Great post. I was a teenager when Courier was playing, so I didn't analyze stuff, he was really good and then he wasn't very dominant. I didn't really think about.
One of the tricky parts is that most of the categories Murray leads in were much less important when Courier was playing (e.g. number of Masters titles).
Courier had 3 peak years, Murray had 2 (really 1.5) so I don't think that's a knock against Courier.
I agree and that is one of the many thing that makes evaluating tennis greatness extremely hard to argue. It's why I don't really have all-time rankings and the like because it's all so arbitrary. If we're talking about best at tennis then a match in the 1st round of a 250 should have the same consideration as a Master's final but obviously it doesn't. We have to assign value to each tournament and round (not to mention ranking statistics) and the prestige of events shifts all the time. The game evolves/technology changes/player base grows/competition changes it's all too much.
Wow, that’s a great analysis! Don’t expect to see this outside of the “former pros” section.
The problem is, if you showed Murray and Courier's records to a tennis fan in the mid-90s they would probably have the complete opposite view. Slams and the number one ranking were all that mattered. If you don't beat the best you can't be the best, and no number of minor achievements make up for that.
It's really not that big of a gap. 1 more major and a third of a year are very small gaps in those statistics. If you ask me who was the better performer in Slams it's Murray because he had more F/SF/QF appearances and it was against better competition. The difference in weeks is more timing and luck than anything. Murray held to slams from W 2013 to USO 2013 and that would've closed the gap in weeks but he didn't get them like Courier did when he held two slams.
You keep saying this, but it's just not true. By 1992 the AO was as strong and well-regarded as any other Slam, and just as well-attended by top players.
Sampras only missed it because of a shoulder injury, and neither him nor Agassi were critical omissions anyway (being ranked 6th and 10th respectively at that stage of their careers).
That is like saying my six year old niece is very close to having a Wimbledon title and four months at #1.
What an absolutely ludicrous statement. I don't even know how to respond to that it's so dumb.
Mac has 1 less slam than Agassi is that a "meaningful difference." Mac is clearly the better player. Roddick has fewer weeks and slams by a greater proportion compared to Kuerten I still think Roddick is the better player. Hewitt has more weeks than Becker, Wilander, and Newcombe combined how's that for a "meaningful difference." Lendl has 161 more weeks than Borg if 17 is a huge gap to overcome how could anyone even entertain the idea that Borg was better. This is an incredibly dumb argument. Context on achievements matter. If you want to arbitrarily inflate the tiny difference in two stats into a massive gulf while simultaneously dismissing just about every other possible measurement of a player into being almost meaningless that's your business but don't pretend it's anything other than arbitrary bias. You can make a decent argument for Courier. This definitely isn't it.
Recommend you ponder on this for a while.
Oh brother. Top player attendance does not mean it's the same. WTF has the same attendance by top players as slams but it's not as important. Same with Indian Wells and many other tournaments throughout history. AO was a slam. It was meaningful. But the AO was a slam like Jon Snow was a Stark. Pretty much the same but with less glamor and prestige. Agassi and Sampras missing it is not massive but it's not nothing. They were both slam contenders by that time. Andre won the first AO he appeared in so he would've been dangerous. No top 10 player would skip today's AO. It was the far and away number 4. That's just true.
Sampras didn't skip the AO, he was a late injury withdrawal. Agassi did, but he also regularly skipped Wimbledon (as did many clay-courters). That does not diminish the value of that tournament either.
No player should be measured with the yardstick of an era they didn't play in. That is true for both Courier and Murray. I think the two players are very close and preferencing one over the other is highly subjective, but your posts in this thread are riddled with presentism.
Hmm.While murray had a great 2016 WTF, lets actually look at who he beat that year.
2016 Andy Murray tennis season - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Literally the only argument for Courier is 4>3 and 58>41 and ignoring everything else
Lmao, making Wimbly finals in 90's was special.
Slam finals + semifinals reached:
Wawrinka > Hewitt in stuff that is interesting.
Given the way he played, I said. Yes, Agassi did it twice in the 90s, and Courier did it. That's it, that's 3 Wimbledon finalists out of 20 in the decade who played from the baseline. Hell, go back into the 80s and even Lendl and Connors were following practically every serve into net so you got to go back a ways to find another one.
Well, at least you have begun to talk of a Big 4 so I guess that is progress.
As you may or may not have surmised my groupings are based more on the kind of things achieved rather than just the actual numbers.
Hilariously, the numbers of achievements DON'T matter when trying to group Murray with Roger/Rafa/Novak, but DO matter when trying to elevate Murray over Courier.
