HetTheGreaterer
Banned
Roflmao no way
If Wawrinka manages to win slam #4, do you think many would prefer Stan's career over Murrays?
- Thread starter Aussie Darcy
- Start date
canta_Brian
Hall of Fame
Agree.
it’s the same with econonic cash flows. If you give 1 person 1 million and 1000 people 1000 and wait 6 months, there will have been an awful more returned to the economy from the 2nd group. Add extra zeros and it gets more pronounced. Beyond a certain point, extra money is just digits on a bank statement.
vive le beau jeu !
Talk Tennis Guru
does the stan option/package also include his entertaining game ? 
(and with the murray one, we don't get the jaw, do we ?) 
RelentlessAttack
Hall of Fame
I would take it not only for the number but the way he has BTFOd ATGs in emphatic fashion en route to his victories. If he wins here he’s likely gonna have knocked out Med, Z, Rafa, and Nole, which would be crazy
Last edited:
Daniel Andrade
Hall of Fame
For some people popularity matters most than anything else, however, Murray career-wise is better than Wawrinka. The day he makes it to number 1 and wins a ton more of masters 1000 we might have that discussion.
BGod
G.O.A.T.
I would factor in fame and money as well. Which Murray has by miles and miles over Stan. It's unfortunate but Stan is Swiss. If he was say, an American or Japanese national it would be him.
RelentlessAttack
Hall of Fame
Nishi is one of the richest, I sure as hell wouldn’t take his career over Stan’s. That’s just adding an irrelevant dimension considering we’re on a tennis forum and not a retirement savings one
Breakpointerer
Legend
No, still Murray bc overall accomplishments.
Endorsements? So, you're basically saying he's better looking?
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
Much prefer the way Wawrinka plays. But yes, voted Murray. Wimbledon and No.1 ranking trumps possible 4 majors.
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
No. Murray is British with no competition from fellow Brits. Endorsement whammy.
Wawrinka is Swiss and not their most successful player. I'd wager Hingis probably topped Wawrinka in endorsements, let alone the current Swiss no.1.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
He will what?
Mainad
Bionic Poster
TennisFan3
Talk Tennis Guru
There is no IF. Wawrinka will NOT win slam #4.
He won't get to the final. Even if he does by some miracle, this is NOT peak Stan. Djokovic will whoop him.
Why are we discussing hypotheticals that will NEVER happen? It is like saying Nadal will win 25 slams.
He won't get to the final. Even if he does by some miracle, this is NOT peak Stan. Djokovic will whoop him.
Why are we discussing hypotheticals that will NEVER happen? It is like saying Nadal will win 25 slams.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
Ooh, ooh, now do US Open.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
HetTheGreaterer
Banned
The OP said that I don't want mainad coming at me.
So I said, * he will *
And you did.
Btw, wawa needs 2 more slams even to be considered for comparison with Murray.
Yes his peak level is up there with big3 unlike Murray, but peak isn't everything if your normal level is up there with 40-50 ranked journeymen.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Why do so many people think Stan's peak level is higher than Murray's? He just has a different style of play that's all. Unlike Murray, Stan has never straight setted any of the Big 3 in any of his finals against them.
HetTheGreaterer
Banned
Because he has successfully managed to beat 2 big3 members back to back en route to two of his slam triumphs.
There's no doubt that a zoning stan is up there with any player in the tennis history, and he's capable of pulling miraculous shots with his raw power and shotmaking abilities.
But the same stan can lose to benoit paire of all people after going 4-1 up.
That's stan for you afterall.
Deon Sanders
Legend
Stan currently only has two real slams
But he is still better
But he is still better
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Apart from Slams, Murray has beaten 2 of the Big 3 back to back in more than one event: 2010 Toronto, 2012 Olympics so it's not exactly like he's incapable of doing this.
Everything else you said about Stan is ditto for Murray as far as I'm concerned.
People are often dazzled by Stan's style of play because he plays so aggressively which means they often underestimate other styles of play but Murray's style of play has carried him a lot further than has Stan's. Plus, don't forget, Murray owns the H2H with Stan which should tell you something.
I love how Murray being British and having a high net worth count as arguments in his favor.
As long as we're going to allow such subjective arguments, we might as well admit how impressive Wawrinka's performances have been. If he wins a 4th slam, I would definitely prefer his story, tennis-wise.
As long as we're going to allow such subjective arguments, we might as well admit how impressive Wawrinka's performances have been. If he wins a 4th slam, I would definitely prefer his story, tennis-wise.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Wawrinka has indeed had impressive performances but so has Murray. Too many people overlook that merely because they prefer Stan's style of play (but that's just being subjective too, isn't it?).
badmice2
Professional
Interesting take...but simply disagree.
Case in point Caroline Wozniacki can be viewed as a very accomplished players (needs validation), had more WTA wins, reached number 1 in her life time, 1 grand slam win. Can you argue that her career is more accomplished than Li Na?
badmice2
Professional
That's subjective. Not all players want the baggage that comes with endorsement money.
HetTheGreaterer
Banned
Well I've already stated that Murray is much better than stan. Peak doesn't matter so much if you can't maintain it.
Stan has maintained it for what, 12-16 weeks throughout his career?
Murray has done it for years and without big3, he'd have 10 slams
dropshotlikeitshot
Professional
I’m not very educated on women’s tennis, but judging by the numbers, I’d rather have Wozniacki’s career. Pretty much the same situation and Stan and Murray: 1 extra slam doesn’t triumph more career titles, world number 1, and a WTF.
Backhanded Compliment
Legend
Just 2 very different players. Stan has given tennis more quality thrills and spills overal alreadyl plus singlehandedly debunked the myth that a single handed backhand is a liability. (singlehandedly... lol)
a10best
Legend
Stan did it in a best of 5 against 3 GOAT's.
Slams are the best of the best, no debate.
Numbers never tell how great you are without a trophy.
Fed "by the numbers" won 2019 Wimbledon against Djokovic in all stats.
Are there any men with 1 slam, 1 WTF and ranking #1?
Woz did have a good career and good match strategy.
zvelf
Hall of Fame
That's just idiotic because Murray is currently tied or ahead on virtually every relevant achievement:
11 major finals to 5
1 YEC to 0
2 Olympic Golds to 0
46 tournaments won to 16
77.5% winning percentage to 63.5%
41 weeks at #1 to 0 and Stan has never even reached #2 in the rankings
29-56 (34%) against the Big Three to 12-61 (16%) against the Big Three
And Murray has a 12-8 h2h against Stan. It's not even really close right now. And giving Stan one more major still wouldn't be enough to cut the gap.
Still Stanley got better results on hard courts and also on clay courts, so he edges Andrew on 2/3 surfaces.
But if peak Stan met peak Murray on a hard court, who would you put your money on? That's part of the debate.
zvelf
Hall of Fame
That is not a part of the debate. The debate is over whose career would you prefer even if Stan won 1 extra major. Who might win one single hard court match based on their peak performance is not very relevant. That's trying to cherry pick one tiny aspect of their career considering that Stan does not go peak manimal very often.
Jokervich
Hall of Fame
Well I wouldn't go that far lol
Great thread it really exposes the crowd on this forum. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but it’s crazy, I think Stan needs 6 to be ahead with his current resume.
BGod
G.O.A.T.
It does matter though. Contrary to some people's beliefs (or many) athletes are very much about securing financial security for their family and their post playing career. Who do you think on the whole has been doing better last 10 years between Boris Becker and Pat Rafter? Unless you're way up there like Pete was, the legacy argument is pretty minimal. And Murray has that over Stan because of the 2 Wimbledons as a Brit and being world #1 for an extended period especially YE #1. Stan will be easier forgotten in time and when you factor in the money aspect which Stan could overtake Murray with smart investments but Murray has a hell of a lot better capability in Britain, it's a no brainer.
Take a look at Federer. Say for example Novak does overtake him by a good margin like 23>20, Federer will likely be the far, far bigger personality in his post-playing career. Ya fanboys will say "Novak is GOAT" and he'll certainly be the GOAT but in terms of overall picture you take Roger every freaking time.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Surprised by the results - seems a lot of people here are pure slammists.
BGod
G.O.A.T.
It's because the percentage of 4 over 3 is 33%. And Wawrinka is viewed as more clutch with his fewer opportunities.
"whose career would you prefer" = "who is the better player" in my book. If I had to choose either to play one tennis match to save the world, it would be Stan the SuperHero instead of the 5 times Aussie runner-up.
zvelf
Hall of Fame
If that is your criteria, I would still pick Murray. Stan's highest high is better than Murray's but Stan doesn't reach that high very often. Murray brings a far more consistent average level that's better than Stan's average level, so I'd still pick Murray. Murray is more than twice as likely (34%) to beat the Big Three than Stan (16%), so against the toughest competition, Murray is more dependable to save the world. Against top 10 opponents, Murray wins 55% of the time, Stan wins 37% of the time. Against all players, Murray wins 77.5% of the time, Stan wins 63.5%. In picking Stan, you're taking an awful gamble on the fate of the world when on average, Murray wins head and shoulders above Stan.