If Wawrinka manages to win slam #4, do you think many would prefer Stan's career over Murrays?

Would Stan having 4 slams be viewed by many as better than Murray's career?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

Aussie Darcy

Bionic Poster
Was thinking about this earlier and how so many people on this site treat slams as more important than everything else and I thought, if Stan won another slam, he'd overtake Murray in the slam count. Murray of course has accomplished so much more (don't come for me Mainad!) including winning the 2016 WTF, becoming #1, winning a bunch of Masters and far more slam finals.

But does anyone think that perhaps Murray or even tennis fans and commentators would value Stan's career more? Does all Murray accomplished outweigh a potential 4th slam for Stan?
 
16 titles vs 46
521 vs 673 matches won
number one

And won the single most important match against djok in the wtf final to take #1. Most important single match of all time maybe
 
Those who think nothing matters but Slams will obviously opt for Stan.

Those who think that whole career achievements should be taken into account (like me) will obviously opt for Murray given that his achievements are so much more full and varied.

I do think slam wins are most important by far, but there are limits. Given their overall careers Wawrinka would need 5 majors for me to even think of a comparision of the two.
 
Murray saved The Tennis for an entire country, actually for the entire UK. He was literally The Messiah for the country that practically invented the game.

Wawrinka wasn't even the best Swiss player of his time.

In terms of cultural impact and legacy in their home countries, Murray's is so far beyond Wawrinka's that it isn't even worth comparing.
 
Was thinking about this earlier and how so many people on this site treat slams as more important than everything else and I thought, if Stan won another slam, he'd overtake Murray in the slam count. Murray of course has accomplished so much more (don't come for me Mainad!) including winning the 2016 WTF, becoming #1, winning a bunch of Masters and far more slam finals.

But does anyone think that perhaps Murray or even tennis fans and commentators would value Stan's career more? Does all Murray accomplished outweigh a potential 4th slam for Stan?
Stan Wawrinka
Career Prizemoney: $34M
Net Worth: $16M

Andy Murray
Career Prizemoney: $62M
Net Worth: $100M

I think Muzz is probably okay with his situation.
 
Stan Wawrinka
Career Prizemoney: $34M
Net Worth: $16M

Andy Murray
Career Prizemoney: $62M
Net Worth: $100M

I think Muzz is probably okay with his situation.

I suspect Wawrinka would be entirely comfortable with it too. Anything know of something that Wawrinka can't do because he has $84 million less than Murray?
 
Nah,I'd still give it to Muzza for sure. Even 5-3 I'd say it's about even unless the 5th is Wimbledon giving him the career slam
 
I suspect Wawrinka would be entirely comfortable with it too. Anything know of something that Wawrinka can't do because he has $84 million less than Murray?

Well, he hasn't taken the #1 ranking from any of the Big 3 (or even #2 for that matter) and, outside of the Slams, hasn't won anything of significance apart from 2014 Monte Carlo.
 
Stan would have to do more (a lot more) to pass Murray on my list. He'd have to win 5-6 slams with the career slam for me to put him above Andy. Despite the 3 slams, Murray also won 45 titles, 2 Olympic gold medals, 14 Masters, WTF, Davis Cup, and finished as a year end number one.
 
No! Though Wawa would be considered an equal to Courier. Him never being No1 and winning other major tournies (such as Masters and WTF) hurts his legacy. Same tier, but Murray still considered a smidgin above both Courier and Stan.
 
The whiskey has worn off and I would like to change my vote...

I voted for Stan because 4 Slams is greater than 3. However, when talking about the better career, aside from his 2 Wimbledon and 1 US Open titles, Murray was in 6 other Slam finals, won the World Tour Finals, was #1, and won 2 Olympic gold medals and a Davis Cup. All that, plus his 46 tour singles titles overall is almost 3 times as many as Stan. So basically, it's a landslide that Murray's career is better. But if Stan got a 4th Slam, that would be an amazing accomplishment.
 
I suspect Wawrinka would be entirely comfortable with it too. Anything know of something that Wawrinka can't do because he has $84 million less than Murray?
Well, for one thing Murray occasionally charters a private jet when his tour schedule doesn't properly line up with commercial flights. At $100K+ a pop, that's not something that's available to someone like Wawrinka.

$100m is the starting point for serious wealth, and the lifestyle differences with someone worth $10-20M are significant.
 
Well, for one thing Murray occasionally charters a private jet when his tour schedule doesn't properly line up with commercial flights. At $100K+ a pop, that's not something that's available to someone like Wawrinka.

$100m is the starting point for serious wealth, and the lifestyle differences with someone worth $10-20M are significant.

Yep, that about covers it. If Wawrinka were to have no future income and the scheduling anomalies of airlines require him to charter 160 flights he'll wind up in penury. I don't think we've hit on one that would particularly bother Wawrinka at this point.
 
There’s a difference between being marketable and tennis skills. All you who are purely looking at net worth aren’t making realistic comparisons.

IMO Stan peeked much later in his careers. I don’t think he reach his potential until he started working with Norman. One can only imagine had that partnership forged sooner, the outcome might be very different. Also, I give the edge to Stan simple because he was able to win French. Whether Nadal was in the mix that year or not, the win in itself is a big accomplishment given the window of opportunity to win was so narrow. Only a very select few have accomplish such feat. If anything, Murray under achieved and Stan over achieved with the opportunities given.
 
Yep, that about covers it. If Wawrinka were to have no future income and the scheduling anomalies of airlines require him to charter 160 flights he'll wind up in penury. I don't think we've hit on one that would particularly bother Wawrinka at this point.
You asked for an example and I gave you one. It is not the sum total of advantages, which are numerous.

Your attitude displays a poor understanding of how wealth works. $16m net wealth at 5% return is $800k a year before taxes - a tidy sum to be sure, but a long way from the $5m Murray would generate.

What that income difference represents in terms of financial freedom, insulation from market fluctuations, further wealth building, etc. is massive. It’s what separates the super rich from the merely wealthy.
 
No, because ‘many’ implies the everyday fan and the first Brit to win Wimby since 1936 is enough propaganda to neuter a werewolf during a full moon. It won’t be enough for Mainad either. However, I think all of us can agree Wawrinka has gotten more out of his talent than Murray. (I of course, am a huge staminal fan, and have even written poetry about him.)

 
I believe those "net worth" sites are pretty inaccurate. According to a Forbes magazine article in 2017, Wawrinka was pulling in endorsement money of around $12 million a year on top of his prize money. Even if he didn't start pulling that level of endorsement money until after he won his first Slam in 2014, if he made that for the past 5 years, that would be another $60,000,000 in addition to his $35,000,000 in prize money. Given this, I'm pretty sure he's earned more than $100,000,000 lifetime and has a net worth of at least around half of that amount. Therefore, that $16,000,000 estimate seems way too low.
 
I believe those "net worth" sites are pretty inaccurate. According to a Forbes magazine article in 2017, Wawrinka was pulling in endorsement money of around $12 million a year on top of his prize money. Even if he didn't start pulling that level of endorsement money until after he won his first Slam in 2014, if he made that for the past 5 years, that would be another $60,000,000 in addition to his $35,000,000 in prize money. Given this, I'm pretty sure he's earned more than $100,000,000 lifetime and has a net worth of at least around half of that amount. Therefore, that $16,000,000 estimate seems way too low.
The $16M net wealth figure also came from Forbes, so they would have factored in his endorsement earnings.

Endorsements tend to fluctuate significantly based on performance so it is a massive assumption to say he has earned $12M a year every year since 2014. You are also making some massive assumptions about the amount of income he has converted into net wealth. Do you save 50% of your before-tax earnings?

You also need to bear in mind he has also had a very expensive divorce in that period that would have taken a significant chunk of his assets, not to mention ongoing costs in terms of spousal maintenance and child support.
 
The winner of that match would be year end #1 and the winner of the WTF. Two things were on the line that day.
True, but nevertheless not the most important match in history, far from it. AO 2017 and W2019 were more important for a start as were countless other slam finals.
 
You asked for an example and I gave you one. It is not the sum total of advantages, which are numerous.

Your attitude displays a poor understanding of how wealth works. $16m net wealth at 5% return is $800k a year before taxes - a tidy sum to be sure, but a long way from the $5m Murray would generate.

What that income difference represents in terms of financial freedom, insulation from market fluctuations, further wealth building, etc. is massive. It’s what separates the super rich from the merely wealthy.

My view comes from the perspective that money and wealth have a diminishing marginal utility. Ie the more you earn the less benefit is conferred with each additional dollar. That's not always the case...for example the Murdoch's who use their wealth to own media and influence election results and social and political culture, but for people who are simply going to use wealth to live a "nice" life, there aren't too many experiences you'll miss out on with $15 million that the guy with $100 million can take up.
 
Stan's slam wins are far more impressive. If he gets fourth, he is definitely up there in my book as fourth greatest of this era. Nothing can compensate Slam wins.
 
A poll on what we think many others will feel? Anything's possible here.

I think that Stan would have to get to at least 5 for me to start to consider his career to be as good or better than Andy's. There's too much of an overall achievement gap.
 
The $16M net wealth figure also came from Forbes, so they would have factored in his endorsement earnings.

Endorsements tend to fluctuate significantly based on performance so it is a massive assumption to say he has earned $12M a year every year since 2014. You are also making some massive assumptions about the amount of income he has converted into net wealth. Do you save 50% of your before-tax earnings?

You also need to bear in mind he has also had a very expensive divorce in that period that would have taken a significant chunk of his assets, not to mention ongoing costs in terms of spousal maintenance and child support.

Can you please link the Forbes list that shows Wawrinka with only at $16 million net worth today?

I looked deeper into the public numbers. Wawrinka was a junior French Open champion and has been a pro for over 18 seasons. Due to junior accomplishments and early pro success, he has been popular in Europe and earned decent endorsement money off the court for most of that time. Prior to getting married, he had won about $3.5 million in prize money and doubled that with sponsorships with Head and Sergio Tachini for around $7 to $8 million in earnings from 2002 to 2009.

Wawrinka was married in December 2009 and got divorced in April 2015. According to Swiss law, he would retain anything he owned prior to marriage and would only owe his wife half of what he earned during the time they were married unless there was a prenuptual agreement (which I would bet he had unless he gets terrible financial advice from his management). He would have to pay a reasonable amount of support for his daughter, but alimony would not be usual in Switzerland unless his exwife was disabled and unable to work (which is not the case since she is a former model and current television presentor). During the timeframe he was married, Wawrinka won the Australian Open and several smaller tournaments to pocket about $11,500,000. In 2014, he reportedly signed a 4 year/$20 million contract with Yonex, replacing his former deal with Head. Depending on how his deals were structured, he likely had at least as much endorsement and appearance money as he made in prize money, which would have grossed him about $23 million total, before taxes. If you have details on their divorce settlement, please share. However, it's likely his wife got less than $10 million at best before he was clear.

After the divorce, Wawrinka really started making big bucks. Forbes has him as making $47.5 million from mid-2015 through 2017, where he won the French and US Opens and was one of the top 10 highest paid players in the world during that time. Since the end of 2017, Stan has won another $3 million in prize money and raked in endorsements of about $10 million.

Totals for his career are somewhere around $90 million. If half of that was spent in taxes and playing expenses, that means he's netted about $45 million. If he had to give his exwife $10 million (probably not), that leaves him with $35 million. Net worth is not just what you've saved in cash, but the accumulation of all your property and investments. So if he has banked $35 to $45 million in his career and purchased a house, cars, and a boat, and stuffed money into long term investments... how is his net worth only $16 million? Did he just go light $20 million on fire? Did his house become worthless? Did his manager run away with his retirement cash? I say his net worth is in the $30 to $35 million range at least, especially if he has made good investments.
 
Was thinking about this earlier and how so many people on this site treat slams as more important than everything else and I thought, if Stan won another slam, he'd overtake Murray in the slam count. Murray of course has accomplished so much more (don't come for me Mainad!) including winning the 2016 WTF, becoming #1, winning a bunch of Masters and far more slam finals.

But does anyone think that perhaps Murray or even tennis fans and commentators would value Stan's career more? Does all Murray accomplished outweigh a potential 4th slam for Stan?
He will.
@Mainad
 
Back
Top