Greater Player: Murray or Courier?

Who's Greater

  • Total voters
    114
Gazelle said:
Ok, just watched Courier and the guy seemingly hit more topspin than Murray ever did, despite playing with 20 year older equipment.

Clearly Courier is superior to Andy 'The Earth is Flat' Murray.
Click to expand...

yup. midsize pro staff strung with nylon.
 
Murray was top4 in his era.

Was Courier top4 in his era?

Positive h2h against players met 10+ times:

Murray 16/19 (84.2%)
Courier 5/11 (45.5%)
 
Slam score against <5 title winners:

Borg 133-10 (93.0%)
Djokovic 270-28 (90.6%)
Federer 352-38 (90.3%)
Nadal 256-29 (89.8%)
Connors 219-29 (88.3%)
McEnroe 151-20 (88.3%)
Lendl 199-27 (88.1%)
Murray 184-25 (88.0%)
Laver 58-8 (87.9%)
Rosewall 88-13 (87.1%)
Sampras 190-32 (85.6%)
Becker 155-26 (85.6%)
Newcombe 88-17 (83.8%)
Ashe 122-20 (83.6%)
Wilander 130-26 (83.3%)
Edberg 162-34 (82.7%)
Del Potro 93-21 (81.6%)
Agassi 211-49 (81.2%)
Roche 64-15 (81.0%)
Tanner 85-21 (80.2%)
Courier 106-27 (79.7%)
 
Lew II said:
Murray was top4 in his era.

Was Courier top4 in his era?

Positive h2h against players met 10+ times:

Murray 16/19 (84.2%)
Courier 5/11 (45.5%)
Click to expand...
Gee.

I wonder who the 3 losing H2Hs are.

Might it be they're the 3 greatest players of all times?
 
Okay, ultimately it comes down to roughly 2 things.

1. How you compare era's. You can have multiple explanations for the resutls we've seen over their careers. For Murray's era, this means that either 1) He's played a super weak era cause 3 dudes won everything, which means 96 players in the top 100 were weaker on average than they should, or 2) He's played in an era with 3 completely insane positive outliers massively skewing top end results of all the other players. Then I would have to ask myself which is more plausible.
2. This largely ignores consistency being a more prominent/common feature among good players. In my opinion this is a lot down to poly strings making margin of error on baseline shots greater and baseline tennis being a lot less high variance than s&v.
 
Red Rick said:
Okay, ultimately it comes down to roughly 2 things.

1. How you compare era's. You can have multiple explanations for the resutls we've seen over their careers. For Murray's era, this means that either 1) He's played a super weak era cause 3 dudes won everything, which means 96 players in the top 100 were weaker on average than they should, or 2) He's played in an era with 3 completely insane positive outliers massively skewing top end results of all the other players. Then I would have to ask myself which is more plausible.
2. This largely ignores consistency being a more prominent/common feature among good players. In my opinion this is a lot down to poly strings making margin of error on baseline shots greater and baseline tennis being a lot less high variance than s&v.
Click to expand...

False dichotomy. A strong top force and mediocre pretenders aren't mutually exclusive.
 
AnOctorokForDinner said:
False dichotomy. A strong top force and mediocre pretenders aren't mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
They aren't. While it could easily be somewhere in the middle, it's a continuum so I'd lean more toward the explanation that's less unlikely by random chance.

That said, variability has changed a lot it seems, and that's what in my opinion needs to be looked into the most.
 
Red Rick said:
They aren't. While it could easily be somewhere in the middle, it's a continuum so I'd lean more toward the explanation that's less unlikely by random chance.

That said, variability has changed a lot it seems, and that's what in my opinion needs to be looked into the most.
Click to expand...

Never agreed with calling 2014-16 weak. 2017+ is 'cause Big 3 are absolutely not what they used to be but the pretenders are almost weaker than ever.
Applied to individual tournaments though, Murray has many instances of facing an uninspiring draw then getting clobbered by Big 3, and I don't see how that counts for epick level. Wimbledon 2015 is a perfect example. All 2011 slams were rather like that for him too.
 
AnOctorokForDinner said:
Never agreed with calling 2014-16 weak. 2017+ is 'cause Big 3 are absolutely not what they used to be but the pretenders are almost weaker than ever.
Applied to individual tournaments though, Murray has many instances of facing an uninspiring draw then getting clobbered by Big 3, and I don't see how that counts for epick level. Wimbledon 2015 is a perfect example. All 2011 slams were rather like that for him too.
Click to expand...

Latter half of 2016 is weak no? Djokovic there in spirit only, no Fedal.
 
NatF said:
Latter half of 2016 is weak no? Djokovic there in spirit only, no Fedal.
Click to expand...

Feeble but not that weak, hm? Problem was uneven halves. Olympics, Djok's half was fun Mandy's sucked. USO, Djok's half sucked Mandy's was fun. Same with the YEC. Level not the greatest but still some competition. Neither a ridiculous stroll like USO '17 nor an agonising mugfest like AO '20, now those are weak as it comes.
 
AnOctorokForDinner said:
Never agreed with calling 2014-16 weak. 2017+ is 'cause Big 3 are absolutely not what they used to be but the pretenders are almost weaker than ever.
Applied to individual tournaments though, Murray has many instances of facing an uninspiring draw then getting clobbered by Big 3, and I don't see how that counts for epick level. Wimbledon 2015 is a perfect example. All 2011 slams were rather like that for him too.
Click to expand...
Same can be said for any period that it would ideally be judged by tournament basis, althought that will even out to some degree. But then Murray losing in straights in 2011 AO final is muggery, Fed losing semi's in straights we never talk about, when Murray beats Djoko in straights in Wimbly 2013 Djoko was just mugging, and on and on and on it goes.

NatF said:
Latter half of 2016 is weak no? Djokovic there in spirit only, no Fedal.
Click to expand...
All of 2016 was weak. Clay Masters might have been te exception. Think that 2016/2017 is largely when the 2nd line of the late 80's dudes started to go. Now the 2nd line is largely replaced by next gen for better or worse. Inbetween was probably the weakest patch which I'd say is probably late '17-early '18.
 
Red Rick said:
Same can be said for any period that it would ideally be judged by tournament basis, althought that will even out to some degree. But then Murray losing in straights in 2011 AO final is muggery, Fed losing semi's in straights we never talk about, when Murray beats Djoko in straights in Wimbly 2013 Djoko was just mugging, and on and on and on it goes.
Click to expand...

Except those two straight-set losses are about as different as it gets. Federer was entirely competitive throughout, just lacked clutch to win any of the sets. Murray was largely dominated, at least for two of the three sets. The latter example may be sensible, but I don't see reason to believe Murray just upped his level so much overnight after struggling with Grassdasco and Janowicz in directly preceding matches.
 
Red Rick said:
Same can be said for any period that it would ideally be judged by tournament basis, althought that will even out to some degree. But then Murray losing in straights in 2011 AO final is muggery, Fed losing semi's in straights we never talk about
Click to expand...
Fed put up a fight. It was a close straight setter. Murray was demolished. Significant difference here.

Red Rick said:
when Murray beats Djoko in straights in Wimbly 2013 Djoko was just mugging, and on and on and on it goes.
Click to expand...
Given the vast difference in their levels as players, yeah, Djoko has to be mugging to lose in straights to Murray in a slam.
 
mike danny said:
Fed put up a fight. It was a close straight setter. Murray was demolished. Significant difference here.


Given the vast difference in their levels as players, yeah, Djoko has to be mugging to lose in straights to Murray in a slam.
Click to expand...

Even for you, this is impressive circular reasoning.
 
AnOctorokForDinner said:
Except those two straight-set losses are about as different as it gets. Federer was entirely competitive throughout, just lacked clutch to win any of the sets. Murray was largely dominated, at least for two of the three sets. The latter example may be sensible, but I don't see reason to believe Murray just upped his level so much overnight after struggling with Grassdasco and Janowicz in directly preceding matches.
Click to expand...
So now we get to consistently berate x player losing in straights, then for another playing suddenly not all straight set losses are the same?
 
Red Rick said:
Okay, ultimately it comes down to roughly 2 things.

1. How you compare era's. You can have multiple explanations for the resutls we've seen over their careers. For Murray's era, this means that either 1) He's played a super weak era cause 3 dudes won everything, which means 96 players in the top 100 were weaker on average than they should, or 2) He's played in an era with 3 completely insane positive outliers massively skewing top end results of all the other players. Then I would have to ask myself which is more plausible.
2. This largely ignores consistency being a more prominent/common feature among good players. In my opinion this is a lot down to poly strings making margin of error on baseline shots greater and baseline tennis being a lot less high variance than s&v.
Click to expand...

And that 3 greatest players in history just happen to all play in the same era is statistically likely? Has nothing to do with extreme homogenization of playing conditions across the board.

I don't believe for a second that the big 4 would enjoy anywhere near this type of ridiculous success if they played in the 90s.
 
Red Rick said:
So now we get to consistently berate x player losing in straights, then for another playing suddenly not all straight set losses are the same?
Click to expand...

I don't just look at sets won, that's wrongfully simplistic. For instance, the 2010 Murdal Wimbledon semi was better than the 2011 one from both players, even if Murray took the first set in '11 but what followed was unseemly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS
mike danny said:
There are other matches, in which Fed wasn't completely exhausted, that show Murray's peak level.
Click to expand...

What, Federer was so old by then that a full day's rest, whilst Murray played the QF and SF of the mixed doubles on the day off, wasn't enough?

Federer's semi-final was the equivalent of a tough 5-setter so I would imagine Federer carried a bit of fatigue into the final but "completely exhausted" is the hyperbolic rubbish about that final that needs to die. Whilst doubles is less physically taxing Murray was still playing for a good 2.5 hours on the Saturday whilst Fed had his feet up.
 
AnOctorokForDinner said:
Except those two straight-set losses are about as different as it gets. Federer was entirely competitive throughout, just lacked clutch to win any of the sets. Murray was largely dominated, at least for two of the three sets. The latter example may be sensible, but I don't see reason to believe Murray just upped his level so much overnight after struggling with Grassdasco and Janowicz in directly preceding matches.
Click to expand...

Even if Novak had destroyed Fed in a similar fashion it still wouldn't hold as much weight. Murray and Novak are peers, Fed is 6 years older. Besides, Murray lost 2 slam HC finals to Fed in straights. As good as the latter is, this rarely happened even in his best years (35 year old Agassi did better).

Murray had a period of 2012-2013 where he was playing some scary good tennis. For the rest of his career he was mostly listless against the top, other players usually gave them a tougher challenge. Of course Courier had a very short peak as well.
 
zagor said:
And that 3 greatest players in history just happen to all play in the same era is statistically likely? Has nothing to do with extreme homogenization of playing conditions across the board.

I don't believe for a second that the big 4 would enjoy anywhere near this type of ridiculous success if they played in the 90s.
Click to expand...
Do I deny variance has gotten lower? You can only win in the era you play in. Nobody argues Sampras wouldn't have done jack **** in the mid 2000s. What's the argument anyway? A blind assertion Sampras would beat Nadal/Djoko on fast HC/grass?

Still, I do think they're 3 of the most giften players of all time. For starters they're pretty much 3 of the greatest athletes the game has seen. You might argue Fed's not a top 5 all time athlete in tennis but he's probably the most technically gifted player to have played the game.
 
Wurm said:
What, Federer was so old by then that a full day's rest, whilst Murray played the QF and SF of the mixed doubles on the day off, wasn't enough?

Federer's semi-final was the equivalent of a tough 5-setter so I would imagine Federer carried a bit of fatigue into the final but "completely exhausted" is the hyperbolic rubbish about that final that needs to die. Whilst doubles is less physically taxing Murray was still playing for a good 2.5 hours on the Saturday whilst Fed had his feet up.
Click to expand...
Murray was 25, not 31.

And besides, how often have you seen Federer recover perfectly after a 4.5 hour match? Mixed doubles LOL.

Yeah, keep believing Murray trashed a perfectly fine Federer in a BO5 grass match, something even Djokodal have failed to do. Murray's peak level on grass > Djokodal's I guess.
 
Wurm said:
What, Federer was so old by then that a full day's rest, whilst Murray played the QF and SF of the mixed doubles on the day off, wasn't enough?

Federer's semi-final was the equivalent of a tough 5-setter so I would imagine Federer carried a bit of fatigue into the final but "completely exhausted" is the hyperbolic rubbish about that final that needs to die. Whilst doubles is less physically taxing Murray was still playing for a good 2.5 hours on the Saturday whilst Fed had his feet up.
Click to expand...

So doubles matters now.

Funny how the ombillible tiredness of the nadal in 2009 AO final is regarded as worth mentioning but Fedr was hardly tired in 2012 Olympics.
 
Red Rick said:
Do I deny variance has gotten lower? You can only win in the era you play in. Nobody argues Sampras wouldn't have done jack **** in the mid 2000s. What's the argument anyway? A blind assertion Sampras would beat Nadal/Djoko on fast HC/grass?

Still, I do think they're 3 of the most giften players of all time. For starters they're pretty much 3 of the greatest athletes the game has seen. You might argue Fed's not a top 5 all time athlete in tennis but he's probably the most technically gifted player to have played the game.
Click to expand...

But that somehow doesn't apply to Courier when it comes to number of slams and weeks at #1? Like we know for certain Murray would adapt just as well to a variety different conditions and playing styles to make slam final after slam final, or win so many masters titles which weren't valued even in early 2000s as much as they are today (let alone in Courier's time).

And no, I don't believe that the big 3 are on a pedestal above all other greats in whole history of the sport when it comes to tennis ability. It's just easier to separate yourself from the pack when all of the players and surfaces essentially play the same and you just happen to be better at that one type of game.

Also, people call Sampras a glorified servebot all the time and Murray is comfortably leading the poll over Courier here. Are you gonna tell me that TTW has a bigger nostalgia bias compared to a recency bias? When you have people putting Murray on Borg's level routinely?
 
zagor said:
But that somehow doesn't apply to Courier when it comes to number of slams and weeks at #1? Like we know for certain Murray would adapt just as well to a variety different conditions and playing styles to make slam final after slam final, or win so many masters titles which weren't valued even in early 2000s as much as they are today (let alone in Courier's time).

And no, I don't believe that the big 3 are on a pedestal above all other greats in whole history of the sport when it comes to tennis ability. It's just easier to separate yourself from the pack when all of the players and surfaces essentially play the same and you just happen to be better at that one type of game.

Also, people call Sampras a glorified servebot all the time and Murray is comfortably leading the poll over Courier here. Are you gonna tell me that TTW has a bigger nostalgia bias compared to a recency bias? When you have people putting Murray on Borg's level routinely?
Click to expand...
It's actually harder on clay and grass now cause there's no other half of players who are dead weight cause they play the other way. And it's not like it was impossible. In fact, Agassi won all 4 playing the same style. Hardly inconceivable better baseliners than him would do better than him everywhere in the 90s. Also, the Big 3 have been cancelling each other out for over a hundred matches.

I don't see Sampras being treated like a glorified servebot a lot. More common is he's not put in the same category as the Big 3, which I completely agree with. I also have never seen anyone put Murray ahead of Borg.
 
Red Rick said:
Same can be said for any period that it would ideally be judged by tournament basis, althought that will even out to some degree. But then Murray losing in straights in 2011 AO final is muggery, Fed losing semi's in straights we never talk about, when Murray beats Djoko in straights in Wimbly 2013 Djoko was just mugging, and on and on and on it goes.


All of 2016 was weak. Clay Masters might have been te exception. Think that 2016/2017 is largely when the 2nd line of the late 80's dudes started to go. Now the 2nd line is largely replaced by next gen for better or worse. Inbetween was probably the weakest patch which I'd say is probably late '17-early '18.
Click to expand...
Madrid/Rome were good in 2016. AO and Wimbledon and Queens was good and Djokovic was great at RG 2016. IW has some good matches but Miami was a bit of a dud. From Olympics onwards it went wear with only the YEC being top notch.

2017 started off well at AO/IW/Miami. It went after that. With Shanghai and Madrid being top notch.
 
zagor said:
Even if Novak had destroyed Fed in a similar fashion it still wouldn't hold as much weight. Murray and Novak are peers, Fed is 6 years older. Besides, Murray lost 2 slam HC finals to Fed in straights. As good as the latter is, this rarely happened even in his best years (35 year old Agassi did better).

Murray had a period of 2012-2013 where he was playing some scary good tennis. For the rest of his career he was mostly listless against the top, other players usually gave them a tougher challenge. Of course Courier had a very short peak as well.
Click to expand...

Come on zagor, Murray has been giving the Big 3 trouble as far back as 2006 when he was the only player, apart from Nadal, to beat Federer that year. From 2008 onwards he was regularly beating Djokovic (3 times) and Federer (twice) in Masters finals and continued to do so after 2013. He is the only player to have double digit victories against Federer and Djokovic. Nobody has ever given the Big 3 more trouble than Murray.
 
Last edited:
The Guru said:
This came up in another thread and I'm shocked to see that it seems most favor Courier. I think Murray is pretty clearly the greater player and it's by a pretty distinct margin because even though Courier has the extra slam Murray holds a lead (often an enormous lead) in just about every other category. I'm curious to see how the poll turns out.
Click to expand...

The bit in bold, I strongly disagree with. These two guys are in the same tier and arguments can be made from either - but neither is "distinctly" above the other.
 
Phoenix1983 said:
Olympics were not a big deal in tennis when Courier was at peak. Marc Rosset won the 1992 title for instance.
Click to expand...

Courier was #1 seed at the 1992 Olympics (he lost in the 3rd round to Rosset) . In fact the top 6 seeds were all either existing or future Slam champions including Sampras (seeded #3).
 
I can only imagine Courier today with an pure drive or yonex Dr98
with todays training and his David Schwartzman dogged nature
Federer would hate him. Most forget how strong Courier was
mentally but I agree that running FH got found out big time.
 
Lew II said:
Murray was top4 in his era.

Was Courier top4 in his era?

Positive h2h against players met 10+ times:

Murray 16/19 (84.2%)
Courier 5/11 (45.5%)
Click to expand...

Courier was top three in his era (behind Sampras and Agassi), whether you limit that to players born in the first half of the 1970s or include all players born in the 1970s. Here are Courier's H2Hs against some of the best players from the early 1990s (including Becker and Edberg, who were the "veterans" from the previous era):

H2H vs.:​
Sampras: 4-16​
Agassi: 7-5​
Bruguera: 5-2​
Ivanisevic: 8-3​
Krajicek: 7-1​
Muster: 7-5​
Edberg: 6-4​
Chang: 12-12​
Becker: 1-6​
 
buscemi said:
Courier was top three in his era (behind Sampras and Agassi), whether you limit that to players born in the first half of the 1970s or include all players born in the 1970s. Here are Courier's H2Hs against some of the best players from the early 1990s (including Becker and Edberg, who were the "veterans" from the previous era):

H2H vs.:​
Sampras: 4-16​
Agassi: 7-5​
Bruguera: 5-2​
Ivanisevic: 8-3​
Krajicek: 7-1​
Muster: 7-5​
Edberg: 6-4​
Chang: 12-12​
Becker: 1-6​
Click to expand...
Now mention his losing h2h.
 
Lew II said:
Now mention his losing h2h.
Click to expand...

Against players who won Majors:

-Courier has a winning H2H against (1) Ivanisevic; (2) Krajicek; (3) Agassi; (4) Muster; (5) Edberg; (6) Bruguera; (7) Connors; (8) Korda; (9) Gomez; (10) McEnroe; (11) Moya; and (11) Kuerten​
-Courier is tied in H2H against (1) Chang; (2) Costa; and (3) Safin; and​
-Courier has a losing H2H against (1) Sampras; (2) Becker; (3) Lendl; (4) Stich; (5) Kafelnikov; and (6) Rafter​

Looks pretty good to me,
 
mike danny said:
Murray was 25, not 31.
Click to expand...

That 31 year old would go on to play a Wimbledon final 7 year's later that lasted 4hr and 58 minutes. Assuming (and there's no reason not to that I'm aware of) that he didn't pick up any injuries from playing del-Potro a day off is enough time to almost entirely recover physically from that match (mental fatigue is a different question) at that age. We might have believed 31 was almost past it back then for a pro tennis player and Wimbledon that year was Federer's final hurrah, but 7 years on and 3 more GS titles from 7 finals later the excuse of his age at that time is risible.

Yeah, keep believing Murray trashed a perfectly fine Federer in a BO5 grass match, something even Djokodal have failed to do.
Click to expand...

Given the amusing goalpost shifting we can just assume acknowledgement that "completely exhausted" is rubbish and take it as read that Federer having had a day off is new information. Dismissing out of hand the time Murray spent on court playing mixed doubles on Federer's day off just indicates how little point there is engaging any further.

Funny how the ombillible tiredness of the nadal in 2009 AO final is regarded as worth mentioning but Fedr was hardly tired in 2012 Olympics.
Click to expand...

Funny how I've never once ever commented on that.

When I, personally speaking, have brought up fatigue in finals of big events it's typically mental fatigue I'm referring to - particularly at slams where they've ordinarily had at least a day off after the semi-final. These guys are so fit, and modern recovery techniques so good, that unless they're carrying an injury then they're physically capable of playing 4-5 hour matches on back-to-back days, as I vaguely remember Novak did to win one of his slams back in the day.
 
Wurm said:
That 31 year old would go on to play a Wimbledon final 7 year's later that lasted 4hr and 58 minutes. Assuming (and there's no reason not to that I'm aware of) that he didn't pick up any injuries from playing del-Potro a day off is enough time to almost entirely recover physically from that match (mental fatigue is a different question) at that age. We might have believed 31 was almost past it back then for a pro tennis player and Wimbledon that year was Federer's final hurrah, but 7 years on and 3 more GS titles from 7 finals later the excuse of his age at that time is risible.
Click to expand...
Did Fed have to play another match after the Wimb final last year? No. So terrible example.

Wurm said:
Given the amusing goalpost shifting we can just assume acknowledgement that "completely exhausted" is rubbish and take it as read that Federer having had a day off is new information. Dismissing out of hand the time Murray spent on court playing mixed doubles on Federer's day off just indicates how little point there is engaging any further.
Click to expand...

Answer this question honestly: how many 4.5 hour matches has Fed played in his career and then recovered for the next one easily?

And let's not compare some doubles matches where the mental and physical strain isn't as big with an actual singles match that has both.

Wurm said:
Funny how I've never once ever commented on that.

When I, personally speaking, have brought up fatigue in finals of big events it's typically mental fatigue I'm referring to - particularly at slams where they've ordinarily had at least a day off after the semi-final. These guys are so fit, and modern recovery techniques so good, that unless they're carrying an injury then they're physically capable of playing 4-5 hour matches on back-to-back days, as I vaguely remember Novak did to win one of his slams back in the day.
Click to expand...
LOL, bringing up a slam Djokovic won when he wasn't even 25 yet.
 
About equal, I usually view it like a 2 slam difference is too much to make up with other metrics , but 1 slam can may be.

In this case Murray is clearly more consistent, whereas Courier had the higher peak. I believe no one had won AO and RG in the same year since he did it until Djokovic in 2016.

Murray's WTF, masters, and just longer time as a general force at the top of the game (check out semifinals of slams for both of them) about cancel out Jim's extra slam.

If forced to pick I'd go with Courier as having had the better career, because of also having more weeks at 1, but if Murray were to ever win another slam (let's not hold our breath) , it would tip strongly in his favor.
 
Red Rick said:
Do I deny variance has gotten lower? You can only win in the era you play in. Nobody argues Sampras wouldn't have done jack **** in the mid 2000s. What's the argument anyway? A blind assertion Sampras would beat Nadal/Djoko on fast HC/grass?

Still, I do think they're 3 of the most giften players of all time. For starters they're pretty much 3 of the greatest athletes the game has seen. You might argue Fed's not a top 5 all time athlete in tennis but he's probably the most technically gifted player to have played the game.
Click to expand...
They are the three best players ever and they probably would be in any era. Would they win 20-19-17? I don't know. But if you look at their range of skills and talents it's not something that has ever been seen before. Peak Fed is an underrated athlete btw. He's top 10.
 
buscemi said:
Courier was top three in his era (behind Sampras and Agassi), whether you limit that to players born in the first half of the 1970s or include all players born in the 1970s. Here are Courier's H2Hs against some of the best players from the early 1990s (including Becker and Edberg, who were the "veterans" from the previous era):

H2H vs.:​
Sampras: 4-16​
Agassi: 7-5​
Bruguera: 5-2​
Ivanisevic: 8-3​
Krajicek: 7-1​
Muster: 7-5​
Edberg: 6-4​
Chang: 12-12​
Becker: 1-6​
Click to expand...
Better question: Courier vs Roddick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SamprasisGOAT
  • Poll Poll
Who had the harder Era and Rivals Pete Sampras or Rafael Nadal?
Replies
15
Views
3K
Man of steel
Man of steel
W
Match Stats/Report - Edberg vs Courier, Indian Wells semi-final, 1990
Replies
0
Views
745
Waspsting
W
Aussie Darcy
  • Poll Poll
2024 ATP Most Improved Player - Poll
2
Replies
57
Views
3K
mavsman149
mavsman149
clout
  • Poll Poll
In your opinion's, now which is the greater rivalry: Fedal or Djokodal?
Replies
48
Views
3K
SABRvolley
SABRvolley
35ft6
Is Del Potro the biggest hitter of all time?
2 3
Replies
148
Views
15K
ClubHoUno
ClubHoUno
Back
Top