Greater Player: Murray or Courier?

[NonP]

Just saw this on the main page. Man talk about hairsplitting. Though I maintain that among non-ATGs (say below the Becker-Edberg-Wilander class) the number of Slams is in fact a good barometer of relative ability and almost always takes precedence over anything else a one-Slam difference becomes less of an issue and more of a crapshoot when you get to this level. Long story short these two are more or less equal and I don't see much separating them. Put a gun to my head and I'd take Jim cuz I value dominance over consistency, but that's really a matter of preference on my part.

BTW for those of you who are pooh-poohing Courier's ceiling the guy won a whopping 64.3% of his games (both service and return) on clay in '92 and '93. To put it in perspective that's higher than anyone not named Rafael Nadal has managed since '91, and even superior to Rafa's own % in some of his weaker years. And remember, this was on clay where it'd be difficult to target Jim's FH and get him on the run.

You can talk about the Big 3 all you want but it's hard to see Murray putting together such a stellar season (or two) on any surface in the modern era. In fact apart from Rafa the only guys since the '90s I'd give a good chance to topple '92-'93 Courier at RG are Bruguera and Kuerten. Well we don't have to guess in Sergei's case, and it was absolute war in one of the greatest (and underappreciated) finals of the Open era:

And it took less than 3 hours! Say what you will about us non-Gen Z fans but some things were indeed better back then.

 

[Lew II]

Better question would be who has the higher peak.

I'd still pick Murray. Higher ATP points total, higher Elo rating, and after 2013 Wimbledon was the title holder of 3 of the 5 biggest events (WI, UO, Olympics), plus a final in another (AO), having a score of 5-1 against Djokovic and Federer.

 

[metsman]

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.

If the accepted knowledge is that 2006 is weak, then 15-16 is absolutely weak, probably weaker since no claydal. 2017+ is a new level of weakness.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

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.



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 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.

Sure, all your arguments must be perfectly valid and proper exactly as they are and anyone disagreeing doesn't understand it. Such discussion...

 

[buscemi]

Better question would be who has the higher peak.

I'd still pick Murray. Higher ATP points total, higher Elo rating, and after 2013 Wimbledon was the title holder of 3 of the 5 biggest events (WI, UO, Olympics), plus a final in another (AO), having a score of 5-1 against Djokovic and Federer.

I'd rate Courier from 1991-1992 and 1992-1993 as higher peaks than Murray from 2012-2013. I guess overall I'd say Courier's peak was Indian Wells 1991-Wimbledon 1993: 4 Majors at the French/Australian, finals at the U.S. Open and Wimbledon, the Sunshine Double, back-to-back Rome titles, being ranked #1 in one of the most competitive eras in tennis history. Problem for Murray is lack of real success on clay in 2012-2013.

 

[metsman]

Just saw this on the main page. Man talk about hairsplitting. Though I maintain that among non-ATGs (say below the Becker-Edberg-Wilander class) the number of Slams is in fact a good barometer of relative ability and almost always takes precedence over anything else a one-Slam difference becomes less of an issue and more of a crapshoot when you get to this level. Long story short these two are more or less equal and I don't see much separating them. Put a gun to my head and I'd take Jim cuz I value dominance over consistency, but that's really a matter of preference on my part.

BTW for those of you who are pooh-poohing Courier's ceiling the guy won a whopping 64.3% of his games (both service and return) on clay in '92 and '93. To put it in perspective that's higher than anyone not named Rafael Nadal has managed since '91, and even superior to Rafa's own % in some of his weaker years. And remember, this was on clay where it'd be difficult to target Jim's FH and get him on the run.

You can talk about the Big 3 all you want but it's hard to see Murray putting together such a stellar season (or two) on any surface in the modern era. In fact apart from Rafa the only guys since the '90s I'd give a good chance to topple '92-'93 Courier at RG are Bruguera and Kuerten. Well we don't have to guess in Sergei's case, and it was absolute war in one of the greatest (and underappreciated) finals of the Open era:

And it took less than 3 hours! Say what you will about us non-Gen Z fans but some things were indeed better back then.

Jim had that match, up the break in the 5th, just couldn't keep the pressure on in the 5th set while Bruguera was relentless.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

If the accepted knowledge is that 2006 is weak, then 15-16 is absolutely weak, probably weaker since no claydal. 2017+ is a new level of weakness.

Claydal makes 2006 peculiarly uneven, creating a much stronger comp on clay than elsewhere. Fed's total competition was ok altogether but suffered for lack of consistency.

 

[Lew II]

If the accepted knowledge is that 2006 is weak, then 15-16 is absolutely weak, probably weaker since no claydal. 2017+ is a new level of weakness.

Big3 score against the field until 2014 --> 2181-411 (84.1%)
Big3 score against the field since 2015 --> 795-115 (87.4%)

 

[metsman]

Claydal makes 2006 peculiarly uneven, creating a much stronger comp on clay than elsewhere. Fed's total competition was ok altogether but suffered for lack of consistency.

The consistency isn't a huge deal for me, just that he didn't really face a legit challenger at the 3 majors, someone who came in with the mentality to beat him and could stay with him all the way. I guess you can say the same for 05 Wimby/USO and 07 AO as well, so Fed did face a softer period from 05 Wimby to 07 AO, similar to 14 Wimby to 16 RG.

In general my rough estimation is that 04-06 and 14-16 are similar periods of competition (I think the former is a little better) and 07-09 and 11-13 are similar periods of competition (again former likely tougher). Perhaps Fed was luckier to have that stretch come at the start, but maybe that's actually bad luck, and he also outperformed Djokovic over both. Then of course you get to post prime competition and it's a landslide, which is why I think pretty clearly that Fed had the toughest competition of the 3, and perhaps only 2nd all time to Lendl.

 

[Phoenix1983]

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).

Yes, but the tournament still didn't have the prestige that it has gained in recent years. My point was it's hard to hold it against Courier for not prioritising and winning that tournament.

 

[zagor]

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.

Yeah, I disagree. It's easier when you face vanilla baseliners in homogenized conditions than guys who have games specifically tailored for the surface. There's a reason that it used to be very uncommon to see the same player make deep runs on both grass and clay.

Agassi was a freak in how early he took the ball, none of the big 3 are as good ballstrikers as he was even they're better baseliners overall. I doubt anyone else could have had so much success on real grass from the baseline as Dre did.

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.

I've seen people compare Pete with a clumsy mug like Raonic who isn't fit to carry his gym bag and Murray is frequently brought up as a 10 slam winner in a different era.

 

[zagor]

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.

I'm exaggerating but Murray wasn't really challenging them in slams outside 2012-2013.

 

[zagor]

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.

They're power baseliners that dominate inferior power baseliners in slow, high bouncing conditions.

Younger Sampras actually showed more range of skill if you wanna go down that route.

 

[zagor]

Better question would be who has the higher peak.

I'd still pick Murray. Higher ATP points total, higher Elo rating, and after 2013 Wimbledon was the title holder of 3 of the 5 biggest events (WI, UO, Olympics), plus a final in another (AO), having a score of 5-1 against Djokovic and Federer.

Murray has the higher ELO rating? Damn, I'm convinced.

 

[flutzingitaway]

Watch this please and explain how Courier has a higher peak?

4 slams in less than 2 years for one thing. And contrary to what some might want to insist on Murray does not likely do that in any era.

 

[bhpower]

Murray is both better and greater.

 

[HBK4life]

I’ll take the guy with the bigger serve and
more GS for $500 Alex.

 

[flutzingitaway]

Anyway I think it is Murray overall but reading some comments Courier is being insanely underrated here, so I voted Courier.

 

[Mainad]

Watch this please and explain how Courier has a higher peak?

Andy's movement in that match was incredible. A poignant reminder of what he could do on court before his back and hip started to play up and frustrate him.

 

[Steve0904]

Courier's peak was too short for me. Have to give it to Murray. He did make, I think, 8 other slam finals besides those that he won.

 

[flutzingitaway]

Andy's movement in that match was incredible. A poignant reminder of what he could do on court before his back and hip started to play up and frustrate him.

Yes tennis was truly a Big 4 then, and even a Big 5 with Stan so strong 2013-2017. It became a Big 3 of aging champions of late, and just recently I am not sure what it was. As awful as Covid-19 is for the world, maybe for tennis it hit at the perfect time if it were going to come.

 

[Hitman]

Courier dominated two surfaces. He was also a stronger number one.

Murray arguably has played at a higher level, but I don't think he is greater.

 

[NonP]

Turns out I've already answered this very Q in that thread I linked to earlier, LOL:

What do you think of players who won less slams but still had great performances at slams (runner-up and SF) such as Roddick vs Kafelnikov or Murray vs Courier for exemple?

Short answer:

Kafelnikov or any 2-Slammer > Roddick or any 1-Slammer
Courier = Murray

Long(ish) answer:

Still stand by my earlier comment that 2 beats 1 except when one of the former had a clearly depleted field. The only qualification I'll add is that the calculus changes a bit when the Slam in question was a clear one-off a la ToJo's or Gaudio's, but 2-Slammers are almost by definition immune to this charge. I suppose one could say Kaf's '99 AO was a fluke cuz his nemesis Sampras sat it out, but is that really that much different from Fed's '09 FO where an injured Rafa lost to Soderling, considering an exhausted Pete likely ain't winning the whole thing even if he did compete?

Jim vs. the other Andy is a tad trickier. When you get to this level an extra Slam takes on less significance, and while Jim does have the Slam advantage and IMO a higher peak Ahn-dee can also point to his huge edge in longevity. And both were pretty solid on all surfaces. So I rank 'em more or less equal.

A more difficult call would be, say, Rafter vs. Kuerten, Safin vs. Wawrinka, and the like. 2 vs. 3 is where I'm not so sure an extra Slam would be a decisive advantage. For 1 vs. 2, though? A no-brainer for moi.

Still seems pretty airtight to me. Of course your mileage may vary.

Jim had that match, up the break in the 5th, just couldn't keep the pressure on in the 5th set while Bruguera was relentless.

It really was as tight as they come but like I said in that other thread I do think Bruguera was the superior dirtballer overall. Simply more of a natural, which as you've pointed out has a lot to do with sliding into shots on dirt, and while Jim had good footwork especially on clay for a guy with relatively mediocre mobility Sergei moved like a gazelle (or a "deer," per Pistol in his book). And the Spaniard probably wins the topspin battle, too.

BTW you might recall moi calling (in our group chat) Bruguera's '93 FO run one of the most dominant in history:

Game W/L% - Slam Tournament

Which included the infamous tripple-bagelling of Thierry Champion (who as you may recall was no slouch on terre battue), one of the only five in the Open era (excluding preliminary DC rounds), in addition to 2 more bagels and 5 breadsticks including one dished out to Sampras. Now before anyone dismisses the latter bakery item Pete in '93 posted higher %s of service/return games won on clay than Thiem ever has, and yet somehow the 14-GS champ is pigeonholed as a CC mug while the 27-year-old without a single big CC title to his name (not even a Masters, as zagor pointed out in that thread) is hailed as the second coming of Kuerten who's been stymied only by the Big 3 with the King of Clay awaiting on Court Philippe-Chatrier.

And if you dig deeper '73 Nastase and '77 Vilas never faced an opponent as good as '93 Pistol, let alone peak Courier, and the same could be said of '86 Lendl on his own FO run. Which leaves only Borg and Nadal, and even here you could quibble with the caveat that '81 Bjorn and '12 Rafa did not have to deal with as tough an opponent before the final where in the latter case the runner-up arguably posed a lesser challenge than in '93. (I should perhaps add that Borg didn't have the strongest opposition at '78 and '80 RG either, but here his dominance was so complete the competition factor is besides the point.)

So you could say only three iterations of the two greatest dirtballers in history were clearly superior to Bruguera at '93 RG, and Courier was able to push that Bruguera to his utmost limit. If that doesn't convince you what a formidable clay-courter Courier was I don't know what will.

Yeah, I disagree. It's easier when you face vanilla baseliners in homogenized conditions than guys who have games specifically tailored for the surface. There's a reason that it used to be very uncommon to see the same player make deep runs on both grass and clay.

Agassi was a freak in how early he took the ball, none of the big 3 are as good ballstrikers as he was even they're better baseliners overall. I doubt anyone else could have had so much success on real grass from the baseline as Dre did.

I actually do think the Big 3 would do fine from the baseline in the '90s. Of course Fed probably would come in a lot more often (I agree with @slice serve ace and metsman that '03 was by and large his very best Wimby showing), and Rafa would need to learn to return closer to the baseline, but they're all great movers on grass with enough artillery to do major damage mostly from the baseline at SW19. Think good ol' Data was right to say Lendl would've been better off sticking to his strengths rather than trying to match his peers with S&V. Ditto the Big 3 on the old grass.

They're power baseliners that dominate inferior power baseliners in slow, high bouncing conditions.

Younger Sampras actually showed more range of skill if you wanna go down that route.

Forget younger Sampras. Pistol at the '90s USO showed more variety and skill than anyone today not named Roger Federer ever has:

My fave moments from the final:

I don't know if this clip shows it but in the old CBS broadcast Ashe can be seen shaking his head at the sheer brilliance of this upstart and one of the announcers (not sure if it was Trabert himself) muttering, almost in awe, that he was "running out of adjectives" to describe what the 19-year-old is about to pull off. And of course Agassi himself let out a huge sigh at the onslaught of it all and later said it was "a good old-fashioned street mugging."

 

[metsman]

Turns out I've already answered this very Q in that thread I linked to earlier, LOL:




Still seems pretty airtight to me. Of course your mileage may vary.



It really was as tight as they come but like I said in that other thread I do think Bruguera was the superior dirtballer overall. Simply more of a natural, which as you've pointed out has a lot to do with sliding into shots on dirt, and while Jim had good footwork especially on clay for a guy with relatively mediocre mobility Sergei moved like a gazelle (or a "deer," per Pistol in his book). And the Spaniard probably wins the topspin battle, too.

BTW you might recall moi calling (in our group chat) Bruguera's '93 FO run one of the most dominant in history:

Game W/L% - Slam Tournament

Which included the infamous tripple-bagelling of Thierry Champion (who as you may recall was no slouch on terre battue), one of the only five in the Open era (excluding preliminary DC rounds), in addition to 2 more bagels and 5 breadsticks including one dished out to Sampras. Now before anyone dismisses the latter bakery item Pete in '93 posted higher %s of service/return games won on clay than Thiem ever has, and yet somehow the 14-GS champ is pigeonholed as a CC mug while the 27-year-old without a single big CC title to his name (not even a Masters, as zagor pointed out in that thread) is hailed as the second coming of Kuerten who's been stymied only by the Big 3 with the King of Clay awaiting on Court Philippe-Chatrier.

And if you dig deeper '73 Nastase and '77 Vilas never faced an opponent as good as '93 Pistol, let alone peak Courier, and the same could be said of '86 Lendl on his own FO run. Which leaves only Borg and Nadal, and even here you could quibble with the caveat that '81 Bjorn and '12 Rafa did not have to deal with as tough an opponent before the final where in the latter case the runner-up arguably posed a lesser challenge than in '93. (I should perhaps add that Borg didn't have the strongest opposition at '78 and '80 RG either, but here his dominance was so complete the competition factor is besides the point.)

So you could say only three iterations of the two greatest dirtballers in history were clearly superior to Bruguera at '93 RG, and Courier was able to push that Bruguera to his utmost limit. If that doesn't convince you what a formidable clay-courter Courier was I don't know what will.



I actually do think the Big 3 would do fine from the baseline in the '90s. Of course Fed probably would come in a lot more often (I agree with @slice serve ace and metsman that '03 was by and large his very best Wimby showing), and Rafa would need to learn to return closer to the baseline, but they're all great movers on grass with enough artillery to do major damage mostly from the baseline at SW19. Think good ol' Data was right to say Lendl would've been better off sticking to his strengths rather than trying to match his peers with S&V. Ditto the Big 3 on the old grass.



Forget younger Sampras. Pistol at the '90s USO showed more variety and skill than anyone today not named Roger Federer ever has:

My fave moments from the final:

I definitely wouldn't put any CC too far above Bruguera besides the 2, but I do think that once you take players who are just as comfortable moving on the surface, I think guys like Lendl, Guga, and even Ferrero could bring a bit more heat than he could while being just as relentless and patient. Definitely an open question who the 3rd-8th or so best clay courters of all time are.

Lendl definitely should have been staying back more. He was a sitting duck on those 2nd serves. Perhaps he didn't feel as comfortable in his passing ****s as Borg or Agassi but comfort moving on grass (of which reaction times play a part as well) is almost as important as clay, and I don't think Lendl naturally had it.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Just saw this on the main page. Man talk about hairsplitting. Though I maintain that among non-ATGs (say below the Becker-Edberg-Wilander class) the number of Slams is in fact a good barometer of relative ability and almost always takes precedence over anything else a one-Slam difference becomes less of an issue and more of a crapshoot when you get to this level. Long story short these two are more or less equal and I don't see much separating them. Put a gun to my head and I'd take Jim cuz I value dominance over consistency, but that's really a matter of preference on my part.

BTW for those of you who are pooh-poohing Courier's ceiling the guy won a whopping 64.3% of his games (both service and return) on clay in '92 and '93. To put it in perspective that's higher than anyone not named Rafael Nadal has managed since '91, and even superior to Rafa's own % in some of his weaker years. And remember, this was on clay where it'd be difficult to target Jim's FH and get him on the run.

You can talk about the Big 3 all you want but it's hard to see Murray putting together such a stellar season (or two) on any surface in the modern era. In fact apart from Rafa the only guys since the '90s I'd give a good chance to topple '92-'93 Courier at RG are Bruguera and Kuerten. Well we don't have to guess in Sergei's case, and it was absolute war in one of the greatest (and underappreciated) finals of the Open era:

And it took less than 3 hours! Say what you will about us non-Gen Z fans but some things were indeed better back then.

actually the match was 4 hours. Guess that version isn’t complete. But yeah it’s a pretty underrated match.

 

[Mainad]

Courier dominated two surfaces. He was also a stronger number one.

Murray arguably has played at a higher level, but I don't think he is greater.

I have them as equal. I think Courier is too often underrated on here given his Slam record and time spent at #1.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I just stated a fact. Check post #41.

You stated facts completely without the context. First of all Borg retired at 25, second masters were not a big thing during Borgs or even Sampras era. In the most important metric slams, Sampras and also Borg (despite only playing three until age 25) are way ahead of Murray. Things like semi final losses are no achievements. All in all Murray is way more in Couriers league than in Sampras/Borg league.

 

[buscemi]

It really was as tight as they come but like I said in that other thread I do think Bruguera was the superior dirtballer overall.

It's a close call. Courier and Bruguera each have 2 French titles, another final, and a semifinal, although Courier does have an extra QF. Bruguera won Monte Carlo twice while Courier won Rome twice. Courier is 3-2 against Bruguera on clay, but Bruguera won both of their meetings at the French.

 

[Steffi-forever]

Courier defended both of his titles at the FO and AO in 1992 and 1993.

 

[Deleted member 769694]

Anyway I think it is Murray overall but reading some comments Courier is being insanely underrated here, so I voted Courier.

They werent watching tennis back then.

Could you imagine pusher murray on the fast courts of the 90's?

 

[NonP]

I definitely wouldn't put any CC too far above Bruguera besides the 2, but I do think that once you take players who are just as comfortable moving on the surface, I think guys like Lendl, Guga, and even Ferrero could bring a bit more heat than he could while being just as relentless and patient. Definitely an open question who the 3rd-8th or so best clay courters of all time are.

Lendl definitely should have been staying back more. He was a sitting duck on those 2nd serves. Perhaps he didn't feel as comfortable in his passing ****s as Borg or Agassi but comfort moving on grass (of which reaction times play a part as well) is almost as important as clay, and I don't think Lendl naturally had it.

I'm generally wary of ranking anyone when I've seen only a handful of his/her matches at most and we don't have the usual stats to go by, hence my earlier "since the '90s" caveat.

But since you brought him up I do think Lendl is up there. In his prime Ivan almost certainly approached if not surpassed Courier's 64.3% of games won, and we know he had the firepower, patience and (almost in '81 but later on) endurance to trouble even Borg in a FO final.

Having said that I think Kuerten's ceiling was even higher, in fact probably the highest ever if we're talking only one match in full throttle. Power is pretty much a wash between the two: Guga definitely went for broke a lot more, which is why he remains the most exciting CCer I've seen, but while BH probably goes to him in any setting Lendl bests almost anyone else when he's ripping his FH. (BTW when it comes to FHs in both top-end pace and weight of shot I'd say Ivan is matched only by Pete and Gonzo and surpassed only by Delpo in bulldozer mode.) Endurance is another nonfactor as I don't remember seeing Guga ever get winded. Where Guga holds the decisive edge, I think, is in (you guessed it) movement. The guy simply had more natural feel for dirt, and Guga's long limbs gave him even more deceptively good court coverage which probably overrides Ivan's edge in patience and shot tolerance. I'd also say Guga's serve was a hair or two better if only by virtue of his height. And possibly more clutch! (Or maybe I'm too bowled over by his serving in the '00 YEC final.)

BTW we shouldn't forget Wilander. The guy may not be able to bring the same heat as these two but he was arguably the craftiest of all ATGs and I can definitely see him giving his fellow multi-RG champs and even Borg and Nadal fits with his unpredictable serving and net game, good ol' dinks and slices, and the best defensive lob I've seen (at least among men, with all due respect to Chang). They say the 3-timer would be overpowered in today's game and get spanked by Borg and Rafa who would dominate him in baseline exchanges and pass him left and right if he dared come to the net. Sorry, I don't buy it.

Having said that I still would put Ivan and Guga over Mats and also Bruguera. Speaking of whom I gotta say I doubt Ferrero would win the FH battle with his compatriot when Sergei could probably match Rafa in sheer spin with poly (if perhaps not quite in weight of shot). Also get this: JCF's CC peak was arguably '01, when he won Rome, 40.3% of his return games (the only time he cracked the magic 40% mark) and 60.8% of his overall games (another career best)... only to get destroyed by Kuerten at RG. Granted this was an en-fuego Guga, but still.

But even if JCF could somehow overpower Bruguera at times this is clay we're talking about, where consistency usually wins over aggression (unless you happen to be a physical freak like Guga) and/or flashes of brilliance in the long run. The '93 final was but one example among many, and while there are exceptions like Fed's win over Novak in the '11 SF or Verkerk's almost entire '03 run we all know what happened in the end. Still like Sergei's chances against almost anyone, though there would be some days when any of these champs catch fire and make it difficult for their peers including Borg and Rafa.

And since I've bloviated this much I'll give my all-time CC list a try. Here goes, since the mid-'70s only (don't feel comfortable going before that):

1) Nadal
2) Borg
3) Lendl and Kuerten (tie)
5) Wilander
6) Bruguera
7) Courier
8) Djokovic
9) Vilas*, Muster and Federer (tie)
12) Agassi and Ferrero (tie)
14) Panatta and Wawrinka (tie)
16) Chang
17) Kafelnikov and Costa (tie)
19) Gómez and Moyá (tie)
21) Noah
22) Gaudio

Notes/explanations:

• Nadal is ahead of Borg purely by virtue of longevity, but I also think Rafa wins the hypothetical matchup by a hair. I've long believed that Borg would beat him on every surface but clay largely due to his (generally) superior serve, but that happens to be the very reason why I think he'd fall short on dirt where his big advantage wouldn't do much damage. And while I probably prefer his BH I also think the latter's running BH is better by a fair margin, which would come in especially handy on clay. Oh and while Borg may be slightly faster and quicker Rafa's edge in power probably cancels each other out. Ergo the tiny overall advantage to Nadal.
• Think Sergei might be up there with Mats, but 3 (plus 2 more finals) beats 2.
• I actually think Novak vs. Fed prime for prime would be pretty close, but I like Djoko's rock-solid consistency better against the rest of the field, hence his higher ranking.
• Vilas is the trickiest pick here and could easily be placed higher or lower. I'm giving the Argie much benefit of the doubt cuz it's very arguable whether he bags a FO without WTT, but his GW% on his '77 run while inflated was still impressive and he gets extra credit for his legit USO title that same year (but only a little cuz I consider terre battue and Har-Tru fundamentally different surfaces).
• JCF had the potential to move up the ladder, but so did Guga and we can only go by what they did achieve.
• Both Panatta and Wawrinka aren't typical dirtballers by any means, but Adriano gets a big boost for being the only one to dethrone prime Borg at RG (his other W in '73 is fairly meaningless) while Stan's firepower gives him more upside than other champs with preferable stats.
• Not only does Chang have an extra final over all of his lower-ranked peers, his bigger bag of tricks and almost pathological resolve would see him through many a match against superior opponents on paper, as we saw during his '89 run and in the beginning of his '95 final vs. Muster.
• Kafelnikov is another atypical FO champ, but his '96 victory with the loss of only 1 set was impressive and while we can talk matchups nobody else troubled prime Guga as much on his later runs.
• Gomez is notorious for being the chief beneficiary of Lendl's absence from the '90 FO, but his win over Agassi was well deserved and his FH and Moya's push them over Gaudio who may be more of a dirtballer but lacks a big weapon of his own.
• Noah's serious technical deficiencies which later got exposed (kudos to Datacipher for his astute analysis) probably should earn him a co-bottom spot with Gaudio, but he does have a whopping 4 extra QFs. Plus that service motion!

actually the match was 4 hours. Guess that version isn’t complete. But yeah it’s a pretty underrated match.

Heh I shoulda figured. In my defense Bruguera's ultra-quick time lapse between points reminds me of the old-timers, so 3 hrs felt somewhat plausible.

And underappreciated, not underrated which implies a fair amount of discussion to begin with. Their '93 tussle simply isn't talked about much cuz it lacks a marquee name... although it was most likely better than any of the FO finals since and quite possibly the very best of the Open era! (I happened to watch this and the infamous '84 Lendl-Mac final not far apart from each other years back and the '93 marathon struck me as superior in almost everything but variety of styles and historic value.)

It's a close call. Courier and Bruguera each have 2 French titles, another final, and a semifinal, although Courier does have an extra QF. Bruguera won Monte Carlo twice while Courier won Rome twice. Courier is 3-2 against Bruguera on clay, but Bruguera won both of their meetings at the French.

Yes and I think those two RG Ws for Bruguera clinches it. Jim was an all-timer whose game was well suited for clay, whereas Sergei was a natural dirtballer who despite his well-known laziness put it together for his two runs.

 

[buscemi]

1) Nadal
2) Borg
3) Lendl and Kuerten (tie)
5) Wilander
6) Bruguera
7) Courier
8) Djokovic
9) Vilas*, Muster and Federer (tie)
12) Agassi
13) Panatta and Wawrinka (tie)
15) Chang
16) Kafelnikov and Costa (tie)
18) Gómez and Moyá (tie)
20) Noah
21) Gaudio

Nice list. Was Ferrero an accidental omission?

 

[NonP]

Nice list. Was Ferrero an accidental omission?

D'oh! Yeah it was. Thx for that and will correct after a quick dinner.

 

[metsman]

I'm generally wary of ranking anyone from before the earlier decades when I've seen only a handful of his/her matches at most and we don't have the usual stats to go by, hence my earlier "since the '90s" caveat.

But since you've brought him up I do think Lendl is up there. In his prime Ivan almost certainly approached if not surpassed Courier's 64.3% of games won, and we know he had the firepower, patience and (almost in '81 but later on) endurance to trouble even Borg in a RG final.

Having said that I think Kuerten's ceiling was even higher, in fact probably the highest ever if we're talking only one match in full throttle. Power is pretty much a wash between the two: Guga definitely went for broke a lot more, which is why he remains the most exciting CCer I've seen, but while BH probably goes to him in any setting Lendl bests almost anyone else when he's ripping his FH. (BTW when it comes to FHs in both top-end pace and weight of shot I'd say Ivan is matched only by Pete and Gonzo and surpassed only by Delpo in bulldozer mode.) Endurance is another nonfactor as I don't remember seeing Guga ever get winded. Where Guga holds the decisive edge, I think, is in (you guessed it) movement. The guy simply had more natural feel for dirt, and Guga's long limbs gave him even more deceptively good court coverage which probably overrides Ivan's edge in patience and shot tolerance. I'd also say Guga's serve was a hair or two better if only by virtue of his height. And possibly more clutch! (Or maybe I'm too bowled over by his serving in the '00 YEC final.)

BTW we shouldn't forget Wilander. The guy may not be able to bring the same heat as these two but he was arguably the craftiest of all ATGs and I can definitely see him giving his fellow multi-RG champs and even Borg and Nadal fits with his unpredictable serving and net game, good ol' dinks and slices, and the best defensive lob I've ever seen (at least among men, with all due respect to Chang). They say the 3-timer would be overpowered in today's game and get spanked by Borg and Rafa who would dominate him in baseline exchanges and pass him left and right if he dared come to the net. Sorry, I don't buy it.

Having said that I still would put Ivan and Guga over Mats and also Bruguera. Speaking of whom I must say I doubt Ferrero would win the FH battle with his compatriot when Sergei could probably match Rafa in sheer spin with poly (though perhaps not quite in weight of shot). Also get this: JCF's CC peak was arguably '01, when he won Rome, 40.3% of his return games (the only time he cracked the magic 40% mark) and 60.8% of his overall games (another career best)... only to get destroyed by Kuerten at RG. Granted this was an en-fuego Guga, but still.

But even if JCF could somehow overpower Bruguera at times this is clay we're talking about, where consistency usually wins over aggression (unless you happen to be a physical freak like Guga) or flashes of brilliance in the long run. The '93 final was but one example among many, and while there are exceptions like Fed's win over Novak in the '11 SF or Verkerk's almost entire '03 run we all know what happened in the end. Still like Sergei's chances against almost anyone, though there would be some days when any of these champs catch fire and make it difficult for their peers including Borg and Rafa.

And since I've bloviated this much I'll give my all-time CC list a try. Here goes, since the mid-'70s only (don't feel comfortable going before that):

1) Nadal
2) Borg
3) Lendl and Kuerten (tie)
5) Wilander
6) Bruguera
7) Courier
8) Djokovic
9) Vilas*, Muster and Federer (tie)
12) Agassi
13) Panatta and Wawrinka (tie)
15) Chang
16) Kafelnikov and Costa (tie)
18) Gómez and Moyá (tie)
20) Noah
21) Gaudio

Notes/explanations:

• Think Sergei might be up there with Mats, but 3 (plus 2 more finals) beats 2.
• I actually think Novak vs. Fed prime for prime would be pretty close, but I like Djoko's rock-solid consistency better against the rest of the field, hence his higher ranking.
• Vilas is the trickiest pick here and could easily be placed higher or lower. That said I'm giving the Argie much benefit of the doubt cuz it's very arguable whether he bags a FO without WTT, but his GW% on his '77 run was up there and he gets extra credit for his legit USO title that same year (but only a little cuz I consider terre battue and Har-Tru fundamentally different surfaces).
• Both Panatta and Wawrinka aren't typical dirtballers by any means, but Adriano gets a big boost for being the only one to dethrone prime Borg at RG (his other W in '73 is fairly meaningless) while I think Stan's firepower would make him dangerous against almost anyone.
• Not only does Chang have an extra final over all of his lower-ranked peers, his bigger bag of tricks and almost pathological resolve would see him through many a match against superior opponents on paper, as we saw during his '89 run and in the start of his '95 final vs. Muster.
• Kafelnikov is another atypical FO champ, but his '96 victory with the loss of only 1 set was impressive and while we can talk matchups nobody else troubled prime Guga as much on his later runs.
• Gomez is notorious for being the chief beneficiary of Lendl's absence from the '90 FO, but his win over Agassi was well deserved and his FH and Moya's push them over Gaudio who may be more of a dirtballer but lacks a big weapon of his own.
• Noah's serious technical deficiencies which later got exposed (kudos to Datacipher for his astute analysis) probably should earn him a co-bottom spot with Gaudio, but he does have a whopping 4 extra QFs. Plus that service motion!

Heh I shoulda figured. In my defense Bruguera's ultra-quick time lapse between points reminds me of the old-timers, so 3 hrs was somewhat plausible.

And underappreciated, not underrated which implies a fair amount of discussion to begin with. Their '93 tussle simply isn't talked about much cuz it lacks a marquee name... although it was most likely better than any of the FO finals since and quite possibly the very best of the Open era! (I happened to watch this and the infamous '84 Lendl-Mac final not far apart from each other years back and the '93 marathon struck me as superior in almost everything but variety of styles and historic value.)



Yes and I think those two RG Ws for Bruguera clinches it. Jim was an all-timer whose game was well suited for clay, whereas Sergei was a natural dirtballer who despite his well-known laziness put it together for his two runs.

That's a pretty good list. I'd move Federer up into Djokovic's tier and I would put Ferrero in a similar range. I think 2004 Ferrero might have ended up being the best Ferrero on dirt but we didn't get to see it. Still, not too many guys have topped what he did from 00-03. Definitely did put in disappointing performances though in 01 and 02 which takes away from it, even if Kuerten was likely too good in 01. But as we saw in the 00 RG semi (first time playing RG) and 01 Rome, he had what it took to battle Guga. I think it's overlooked that Ferrero's whole resume came from his first 4 gos at RG. That's very impressive and speaks to his natural ability on the surface and it's possible he could have gotten even better.

Also, hypothetically I could see Federer's best days on clay being able to go against just about anyone, even Borg, but yeah he's not likely going to have the day to day consistency. But when he's serving well he's just really tough to beat anywhere. Movement wise, he's actually very natural on clay, better than Novak imo, but he definitely lacks discipline/patience and in general Federer just hates high bounce, not just on the BH which is the obvious weakness on clay, but the FH too because he likes accelerating up on the ball to an extreme degree (which Nadal does too, but Nadal gives himself more time whereas Fed likes to take it earlier and step in). No surprise how great Federer was in the low bouncing Hamburg conditions, maybe the best. It wasn't the speed of clay that really bothered him, but the bounce I think. Novak is not as natural moving, but the high bounce suits him very well and obviously his BH is just far better on the surface. He does run into trouble though trying to hit through the court. That peak Fed FH did a ton of damage on clay with its heaviness, Novak doesn't have a weapon like that.

 

[flutzingitaway]

They werent watching tennis back then.

Could you imagine pusher murray on the fast courts of the 90's?

Haha that is a bit harsh but I sure tell you one thing. Nadal, Murray, and even Djokovic would all have a harder time on the faster conditions of the 90s. They have all admitted so themselves. They are very happy to all be born into yes a tough era in the sense there are several GOATs, but of slower court conditions that favor the baseliners, heavy topspin, grinders, and players with their grips, etc...nearly everything they each posses in their games. Nadal and Djokovic I doubt are even double slam winners anymore, although Nadal would still win a ton of RG titles in any era.

 

[flutzingitaway]

And since I've bloviated this much I'll give my all-time CC list a try. Here goes, since the mid-'70s only (don't feel comfortable going before that):

1) Nadal
2) Borg
3) Lendl and Kuerten (tie)
5) Wilander
6) Bruguera
7) Courier
8) Djokovic
9) Vilas*, Muster and Federer (tie)
12) Agassi and Ferrero (tie)
14) Panatta and Wawrinka (tie)
16) Chang
17) Kafelnikov and Costa (tie)
19) Gómez and Moyá (tie)
21) Noah
22) Gaudio

There are only two real problems I have with this.

One tied with Lendl is too high for Kuerten. I don't think he should even be above Wilander probably. Yes he was a special performer at RG and a great big match player on clay. His peak level on clay was great. The problem is his consistency on clay was horrible for a clay great, his win percentage I think is 69% or something like that. Significantly lower than Federer and many 1 time RG or some even 0 RG winners. I think he belongs at only #5, and no higher than #4 for sure. I see him significnatly beneath Lendl who was both more dominant and more consistent in his prime years on clay, and had more longevity on the surface too. Kuerten isn't comparable in anything except peak playing level and each having 3 RG titles.

Secondly I kind of question you having Muster so far behind Courier and Bruguera. As someone who followed the 90s intensely, while Courier and Bruguera have better RG records, Muster was the utterly dominant clay courter in 95 and 96 in a way Courier and Bruguera never were. Although Courier of 91-93 comes fairly close, imparticular 92. Brugeura not even close, he didn't even come into RG a a top 2 favorite either time he won. Not sure I would have him ahead of them or not, but he has to be right with them, directly behind at worst.

Also lastly Vilas is one of the most overrated ever. He barely got games off Borg on clay. Federer was more competitive vs Nadal by a huge margin to what Vilas was to Borg. He padded his clay resume mostly with small wins. Muster did too, but was still by far the one to beat in 95 and 96, which Vilas never really was. His RG record is ok, a bit better than Muster atleast, but not great. No way I have him tied with people like Federer and Muster. I would not have him in my top 10. I might have him even behind Ferrero honestly, despite Ferrero not having a clear edge in any stat. I am sure prime for prime Ferrero would win more often than not vs Vilas though.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Courier's backhand, like Edberg's forehand, was one of those strokes that caused people to underrate it through sheer ugliness. Whilst it was a very limited stroke, it was exceptionally reliable and very good for returning. It was also very stable for hitting down the line, which helped him feed his forehand. His backhand slice, possibly even uglier, had a very nasty corkscrew that players regularly struggled with.

The accepted wisdom that Courier's main weakness was his backhand worked in his favour for several years, as players would do everything in their power to target it. Courier had no issue camping out in the backhand corner and bunting the ball back, waiting to pounce on the run-around forehand with his exceptional fitness.

To get an idea of what I mean, take a look at this footage of the Indian Wells final between Courier and Guy Forget in 1991. Courier won the match, but focus on the points where Forget gets Courier on the run. You will see that it is generally the shot to Courier's running forehand that draws the weak reply - not the backhand.

This weakness was exploited to full effect by Marc Rosset at Barcelona in 1992, dumping him out in the third round 6-4 6-2 6-1. It was an absurd result as Courier had looked unstoppable that year, especially on clay.

Off-topic, but Forget's topspin lob on the point starting around 1:04 is beautiful!

 

[NonP]

That's a pretty good list. I'd move Federer up into Djokovic's tier and I would put Ferrero in a similar range. I think 2004 Ferrero might have ended up being the best Ferrero on dirt but we didn't get to see it. Still, not too many guys have topped what he did from 00-03. Definitely did put in disappointing performances though in 01 and 02 which takes away from it, even if Kuerten was likely too good in 01. But as we saw in the 00 RG semi (first time playing RG) and 01 Rome, he had what it took to battle Guga. I think it's overlooked that Ferrero's whole resume came from his first 4 gos at RG. That's very impressive and speaks to his natural ability on the surface and it's possible he could have gotten even better.

Also, hypothetically I could see Federer's best days on clay being able to go against just about anyone, even Borg, but yeah he's not likely going to have the day to day consistency. But when he's serving well he's just really tough to beat anywhere. Movement wise, he's actually very natural on clay, better than Novak imo, but he definitely lacks discipline/patience and in general Federer just hates high bounce, not just on the BH which is the obvious weakness on clay, but the FH too because he likes accelerating up on the ball to an extreme degree (which Nadal does too, but Nadal gives himself more time whereas Fed likes to take it earlier and step in). No surprise how great Federer was in the low bouncing Hamburg conditions, maybe the best. It wasn't the speed of clay that really bothered him, but the bounce I think. Novak is not as natural moving, but the high bounce suits him very well and obviously his BH is just far better on the surface. He does run into trouble though trying to hit through the court. That peak Fed FH did a ton of damage on clay with its heaviness, Novak doesn't have a weapon like that.

Did not see your reply before updating my list with a place for Ferrero (tie w/Agassi) and an extra note on Rafa vs. Borg. Again I'm wary of placing Ferrero higher based on further potential, but good point about his RG success almost from the get-go. Still Guga has him beat even there.

FWIW I actually agree that Fed's got better footwork than Novak even on clay (I'm with those that say Djoko's sliding even on hard is to make up for that slight but real gap). And of course Fed serving the lights out would be tough for anyone, as Nole found out that day. But then I could argue Pete serving well would be tough anywhere, too (as Jim himself found out in '96). Actually let's take it further: Moose once called Verkerk's '03 run perhaps the finest offensive display he's seen on clay, which is saying something cuz our resident statistician (at least until @krosero comes back) is not prone to hyperbole and has seen and analyzed more tennis than almost any of us. You might remember this, since you gave it a like and posted in the same thread later:

Rewatching some of his matches at 2003 Roland Garros..I think this run may have been the most impressive offensive tennis I've seen there(more than soderling or wawrinka)
He hit 112 aces in 6 matches. Hit close to 100 winners vs Moyà in the QF and lost serve only twice in 5 sets! Hit like 75 winners vs coria in the semis. It's not easy to get balls past him. And the courts weren't fast that year, there were pretty rainy and overcast days throughout. somehow, in these conditions verkerk was able to Play like he was on a fast hardcourt. Shame he laid an egg in the final, I guess that's how he's ultimately remembered today(and posters cite his being in the final as a sign of how weak that time was or something)

And he went on to hit 12 aces in the final which gave him 124 for the tourney, at 17.7/match and 4.8/set. For comparison Pete in '96 posted "only" 15.3/match and 3.8/set (hat tip to @slice serve ace), which tells you what a big weapon Verkerk was wielding that fortnight. It's quite possible nobody has ever hit such a high # of aces and winners at RG, which got Coria in arguably his best form (he won 82.0% and 46.1% of service and return games that year, both career bests) blown off the court in the SF.

But we know what happened when he faced JCF in the final. Of course Verkerk is hardly the only non-Slammer to catch fire before flaming out in the final round, a description clearly not applicable to Fed, but my point here is not that Fed would've somehow pulled a Verkerk in '09 vs. the same Ferrero - though that's not entirely implausible as FCF won 59.6% of his games on clay in '03 vs. Fed's 58.2% without DC stats (59.3% with) in '09 - but rather that maintaining such a level of aggression is pretty much impossible on terre battue unless you happen to be a Panatta or Noah who's spent years honing your net rushing that allows you to wait your turn unlike most S&Vers and attack at the earliest opportunity at the same time.

That's why I like to say dirtballing is almost a different game where the usual rules of fast-court tennis no longer apply. And here's the final kicker: Fed has cracked the 60%-GW benchmark only once on clay in his competitive years ('05, unless you also count '03 when he won 60.2% largely thanks to Munich and Rome), as opposed to Novak's five in '08, '09, '11, '14 and '15. Only Rafa has done it more often since '91, and while Nole doesn't have an exceptional average like Jim and Sergei in their best seasons it's that rock-solid consistency which clinches Novak over Fed for me.

Of course you could say this is borderline hairsplitting, but unlike Courier vs. Murray these two have more or less played each other in their prime, if not necessarily at their peak. And we're also dealing with a smaller set of parameters. Still prefer Nole to Fed but I can see why you and others think they're pretty much tied.

There are only two real problems I have with this....

You mean three. Let me address them one by one:

1) I personally don't care much about win % or smaller tournaments (yes, including the Masters) as long as the player can bring his best to the Slams. Of course reasonable people will disagree.

2) Put bluntly Muster began dominating after/because both Courier and Bruguera had declined. Also Sergei and Jim to a lesser extent weren't the type of players who could excel day in day out like Muster. They were more like Wilander and Wawrinka who liked to save themselves for the majors. Their respective records at RG vs. the other events are testaments to that admittedly crude dichotomy.

At this point you might point to Muster's convincing H2H vs. Bruguera, but they never met at RG nor did their primes really coincide. That has as much to do with Sergei's half-assing non-RG events as with Thomas' superior endurance and fighting spirit (and unusual ability to handle high bounces for a guy his size, yes). And as I elaborated earlier Sergei's '93 FO run was one of the most dominant in history, and Jim's 64.3% of games won in '92 and '93 exceeds Muster's 62.0% in '95 by a fair margin (FYI a 2.3% difference would translate into about a 4.6% in service or return games won, which especially in the latter case would be quite decisive). I'm pretty sure either of these two would get the better of Muster at RG prime for prime.

3) Again I do find Vilas a very tricky player to rank for the reasons you gave. But 74.9% of games won at RG is no joke, regardless of competition, and his 3 extra finals and 5 QFs spread out over 11 years are hard to overlook. That's actually quite a bit better than Muster's FO record.

But I'm really not comfortable placing Vilas anywhere. Panatta, too. Maybe I should just exclude them in my next update.

 

[travlerajm]

2 most important categories: Majors: Courier: 4; Murray: 3; Weeks at #1: Courier: 58; Murray: 41.

In turn, Murray leads in most secondary categories, but that's like saying one car looks cooler and runs better while the other car has better cup holders, a better glove compartment, etc.

It was tough on Murray to play with Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic, but Courier also played in a brutal era in the early 1990s. As we kind of established in the other thread, it's really tough to argue that Murray would have won more than 3-4 Majors if he were born in 1970 like Courier.

Good post. Can I change my vote? I think I should have voted for Courier.

 

[Lew II]

Matches played vs opponents with Elo rating >2400:

Murray 57
Courier 3



Maybe history will remember Courier as greater but Murray was the better player.

 

[travlerajm]

Weeks at #1 is a horrendous stat cause it's so affected by competition. You can have the same results and be between #1-4 dependign on competition if you're nor particularly dominant. That's literally double punishment for playing in strongest, most top heavy era of men's tennis.

Also, Slams are the highest variance stat cause they have the lowest sampe size, and Murray murders Courier in every other stat. Taking #1 time as an important stat by definition requires ignoring all context.

I agree with you. But just as Murray “gets punished” in slam and #1 stats by playing in same era as Big3, Courier is handicapped in the secondary stats by peaking in early 90s, when there were many really good players, unlike 2016, which arguably had the weakest field ever. 1992 year end top 10 list looks pretty good compared to 2016.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Didn't go through the whole thread and don't know if anybody has brought this up already but even in his time, Courier got scant credit for his achievements. He became like a link between the Becker/Lendl/Edberg era and the Sampras era. By the time Sampras began dominating the tour, Courier had begun to recede and would all but disappear over the next couple of years. This meant that he was also seen as nothing more than the third wheel in the American juggernaut of 90s tennis. After Sampras, after Andre, then Courier.

Whereas with Murray, him being a Brit has always cast a halo over his achievements and inflated them, as worthy as they are. Of course Brit tennis fans will strenuously object to this but the contrast is clear between how Murray was and is discussed and how Courier was in his time. With Courier, it was, oh he was never as good as Sampras and Agassi. With Murray, it is always, look he won so much in spite of Big Three, look at what he would have done in a different time. Even Agassi has contributed to this kind of thinking. Murray grasping the greatness he seemed predestined to achieve became a national mission of sorts for Britain and tennis lovers worldwide were invited to participate in this mission. This goodwill has the effect of distorting favourably his achievements and where he stands in the pantheon.

I could maybe be persuaded that Murray is indeed better than Courier but not by a huge margin. Not like, oh Murray is way better than Courier, lol dude, how can you even compare. Eh no, you can compare. One tough US Open win and two relatively easy Wimbledons vis a vis two RGs in incredibly deep clay court fields? Sorry, maybe you should reflect, the choice is not so obvious as recency bias might suggest. I would at least grant that Courier got lucky with facing tons of net rushers at RG 91 but in 92, he beat Muster in 2nd round and Medvedev in R4. At AO 93, he beat Edberg in the final and Stich in the semi. You can't tell me that is somehow easier than, um, Raonic and Berdych at W 2016.

 

[Red Rick]

I've seen people compare Pete with a clumsy mug like Raonic who isn't fit to carry his gym bag and Murray is frequently brought up as a 10 slam winner in a different era.

Well the first one is a ******** troll you should just ignore. As for the 2nd, that's probably pretty small minority. I myself wouldn't go that far, though I also don't really see how Murray is that much worse than Agassi.

 

[Lew II]

I agree with you. But just as Murray “gets punished” in slam and #1 stats by playing in same era as Big3, Courier is handicapped in the secondary stats by peaking in early 90s, when there were many really good players, unlike 2016, which arguably had the weakest field ever. 1992 year end top 10 list looks pretty good compared to 2016.

Big3 made the field look bad.

The top5 of 2015 (Big4 + Stan) has won more Slams (62) than a hypothetical top10 made only of ATGs winners of 6 Slams each (total 60 titles).

For an objective analysis one should also compare the ranking points rather than just names. But the ranking system has changed, so I'll try with this:

Average of the 10 highest win percentages in the years Courier ended top5:

1991 - 75.1
1992 - 74.4
1993 - 75.3

average: 74.9

Average of the 10 highest win percentages in the years Murray ended top5:

2008 - 76.4
2009 - 77.5
2010 - 75.4
2011 - 77.9
2012 - 78.1
2013 - 76.5
2015 - 77.8
2016 - 76.4

average: 77.0

Murray faced arguably stronger competition and for way more years.

 

[Sysyphus]

Matches played vs opponents with Elo rating >2400:

Murray 57
Courier 3



Maybe history will remember Courier as greater but Murray was the better player.

As the creator of the Elo rating system rightly pointed out, you cannot use Elo this way, because it makes absolutely no judgments about the absolute skills of players, only the relative distribution of dominance within a particular field at a given time.

If I were to make a sufficiently large pool of amateur players that competed against each other, some of them might reach the same Elo as Djokovic. That would tell us absolutely nothing interesting.

 

[Lew II]

As the creator of the Elo rating system rightly pointed out, you cannot use Elo this way, because it makes absolutely no judgments about the absolute skills of players, only the relative distribution of dominance within a particular field at a given time.

If I were to make a sufficiently large pool of amateur players that competed against each other, some of them might reach the same Elo as Djokovic. That would tell us absolutely nothing interesting.

This is the Elo in ATP pro tournaments. What does it have to do with amateurs?

 

[Sysyphus]

Matches vs Elo >2400 in Slam finals/semifinals:

Murray 17
Courier 0

Lol

Lew gets a rational explanation for why what he's doing is stupid. So what does Lew do? He does it some more, without offering any justification for why it's not stupid.

The sad thing here is that I agree that Murray > Courier. I just wish people wouldn't argue the case with such fallacious reasons.

 

[Red Rick]

As the creator of the Elo rating system rightly pointed out, you cannot use Elo this way, because it makes absolutely no judgments about the absolute skills of players, only the relative distribution of dominance within a particular field at a given time.

If I were to make a sufficiently large pool of amateur players that competed against each other, some of them might reach the same Elo as Djokovic. That would tell us absolutely nothing interesting.

No it's evidently clear Djokovic couldn't beat the 10th best chess player at ze tennis.

 

[Lew II]

Lol

Lew gets a rational explanation for why what he's doing is stupid. So what does Lew do? He does it some more, without offering any justification for why it's not stupid.

The sad thing here is that I agree that Murray > Courier. I just wish people wouldn't argue the case with such fallacious reasons.

I edited my post.

 

[Sysyphus]

This is the Elo in ATP pro tournaments. What does it have to do with amateurs?

The same point stands, obviously.

Courier's field and Murray's field are two separate fields, a couple of decades apart. Elo itself makes absolutely zero claims about the absolute skill level in either field. It only measures the distribution of *relative* dominance *within* a field.