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

[RelentlessAttack]

Surprised by the results - seems a lot of people here are pure slammists.

It’s that Murray’s game and personality are like watching paint dry

 

[NoleFam]

4 Slams, 1 Masters and career high #3 is now greater than 3 Slams, 14 Masters, 1 WTF, 2 Olympic golds, career high #1 and YE #1?? Wth are you guys smoking?

 

[gullyfoyleisback]

That's subjective. Not all players want the baggage that comes with endorsement money.

And there you have Murray, he’s turned down millions in sponsorship deals because he didn’t want to take his focus away from his game, and when he did start to earn real money he wasn’t afraid to gamble it on assembling a big team around him because he wanted the titles and big wins, the money always came second.

 

[OldschoolKIaus]

Murray should a 4th Major already to end this debate lmao

 

[JoshuaPim]

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.

Well of course I agree Murray has had a far more balanced, consistent career. It is 99.9% certain they will both remain on 3 Slams, so Murray's chapter in the history of tennis will be longer than Stan's.

 

[zvelf]

Well of course I agree Murray has had a far more balanced, consistent career. It is 99.9% certain they will both remain on 3 Slams, so Murray's chapter in the history of tennis will be longer than Stan's.

Only if you think slams are the only thing that matters in tennis, but they are not. Murray will forever go down in history as one of the Big Four in what's considered a golden age of men's tennis. As Stan is not one of the Big Four, Murray will always implicitly and justifiably be construed as better than Stan. At least you've sensibly moved away from your "save the world" scenario as the criteria to pick the person with the better career.

 

[Steve0904]

This isn't really a debate for me tbh, and never has been. Murray's career far outstrips Stan even if Stan somehow wins slam #4, which is very unlikely.

 

[forehandblast]

Murray should a 4th Major already to end this debate lmao

Seeing Wawrinka blow big chances here and at the U.S Open I am now firmly convinced he isn't winning another slam. And it is more than abundantly clear Murray sure as f-ck is not winning another one. They will both end with 3, and Murray's career far trumps Wawrinka's in that case. Even in the very outside shot (and I mean really long shot) Wawrinka wins a 4th, would still have Murray clearly ahead personally.