he has at least one stroke that coaches and juniors would do well to emulate and has damaged at least one ATG, where and when it matters.
Click to expand...

Seems a bit harsh on poor Stan.
 
Tennisbg said:
If I agree to this statement then Murray fans should never compare Murray to the BIG 3. By the way the distance between Murray and Wawrinka is waaay closer than Murray to BIG 3.
Click to expand...

Why ever not? Murray has done things that various Big 3 players haven't done:

He has won the WTF which Nadal hasn't done.
He has won Rome which Federer hasn't done.
He has won the OSG twice whilst Federer and Djokovic haven't even done it once.

:cool:
 
I agree Murray is superior to Wawrinka overall, but your post is completely over the top. And as one poster said it is ridiculous some insist Murray has to be grouped with Fedalovic, but then turn around and say dont dare compare Murray to his fellow 3 slam winner. :-D
 
Mainad said:
Why ever not? Murray has done things that various Big 3 players haven't done:

He has won the WTF which Nadal hasn't done.
He has won Rome which Federer hasn't done.
He has won the OSG twice whilst Federer and Djokovic haven't even done it once.

:cool:
Click to expand...

By that logic Wawrinka has done numerous things Murray hasnt done.

He has won the French which Murray has not done.
He has won the Australian Open which Murray has not done.
He has won 3 different slams which Murray has not done.
He has beaten Nadal in a slam final which Murray has not done.
He has beaten Federer en route to a slam title which Murray has not done.
He has beaten Djokovic at the Australian Open which Murray has not done in a kazillion attempts or something
He has beaten atleast 1 big 3 member for all his slam titles which Murray has not done (collectively 5 in fact vs Murray's 2)
 
Lleytonstation said:
See, that is my point here, Wawa was never part of that day in and day out grueling fight for tourneys. Murray was winning on the big stage constantly, while Wawa had literally a few good moments.

As a whole, the stats I provided show this. 14 masters for Murray shows he was in the fight with the big 3, while 1 for Wawa shows he was not, except for a few slams.

Big 4 made sense because it was a 4-5 year period. The big 5 was only for a few tourneys, mainly against Djoker.
Click to expand...

'StAn OnLy pEaKs oNcE a yEaR' is a fancy myth. Let's compare their slam+yec records between 2013 AO and 2017 RG:

Murray: F-A-W-QF-QF-SF-QF-QF-F-SF-SF-4R-F-F-W-QF-4R-SF in slams, A-RR-RR-W in YEC;

Wawrinka: 4R-QF-1R-SF-W-2R-QF-QF-SF-W-QF-SF-4R-SF-2R-W-SF-F in slams, SF-SF-SF-RR in YEC.

2 W, 4 F, 4 SF, 5 QF, 2 4R, 1 A for Murray vs 3 W, 1 F, 5 SF, 4 QF, 2 4R, 2 2R, 2 1R for Wawrinka.

Given that F vs SF is often luck of the draw (e.g. 2015 AO, Wawrinka was ranked higher than Murray at the time but drew Djokovic in SF while Murray played him in F and lost easier than Wawrinka, so evidently Wawrinka played better despite a worse result thanks to the draw), the real difference is 3 early losses for Stan (Wim 13, RG 14, Wim 16) vs 1 absence for Murray (RG 13) with no losses before 4R. A small difference over the span of 18 slams, that is more than covered by the extra title - all beating Djokovic, so no luck here. Wawrinka was also more consistent in the YEC at the time, reaching three straight semis in 2013-15 while Murray couldn't, but when Murray finally reached SF for the first time in four years, he ended up winning the tourmament.

Where Murray has Wawrinka's clock cleaned even in 2013-17 is performing in masters, whence also the #1 stint, but why should that keep us from valuing the two being on almost equal footing in slams+yec for as long as 4.5 years, and hence including both into the slam contender Big 5 group? I don't see why unless you're pissed at Stan's "lucky, undeserved" 3 slams while the incredibly superior Murray also has 3.
 
It's sad that this needs a thread when It's evident to anyone with a brain but still people will argue it. Everyone has an opinion and often (especially on this forum) that opinion is guided by hate and dislike and rarely due to actual facts or tennis knowledge. So i will include my own opinion to the mix:

Wawrinka is one of the most overrated players ever to play the sport. He won 3 slams yes but he has done practically nothing outside of that for almost his entire career. His career statistics are almost identical to every journeyman in history but what most of you are saying is because he had 6 weeks of high level work in his entire career, that puts him on the same level as Murray and by extension, higher than players like Roddick and Hewitt? A lot of you would be crying rage tears if i said he is better than Safin but he is because he has more slams, right? RIGHT? :unsure::cautious:
 
Oh well, another Djokovic fan trying to hype Murray, huh? To say that by achievements Murray is better than Wawrinka is one thing. But it doesn't mean he is a tougher opponent for top players, because he really isn't. Wawrinka did MUCH better against Djokovic in AO, RG and USO, which are 3 slams out of 4. And Wawrinka's slam titles were much more impressive than Murray's. He didn't collapse in every slam final for two years until he finally got an opponent like Raonic.
 
Mainad said:
Why ever not? Murray has done things that various Big 3 players haven't done:

He has won the WTF which Nadal hasn't done.
He has won Rome which Federer hasn't done.
He has won the OSG twice whilst Federer and Djokovic haven't even done it once.

:cool:
Click to expand...
Murygoat..
Jokes aside, I wish he could actually have a FH to blast players off the court..
2013 AO final is the biggest heartbreak for Murray fans, but they have only Murray to blame (unnecessarily choked against roger to convert an easy straight/four sets victory into a grindfest of 5 sets)
 
tonylg said:
I'm from Australia. Who's Andy Murray?
Click to expand...
A tennis player from UK, Scotland to be specific

3 times grandslam champion
ATP world tour finals' 2016 champion
11 times grandslam finalist
Former world no.1 for 46 weeks or so
Year End no.1 player for 2016
14 times Masters 1000 champion
One of the best athletic & counterpuncher tennis players with a lot of variety
The best returner of serve in tennis alongwith Novak Djokovic
 
Murray had a far more consistent and accomplished career compared to Stan but Stan is by far more talented
 
Lleytonstation said:
Wawa is not even in the same category as Murray. It is laughable to say otherwise. I continue to see Wawa thrown in with the likes of Murray. Don't.

The argument is always the same: "they both have 3 slams."

Murray:
Slams: 3
Masters: 14
Gold's: 2
Number of weeks at #1: 41
Year end #1: 1
WTF: 1
Tourney wins: 46
Wins vs big 3: 29
Slam finals: 11
Slam SF: 20

Wawa:
Slams: 3
Masters: 1
Gold's: 0
Number of weeks at #1: 0
Year end #1: 0
WTF: 0
Tourney wins: 16
Wins vs big 3: 11
Slam finals: 4
Slam SF: 7


Enough said. They can not be compared, and are not even in the same stratosphere. This is what the "slam count" does to people...
Click to expand...
Wawrinka would agree Murray is ahead of him. Relevant stats are OG and Masters 1000s.

Irrelevant stats are Major finals and SFs.
 
HetTheGreaterer said:
A tennis player from UK, Scotland to be specific

3 times grandslam champion
ATP world tour finals' 2016 champion
11 times grandslam finalist
Former world no.1 for 46 weeks or so
Year End no.1 player for 2016
14 times Masters 1000 champion
One of the best athletic & counterpuncher tennis players with a lot of variety
The best returner of serve in tennis alongwith Novak Djokovic
Click to expand...
Murray doesn't have the best ROS ever, what a joke.

I guess Agassi never existed? Several other players near the same level?
 
Terenigma said:
It's sad that this needs a thread when It's evident to anyone with a brain but still people will argue it. Everyone has an opinion and often (especially on this forum) that opinion is guided by hate and dislike and rarely due to actual facts or tennis knowledge. So i will include my own opinion to the mix:

Wawrinka is one of the most overrated players ever to play the sport. He won 3 slams yes but he has done practically nothing outside of that for almost his entire career. His career statistics are almost identical to every journeyman in history but what most of you are saying is because he had 6 weeks of high level work in his entire career, that puts him on the same level as Murray and by extension, higher than players like Roddick and Hewitt? A lot of you would be crying rage tears if i said he is better than Safin but he is because he has more slams, right? RIGHT? :unsure::cautious:
Click to expand...
The amusing contradiction is that these people who put Wawrinka on a par with Murray or ahead in some cases tend to be Federer fans and some Djoker fans, which is funny given they seek to claim Nadal is average on HC as he has less runner up spots than the other two on that surface.

I disagree with your comment that Wawrinka is overrated as I think he is considered tier 2 of this era. What sets Murray apart is titles won, not runners up spots. 14 Masters 1000 wins, a YE1, and 2 OG on top of 3 majors clearly puts Murray as Tier 1 player this era.
 
Sabratha said:
Because Murray sucks as much as your spelling.
Click to expand...
That didn't make him stop playing ;)
And while we are at it, could you correct my spelling if you have concerns over it ? Please. It would mean so much to me.
 
Red Rick said:
Losing H2H with post clay prime Fed is nothing to write home about for a supposed 'unplayable at peak' player.
Click to expand...

Well, he beat him in a GS tournament on clay and in a clay M1000 final. Surely, that is something to write home about. Otherwise we will have to do the same for everyone who beat Feddie post 2010, and .... good luck with that. That is without talking about form, of course.

8-)
 
Who would the big three rather see across the net in a GS final?

Murray 3/11 in GS finals
Wawrinka 3/4 in GS finals

BTW Murray is the better player but Wawrinka is far more dangerous.
 
Wawrinka’s slam runs compensate to a reasonable extent what Murray won otherwise

Murray’s slam runs are pretty hollow , truth be told
 
He's not, but he's closer to him in more categories than Sir Andy is to those other three fellas, and yet he still gets regularly grouped with them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TimHenmanATG
To people denying the concept of a ''big 4'', and comparing Murray to Wawrinka - here are some stats
3 4 5
Replies
203
Views
16K
tennis_pro
tennis_pro
J
  • Poll Poll
Sinner vs Murray - who is greater?
2
Replies
70
Views
1K
Razer
Razer
D
  • Poll Poll
Stan with the hypothetical Career Grand Slam vs Andy Murray
2
Replies
88
Views
5K
tennis_pro
tennis_pro
clout
  • Poll Poll
Who was greater: 2005-07 Nadal (age 19-21) vs 2017-19 Nadal (age 31-33)?
2 3
Replies
141
Views
8K
FedeRadi
F
T
  • Poll Poll
What if the big three finish on the same number of slams? What weight do we give their other achievements?
2
Replies
70
Views
4K
FRV4
F
Back
Top