Jim Courier vs. Andy Murray: Who is the greater player?

Who is the greater player between the two?

  • Total voters
    86
Murray, by some distance. Much harder era and has the grand slam/Olympic gold/year end final and masters title combo, which only one other player has.
 
Given that Murray has achieved roughly double the ATP points that Jim has - it really is a slam dunk answer.
 
90's Clay said:
'

I highly doubt Murray would ever win a Wimbledon title in the 90s either.
Click to expand...

Agreed and I would add another 2 players to that as well.

Another thing Courier did which trumps everything Murray has ever achieved is defending his French and Australian Open titles, not an easy thing to do. Murray can melt his 2 gold medals and make jewellery out of them, that's how serious Olympic tennis can be taken.
 
Murray all the way.
Jim had that forehand once the tour figured him out he was basically done at the top.
If Murray bags another major then Courier is not even in the conversation with Murray.
 
Achievements aside, Murray is the way better player imo. Going with timnz numbers, much greater as well.

Today's game and environment has no room at the top for somebody with such a one dimensional game as Courier's, who had to over rely on all out fitness and strength to make up for it. Even his best forehand side is exactly what Sampras kept breaking down because of it's weakness on the run, due to extreme grip. Baseball bunted backhand dropping short + excessive camping bh corner + weak popped up forehand on the run, vs an all court great volleyer = disaster.

AO 95 wasn't that close. Sampras was clearly one level above Courier when it came to game. Courier just didn't have the shots to keep up with Sampras' shotmaking. Courier managed to hang that tough with him in several matches only because Courier is such a ferocious competitor. Sampras was always going to be way ahead in their rivalry however.

I'd say that if Courier did 3-4 things well, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray will do 10 things better. And Sampras, Federer will do 11 or 12.

Courier's h2h vs any of FedNadDjokRay today will end up looking like his h2h with Pete. Mostly one sided once they work out what to do against him.
 
Courier had those 2 good runs. I know all about Courier.
He was limited. Murray has far more tools.
Yet another TTW over hyping due to bias love and revisionism of a certain era of tennis.
 
Homogenised conditions may not be a benefit, depending on your game assets. Extreme polarised conditions of the 90's led to one dimensional players getting away with big but asymmetrical deficits in their game, while being labelled today as "surface specialists”. Nowadays though the reason why styles are similar is because you can’t have any major weakness, you MUST have as broad and balanced an asset portfolio to your game as possible. imo, if anything at all, homogenised conditions as they are now are more difficult to survive having resulted in fewer but super, hyper apex predators evolved into being as strong or stronger than all the many more but lesser predators before put together.
 
Last edited:
Courier was great and his reign during 1991-93 is something to behold. At peak-to-peak, Murray does not come any closer.

Overall consistency wise, its Murray and its nowhere closer. Thats why Murray needs to win more slams and breakaway with those in his slam count territory. But then, its easier said than done. Look at Wawrinka's three slams. I don't think I would be able to vouch that Murray would have won them. So, the only way for Murray to break away from Courier and Wawrinka would be to win 2 slams.
 
swordtennis said:
Courier had those 2 good runs. I know all about Courier.
He was limited. Murray has far more tools.
Yet another TTW over hyping due to bias love and revisionism of a certain era of tennis.
Click to expand...

yeah, 2 good runs gave him 4 slams and a YE #1 :rolleyes:

if anything Courier's game is under-rated by the recent hypemasters who don't have much clue.

For someone branded a baseliner, he used the net pretty competently and far better than what Murray does.
 
70後 said:
Achievements aside, Murray is the way better player imo. Going with timnz numbers, much greater as well.

Today's game and environment has no room at the top for somebody with such a one dimensional game as Courier's, who had to over rely on all out fitness and strength to make up for it. Even his best forehand side is exactly what Sampras kept breaking down because of it's weakness on the run, due to extreme grip. Baseball bunted backhand dropping short + excessive camping bh corner + weak popped up forehand on the run, vs an all court great volleyer = disaster.

AO 95 wasn't that close. Sampras was clearly one level above Courier when it came to game. Courier just didn't have the shots to keep up with Sampras' shotmaking. Courier managed to hang that tough with him in several matches only because Courier is such a ferocious competitor. Sampras was always going to be way ahead in their rivalry however.

I'd say that if Courier did 3-4 things well, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray will do 10 things better. And Sampras, Federer will do 11 or 12.

Courier's h2h vs any of FedNadDjokRay today will end up looking like his h2h with Pete. Mostly one sided once they work out what to do against him.
Click to expand...

lol, yeah, because Murray has the game to keep up with Sampras' shotmaking ...

delusional to think Murray would dominate Courier.
 
as far as the thread goes : Courier at the AO and FO .murray at USO and wimbledon.

overall, about even now with Murray clinching YE #1 in 2016 I think ..
 
I'll give the edge to Murray career wise but Courier had to deal with more slam winners (Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Agassi, Chang, Stich, Goran, ect) not just Fedal and Nole. Courier was more fun to watch doing very well on clay and grass back before homogenised conditions. What a great era in American mens tennis. My how things have changed.
 
Repost:


Poisoned Slice said:
I7nNhs7b_400x400.jpg

It is pretty clear that Andy Murray has taken the game to a level that Rod and Pancho couldn't even dream of. There really is no doubt that Andy is the greatest of all time.
Click to expand...
 
Enigma_87 said:
Courier is winning 0 AO's/RG's in todays era with Nadal, Federer and Djokovic in the picture.
Click to expand...
But Murray is winning 0 Wimbledon's in the 90's on fast grass v serve and volley legends like Pete, Goran and Rafter so this works both ways.
 
Nadalgaenger said:
The only thing Sampras has on Nadal statswise is weeks at No 1, but Pete would have spent very few weeks at No 1 in this era. Sorry.

Sampras was a great player, but he wasn't consistent enough at the other tournaments (M 1000 for example) to maintain a high ranking against guys like Fed, Nadal, and Djokovic.

Djokovic still has a good chance to pass Pete's GS total. He's been much more dominant than Sampras ever was in the past few years.

So you think Courier would have won FO titles playing Nadal in the final? Lol
Click to expand...
YE at #1: Pete-6, Rafa-3
WTF wins: Pete 5, Rafa-0
 
Murray is a bigger, faster, stronger, and more consistent player. He's separated himself from Courier by a LARGE margin at this point, in an arguably more difficult era to reach the top in.
 
droliver said:
Murray is a bigger, faster, stronger, and more consistent player. He's separated himself from Courier by a LARGE margin at this point, in an arguably more difficult era to reach the top in.
Click to expand...

That's the only thing in Courier's favor when it comes to situation or era; his tougher path with a dozen GS winners in a major draw at any given time! We haven't been able to say that since the 90's! It's been lame; stronger GOAT's, but weaker minded opposition! You can give them multiple MP's and they'll always find a way to give it back to the better player; just a gutless era here! Allowing Fedal redux in 2017; who would have thunk it even last year? :rolleyes: :p ;)
 
ark_28 said:
But Murray is winning 0 Wimbledon's in the 90's on fast grass v serve and volley legends like Pete, Goran and Rafter so this works both ways.
Click to expand...
Murray has a decent shot in the 90's tho on rebound ace with inconsistent Agassi and only Pete there from the top guys.
 
Courier by a good margin.

Made all 4 Slam Finals back when that meant something, 5-0 in Masters finals, #1 for 2 years against all-time greats.

Courier would destroy Murray on hard and clay 20 out of 20. Might be a toss-up on grass.
 
Lendl Becker Edberg etc were all at the end of their time.
Agassi was a head case.
Courier jumped on them with the heavy forehand.
Once Pete and Agassi figured him out and hit the top Courier was done.
 
Becker, Lendl also dominated Courier.

Bottom line, there was a limit to the depth of Courier's game. Although he was physically explosive and powerful, he wasn't that great or efficient a mover either. His main weapons were his fitness that reached an early but short peak and a forehand that could be exploited by the right player.
 
swordtennis said:
Lendl Becker Edberg etc were all at the end of their time.
Agassi was a head case.
Courier jumped on them with the heavy forehand.
Once Pete and Agassi figured him out and hit the top Courier was done.
Click to expand...

Hilarious, courier owned Agassi till 95.. Agassi did not figure him out.
Pete was the only one who had him figured out.

Edberg was also at the top in 92 .. Courier got him at the AO . This, a few months after edberg had schooled him at the USO.
93 AO was at the end of edberg's prime,but he still had def. Sampras in the semi
 
Last edited:
BGod said:
Courier by a good margin.

Made all 4 Slam Finals back when that meant something, 5-0 in Masters finals, #1 for 2 years against all-time greats.

Courier would destroy Murray on hard and clay 20 out of 20. Might be a toss-up on grass.
Click to expand...

Lol...you mean using a 2 headed coin with Murray's pic on both sides? As if a guy who is 0-1 in grasscourt finals would stand a remote chance against a guy who's 8-1! :rolleyes::D
 
I'm still going with Courier. He was a dominant #1 compared to Murray who is more accurately a very lucky #1. Courier was ruthless and competed well over a couple of years period at all majors. Murray has lost early at multiple majors while the top-ranked player.

Different eras I know but Courier was the punisher for two year period of time - a guy who few would wish to see in their part of the draw. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have all had that effect on the field too at their peaks. Murray has never really had that impact on opponents even when he is winning.
 
killerboi2 said:
AO and FO Courier, USO and Wimbledon Murray. Peak level Courier, Murray might win in terms of longetivity and achievements as his career isn't over yet. Both good players, Murray let's himself down by mugging it up too much against top players, Courier has very little longetivity.
Click to expand...
Murray is Andy Roddick if he was allowed to face Nadal/Djokovic in GS finals instead of Fed. Courier actually really proved himself against a bunch of ATG players in a tough era.

Murray didn't start winning until the era softened and even now he hasn't got as many accomplishments as Courier (slam wise).

I think this comparison is an insult to Courier.
 
Recency bias is a huge thing it seems.

By the time Murray finishes up he will probably have a Courier level career but I don't think he would be as good as Courier in my eyes. He's still the Roddick of this era.
 
Sabratha said:
Murray is Andy Roddick if he was allowed to face Nadal/Djokovic in GS finals instead of Fed
Click to expand...

Roddick? Lmao, that guy can't do anything against top players. Like someone on here said, you do realise that his most impressive slam win is quite comfortably against Murray at 2009 Wimbldeon right? Apart from that he's got a couple of wins against a very young Djoko and pre prime Nadal on hards I think. I think it's pretty insulting to compare Roddick to Murray.
 
killerboi2 said:
Roddick? Lmao, that guy can't do anything against top players. Like someone on here said, you do realise that his most impressive slam win is quite comfortably against Murray at 2009 Wimbldeon right? Apart from that he's got a couple of wins against a very young Djoko and pre prime Nadal on hards I think. I think it's pretty insulting to compare Roddick to Murray.
Click to expand...
What's Murray's greatest slam win? Old Fed or tired Djoko? LMAO.

Guy isn't in Courier's league.
 
Courier hands down. You cannot only consider the numbers when you look at players like this. You must also consider the era as well as the competition. Murray has found success in what most consider a weak era of men's tennis. Put Murray back in the era of Courier, Agassi, Edberg, Sampras, Becker, and I'm not sure he'd do very well. Then again, it's all relative, because the game has also changed since then!
 
Bobby Jr said:
I'm still going with Courier. He was a dominant #1 compared to Murray who is more accurately a very lucky #1. Courier was ruthless and competed well over a couple of years period at all majors. Murray has lost early at multiple majors while the top-ranked player.

Different eras I know but Courier was the punisher for two year period of time - a guy who few would wish to see in their part of the draw. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have all had that effect on the field too at their peaks. Murray has never really had that impact on opponents even when he is winning.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, because all players have always been eager to see Murray in their part of the draw! :rolleyes:
 
Doppelganger said:
Courier hands down. You cannot only consider the numbers when you look at players like this. You must also consider the era as well as the competition. Murray has found success in what most consider a weak era of men's tennis. Put Murray back in the era of Courier, Agassi, Edberg, Sampras, Becker, and I'm not sure he'd do very well. Then again, it's all relative, because the game has also changed since then!
Click to expand...

Lol at playing in the era of 3 of the greatest players of all time being considered "weak" ! :D
 
Sabratha said:
What's Murray's greatest slam win? Old Fed or tired Djoko? LMAO.

Guy isn't in Courier's league.
Click to expand...

Give it a rest Sabratha. No doubt he isn't even in Gaudio's league according to you. No-one takes you seriously whenever the subject of Murray ever comes up. Your responses are as laughably predictable as Nadal looping a forehand to Federer's backhand!
 
killerboi2 said:
Roddick? Lmao, that guy can't do anything against top players. Like someone on here said, you do realise that his most impressive slam win is quite comfortably against Murray at 2009 Wimbldeon right? Apart from that he's got a couple of wins against a very young Djoko and pre prime Nadal on hards I think. I think it's pretty insulting to compare Roddick to Murray.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry about it. Insulting and belittling Murray is a routine pastime for many posters on here. As you can see, the usual suspects all come rushing out in force to make sure none of us ever think he would have a chance at beating anyone who played tennis back in 1923! :rolleyes:;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

George Turner
Andy Murray vs Boris Becker
2 3 4
Replies
155
Views
7K
BayAreaBooster
B
E
  • Poll Poll
Greater claycourter: Pete Sampras or Andy Murray
Replies
32
Views
2K
Epic
E
Lew II
  • Poll Poll
Murray vs Courier
2 3
Replies
111
Views
5K
buscemi
B
Lew II
  • Poll Poll
Greater: Murray or Roddick + Hewitt?
2
Replies
85
Views
4K
DSH
DSH
crazyups
Has Murray surpassed Vilas and Courier in greatness?
Replies
14
Views
976
NatF
NatF
Back
Top