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

[Bobby Jr]

Oh yeah, because all players have always been eager to see Murray in their part of the draw!

Relative to Federer, Nadal and Djokovic he would be the mostly preferable player to have in your quarter for the majority of the tour. He has lost or struggled early in majors so much more frequently than the others in their broader primes... Hell, since becoming world #1 he lost in the quarters at the US Open and then the 4th round at the Aussie Open. Go look at how the other three did in their majors after first becoming #1.

Murray is one of the most fortunate #1s we've had on the tour - half the reason he's there is because 2 of the big 4 were injured for half a season, if not more.

 

[Mainad]

Relative to Federer, Nadal and Djokovic he would be the mostly preferable player to have in your quarter for the majority of the tour.

Relative to Federer, Nadal and Djokovic is a pretty big 'relative'. If forced to make a stark choice between all 4 I imagine most players would probably opt for Murray but do you seriously imagine they would be ****-a-hoop about it and run around shouting "Oh gooddee, I've got Murray in my half. I'm bound to make the finals now!" I suspect not.

He has lost or struggled early in majors so much more frequently than the others in their broader primes... Hell, since becoming world #1 he lost in the quarters at the US Open and then the 4th round at the Aussie Open. Go look at how the other three did in their majors after first becoming #1.

See above. Nobody's arguing that he is as just as good as the other 3. But that's a far cry from saying all the other players would feel quite relaxed at the prospect of facing him.

Murray is one of the most fortunate #1s we've had on the tour - half the reason he's there is because 2 of the big 4 were injured for half a season, if not more.

Well, of course he is . Haven't you heard, "fortune" and "luck" are Murray's middle names. Everything he has ever achieved has been by dint of pure luck. By contrast, Fedalovic were so unlucky. They constantly had to work for their achievements all the time. Murray just had to turn up and everything fell magically into his lap. The most fortunate lottery winner in the world has never been as fortunate as this particular tennis player. How all the other players on tour must be wishing that if only they didn't have to work so hard and just had Murray's good luck and fortune!!!

 

[Bobby Jr]

Relative to Federer, Nadal and Djokovic is a pretty big 'relative'. If forced to make a stark choice between all 4 I imagine most players would probably opt for Murray but do you seriously imagine they would be ****-a-hoop about it and run around shouting "Oh gooddee, I've got Murray in my half. I'm bound to make the finals now!" I suspect not.

This thread is in context of Murray relative to Courier. For their respective times Courier was far more a feared player than Murray - it's not even close. Until Murray is that player to the field - like Federer, Nadal and Djokovic all also were - he can't really be compared to Courier as a #1.

 

[Mainad]

This thread is in context of Murray relative to Courier. For their respective times Courier was far more a feared player than Murray - it's not even close. Until Murray is that player to the field - like Federer, Nadal and Djokovic all also were - he can't really be compared to Courier as a #1.

You don't really have any justification for making such a statement other than simple bias against Murray. I've been watching tennis since the late 70s and I honestly don't recall Courier as being a player who was so much more feared than Murray is now (or was until very recently). The dominant players of Courier's time were Sampras and Agassi.They were the players who were truly feared. Edberg and Becker too probably. This is no disrespect at all to Courier who was obviously a player who became #1 and who had everyone else's respect but he did not have quite the aura that a Sampras or an Agassi did (the Fedalovic of their era) and there is absolutely no reason for not comparing him to Murray in this era. He is just ahead of Murray in Slam titles and in weeks at #1. That, in my view, gives him currently the edge in achievements. But Murray has many more titles and, unlike Courier, has a YEC title so they are not that very far apart and the opinions of most people as reflected in the poll support that view. Given their respective achievements, your contention that they can't be compared is frankly just ridiculous and merely reflects a bias for one player over the other as I mentioned earlier. It is certainly not the kind of realistic and objective view that most realistic and objective posters are taking and will continue to take.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

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!

Pretty much most the forum thinks you're a joke when it comes to Murray yourself.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Lol at playing in the era of 3 of the greatest players of all time being considered "weak" !

He plays in an era where Federer at near 40 years old can win majors and back to back Masters tournaments. LMAO.

 

[Mainad]

Pretty much most the forum thinks you're a joke when it comes to Murray yourself.

I suspect most of them think I'm just trying to be fair to him and that I probably waste too much of my time having to counter your sort of nonsense and I guess they have a point.

 

[abmk]

@Mainad :

By the end of 93 AO , Courier had 4 slams - 2 AOs and 2 RGs, Agassi had 1 slam - 92 wimby. Courier was YE#1 in 92. Agassi did not have a YE#1.

It took Agassi 99 RG to equal Courier's # of slams.

Agassi only started to get that aura from 94 USO to 95 USO when he started winning regularly. But then he didn't play at peak level until 99.

So to say Courier did not have Agassi's aura is just revisionist BS.

 

[70後]

Kafelnikov was also good at beating Courier.

Courier had those two good years. Even in 1992, I don't recall either that people trembled at the prospect of playing him or that they were petrified of his unbelievable McEnroe like talent. That's the kind of player the guys are really scared of playing, somebody with talent from out of this world. "Workhorse" was how Courier might be described in those days. Once that peak physical freshness was over, it was done.

Murray is 78.37% with many more matches, vs Courier's 68.1%. Huge difference.

 

[Doppelganger]

Lol at playing in the era of 3 of the greatest players of all time being considered "weak" !

Yeah, and all at the end of their careers (except for Djoker). Federer is playing at a very high level atm, but he is basically a demi-god.

 

[InsideOut900]

I suspect people see Courier as an intruder in the Sampras-Agassi era.
Otherwise I can't understand why he is so underrated by a lot of people and not only when compared to Murray.

Murray has consistency on his side, but Courier won 4 Slams and held #1 in a strong era, albeit filled with inconsistent players.
By default this makes him greater than Murray. And if not, he still has an extra Slam, so if Murray gets a 4th Slam he is greater, until then it is Courier.

 

[BGod]

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!

Courier lost his Wimbledon 4 sets to Pete Sampras, which includes a 6-8 tiebreak loss. Lost to Stich in 91.

Courier 91-93 is head and shoulders above Murray on every surface.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Career achievements, Murray is obviously greater. That being said, Courier was the dominant player for a time, against great competition.

Also I believe that Courier's style of play was unsuited for the 90's playing conditions. Grass and a lot of hard courts were rewarding more aggressive players, clay was home of tiredless defenders. Aggressive baseliners had the advantage on slower hard courts only. Still he didn't only met success at the AO and also won RG, made finals at the USO, Wimbledon and the Master Cup. A player like him would be much more comfortable today (altough wouldn't necessarily have more success due to top-heavy competition).

Jim's peak was far greater. At one point in the early 90s he was a dominant and deserving number 1. Andy has never had that level of dominance on tour. Longevity and consistency obviously goes to Andy but it's far easier to have consistent results in today's game than it was in the 90s.

It's easier today to have consistent results across surfaces but it isn't to have consistent results on specific surfaces. Also longevity is something else, I don't see how it was harder to have longevity in the 90's in comparison with before or later. Courier had a very short peak, then quickly vanished. He is responsible for it and could have added to his tally of titles (only 23) in the second half of the 90's which was pretty open.

it's so overstated that you had top ranked clay court players skipping Wimbledon and fast court players skipping the French Open and half of the field skipping the Australian because it was just too far and didn't offer enough prize money. Imagine that happening today.

But while it made it harder to have success across surfaces, didn't it make it much easier to have success on a specific surface? I mean, if half of the pros are clumsy on your favorite surface?

Imagine a player who is extremely proficient on fast courts. For such a player, winning Roland-Garros against guys like Bruguera or Muster will be very though, as he would need to tweak his game too much in order to be competitive. But on his surfaces, it's the contrary. Defenders have no hopes. Aggressive baseliners (Agassi, Courier, Kafelnikov) can make it but must overcome disadvantages. This guy need only to be better than the other good fast-courters to utterly dominate the fast surfaces. Such a guy could probably win a few half-dozen of Wimbledon, USO and Master Cups, and it would be easier for him to do it than for the greats who preceded him or succeeded him because, while they didn't need to tweak there game as much to compete on all surfaces, they had to actually face the best players in the world.

Murray is one of the most fortunate #1s we've had on the tour - half the reason he's there is because 2 of the big 4 were injured for half a season, if not more.

I kind of agree but Murray has been waiting behind these guys for nine years before they faded, and then he still had to win a slew of tournaments back-to-back to make it. Okay, he didn't face the best competition in those, but going on a tear is never easy. And still being able to go on a tear after nine years of top level tennis is even harder. He deserve respect for it.

Look, how comes Courier didn't use HIS good fortune to go on a rampage in the late-90's? There was plenty of space to be number 1 again, and some lesser players took advantage of it (Rios anyone?).

 

[JMR]

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.

"Most" what? Most of whom? Where's the data to support that assertion? This is a very disingenuous type of argument. Any position sounds more plausible if you can freely generalize about how it's broadly supported.

"Weak era" nonsense is an all-purpose corrosive that over the years has been used to attack the accomplishments of virtually every great player. For every ATG, there's an ATGg (All-Time Great gadfly) complaining that the player reaped the rewards of soft competition.

 

[Mainad]

Courier lost his Wimbledon 4 sets to Pete Sampras, which includes a 6-8 tiebreak loss. Lost to Stich in 91.

Courier 91-93 is head and shoulders above Murray on every surface.

Think what you like but most people will agree that there can be no comparison between a guy with 8 grasscourt titles including 2 Wimbledons and someone who only ever played 1 losing grasscourt final in his career.

 

[kishnabe]

Courier won his slams against tough competition, no natural disasters or mugs.

Though Murray YEC, +MS1000....makes it a equal case.

 

[Devilito]

Think what you like but most people will agree that there can be no comparison between a guy with 8 grasscourt titles including 2 Wimbledons and someone who only ever played 1 losing grasscourt final in his career.

Given the conditions, Murray wouldn't have made it out of the first week of Wimbledon at the time Courier made the final.

 

[Mainad]

Given the conditions, Murray wouldn't have made it out of the first week of Wimbledon at the time Courier made the final.

Lol at all these attempts to predict what Player A would or wouldn't have done if they had only played in Era B. Just lol! The fact of the matter is that players adapt to the conditions of their own era. They never try to play in anybody else's. Such fantasies only exist in the fevered imaginations of fanboys who have far too much time on their hands!

 

[Bobby Jr]

You don't really have any justification for making such a statement

I do. I explained it already if you cared to read.

..I've been watching tennis since the late 70s and I honestly don't recall Courier as being a player who was so much more feared than Murray is now (or was until very recently).

Your attempt at an appeal to authority wont work here. I have been watching since then too. You obviously weren't watching much if you don't recall the period where Courier was the man. A period where Becker was already a waning force generally, after Sampras had won his first major but wasn't close to becoming dominant (or even winning his second major) etc.

The dominant players of Courier's time were Sampras and Agassi.

No they were not. Courier did his lot before either Agassi or Sampras was close to being dominant. Agassi amazed everyone by getting his first major - almost no-one expected it at Wimbledon. ... and remember Agassi's losses at the French for two years running (Gomez and Courier?) He was the guy who couldn't win, not the guy who could at that stage. It took Agassi another 7 years to match Courier's majors total.

..there is absolutely no reason for not comparing him to Murray in this era.

Covered above to cater for your faulty recollection of the era Courier was winning majors and held the #1 ranking in.

...your contention that they can't be compared is frankly just ridiculous and merely reflects a bias for one player over the other as I mentioned earlier. It is certainly not the kind of realistic and objective view

At least it held some accuracy for what the era was like. You said earlier you've been watching tennis since the 70s but somehow can't even remember 1991, 1992 and 1993. That virtually defines a lack of objectivity.

 

[Doppelganger]

"Most" what? Most of whom? Where's the data to support that assertion? This is a very disingenuous type of argument. Any position sounds more plausible if you can freely generalize about how it's broadly supported.

"Weak era" nonsense is an all-purpose corrosive that over the years has been used to attack the accomplishments of virtually every great player. For every ATG, there's an ATGg (All-Time Great gadfly) complaining that the player reaped the rewards of soft competition.

Most of whom? Try pretty much every pro shop in my town. Try most people I've talked to on this site. You're telling me you think Murray could square off against guys like Sampras, Agassi, and Becker in their prime? This thread is about speculation, because the fact is, you cannot compare two totally different (and good) players from completely different eras. There are too many variables, including differences in equipment, courts and many more. But all things considered, no way Murray is better than Courier in my opinion. Sorry to burst your bubble. We're all entitled to our opinions.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

"Most" what? Most of whom? Where's the data to support that assertion? This is a very disingenuous type of argument. Any position sounds more plausible if you can freely generalize about how it's broadly supported.

"Weak era" nonsense is an all-purpose corrosive that over the years has been used to attack the accomplishments of virtually every great player. For every ATG, there's an ATGg (All-Time Great gadfly) complaining that the player reaped the rewards of soft competition.

If you actually read people's posts or watch tennis you'll realize Murray is No. 1 in an era where Roger Federer nearly 10 years past his prime is sweeping up every big title.

And LOL at Mainad saying Murray deserves to be compared to Courier. He doesn't even have the same accomplishments as the man and he certainly did achieve what he did in a much "softer" era than Courier.

 

[Mainad]

If you actually read people's posts or watch tennis you'll realize Murray is No. 1 in an era where Roger Federer nearly 10 years past his prime is sweeping up every big title.

And LOL at Mainad saying Murray deserves to be compared to Courier. He doesn't even have the same accomplishments as the man and he certainly did achieve what he did in a much "softer" era than Courier.

Slam Titles: Courier 4, Murray 3 (other finals reached: Courier 3, Murray 8).

YEC Titles: Courier 0, Murray 1.

Masters 1000 titles: Courier 5, Murray 14.

Total Titles: Courier 23, Murray 45.

Highest Ranking: Courier #1 (58 weeks), Murray #1 (22 weeks and counting).

So the only areas where Courier is better is in his extra Slam title and greater number of weeks (so far) at #1. This currently gives him the slight edge.

So what's not to compare? Giant LOL at Sabratha for claiming that winning big titles in the era of the 3 greatest players of modern times is somehow "soft".

But then haters will always hate and continue to make complete fools of themselves on here just so they can keep on indulging it.

 

[Prabhanjan]

Slam Titles: Courier 4, Murray 3 (other finals reached: Courier 3, Murray 8).

YEC Titles: Courier 0, Murray 1.

Masters 1000 titles: Courier 5, Murray 14.

Total Titles: Courier 23, Murray 45.

Highest Ranking: Courier #1 (58 weeks), Murray #1 (22 weeks and counting).

So the only areas where Courier is better is in his extra Slam title and greater number of weeks (so far) at #1. This currently gives him the slight edge.

So what's not to compare? Giant LOL at Sabratha for claiming that winning big titles in the era of the 3 greatest players of modern times is somehow "soft".

But then haters will always hate and continue to make complete fools of themselves on here just so they can keep on indulging it.

Tell your boy to win at least two more slams. You never know when Wawrinka will strike and sneak in his fourth slam. Murray would be below Wawrinka going by the slam title.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Slam Titles: Courier 4, Murray 3 (other finals reached: Courier 3, Murray 8).

Which shows Murray's inability to win the big titles with MORE chances than Courier.

YEC Titles:

Courier 0, Murray 1.

Hewitt better than Murray then 'cause he has 2?

Masters 1000 titles

: Courier 5, Murray 14.

Like Masters were worth what they are today back in '92.

So the only areas where Courier is better is in his extra Slam title and greater number of weeks (so far) at #1. This currently gives him the slight edge.

Only if you don't account for the variables between the eras like you and other people here have.

So what's not to compare? Giant LOL at Sabratha for claiming that winning big titles in the era of the 3 greatest players of modern times is somehow "soft".

How is today the era of the "3 greatest players"? Federer at 36 years old with no competition is winning EVERY big title, and unless you want to bring out the stupid "he's at his peak today" argument you should really drop it.

But then haters will always hate and continue to make complete fools of themselves on here just so they can keep on indulging it.

You're the one making a fool of yourself, Mainad. Murray is No. 1 in a weak era and MOST people would agree with that statement.

 

[Doppelganger]

So the only areas where Courier is better is in his extra Slam title and greater number of weeks (so far) at #1. This currently gives him the slight edge.

So what's not to compare? Giant LOL at Sabratha for claiming that winning big titles in the era of the 3 greatest players of modern times is somehow "soft".

But then haters will always hate and continue to make complete fools of themselves on here just so they can keep on indulging it.

Once again, two of these "3 greatest players" are far past their prime! You are also ignoring the difference in eras in terms of courts. Courier was a way better all court (and multi-surface) player, and Murray is a boring baseliner. Back in Courier's era, the ball generally didn't bounce as high and you had to be more versatile. There were a severe lack of polyester strings too, so no whipping heavy spin forehands from the baseline. We're talking about apples and oranges here, not apples to apples.

 

[Mainad]

Which shows Murray's inability to win the big titles with MORE chances than Courier.

Shows that he was good enough to make more than twice as many Slam finals as Courier.

Hewitt better than Murray then 'cause he has 2?

Still the little matter of the extra Slam.

Like Masters were worth what they are today back in '92.

Sampras still won 11 of them. Muster won 8, Chang 7.

Only if you don't account for the variables between the eras like you and other people here have.

Ah but these 'variables' are invariably cut to the cloth of whatever agenda the person invoking them is pursuing. In your case, it is always to make Murray look bad compared to anybody who played tennis back in 1923.

How is today the era of the "3 greatest players"? Federer at 36 years old with no competition is winning EVERY big title, and unless you want to bring out the stupid "he's at his peak today" argument you should really drop it.

Federer wasn't always 36 years old. He was 27 when Murray first began winning big titles and 31 when Murray won his first Slam. Nadal was 22 in the first instance and 26 in the second. Djokovic the same age. In any case, Federer is unique because he is the GOAT. In the absence of Murray and Djokovic from the tour, he is dominating. Who were the competition for Courier? A declining Edberg and Becker? Sampras and Agassi yet to hit their peaks?

You're the one making a fool of yourself, Mainad. Murray is No. 1 in a weak era and MOST people would agree with that statement.

No they wouldn't. Take a peek at the result of this poll and stop acting like a complete clown.

 

[Mainad]

Once again, two of these "3 greatest players" are far past their prime! You are also ignoring the difference in eras in terms of courts. Courier was a way better all court (and multi-surface) player, and Murray is a boring baseliner. Back in Courier's era, the ball generally didn't bounce as high and you had to be more versatile. There were a severe lack of polyester strings too, so no whipping heavy spin forehands from the baseline. We're talking about apples and oranges here, not apples to apples.

Oh LOL and these 'variables' of your's somehow only make Murray look bad and not any other player playing today? Tennis was only good in the 1990s and not in the 2010s? So much for Federer, Nadal and Djokovic then. Courier and his mates would make them ALL look bad I presume!

 

[cockneyDjoker]

Pretty much most the forum thinks you're a joke when it comes to Murray yourself.

Pretty much most of the forum this you're a joke period

 

[JMR]

Sorry to burst your bubble. We're all entitled to our opinions.

What bubble? No one sane really cares whether Courier or Murray is greater. This is even more trivial than Becker vs. Edberg. But I do care about nonsensical "weak era" arguments, which are the last resort of the biased. And while you are entitled to your own opinion about these matters, you're not entitled to claim that it represents some sort of consensus.

 

[JMR]

If you actually read people's posts or watch tennis you'll realize Murray is No. 1 in an era where Roger Federer nearly 10 years past his prime is sweeping up every big title.

If you actually paid attention to tennis in the 1990s, you'd realize that the lowly MaliVai Washington made the Wimbledon final in 1996, thus discrediting the entire decade in which Courier briefly flourished. Isn't that so? "Weak era," right? How could it not have been abominably weak? And Petr Korda, a confirmed doper, actually won a slam in that era! Dual diagnosis: weak and corrupt! Surely no champion from such a decade could possibly be respected today?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Pretty much most of the forum this you're a joke period

Coming from the guy who didn't leave the forum after a failed bet.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

If you actually paid attention to tennis in the 1990s, you'd realize that the lowly MaliVai Washington made the Wimbledon final in 1996, thus discrediting the entire decade in which Courier briefly flourished. Isn't that so? "Weak era," right? How could it not have been abominably weak? And Petr Korda, a confirmed doper, actually won a slam in that era! Dual diagnosis: weak and corrupt! Surely no champion from such a decade could possibly be respected today?

That was the later 90s which I myself know is a weak era too (actually a lot like today). The early 90s was actually quite strong, but we both know you probably didn't watch tennis then.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Shows that he was good enough to make more than twice as many Slam finals as Courier.

No, it shows that even with more longevity he couldn't even convert as many majors as Courier.

Still the little matter of the extra Slam.

Still the matter of the 2 Year End #1s, 2 WTFs and the whole year at #1.

Sampras still won 11 of them. Muster won 8, Chang 7.

And you don't think Sampras would've won more of them today in an era which is so top heavy?

Ah but these 'variables' are invariably cut to the cloth of whatever agenda the person invoking them is pursuing. In your case, it is always to make Murray look bad compared to anybody who played tennis back in 1923.

Are they really? So you think it's fair to take Courier out of 1992 and compare him with Murray today, even though preference for Masters has increased 20 fold? This whole discussion is a joke.

Federer wasn't always 36 years old. He was 27 when Murray first began winning big titles and 31 when Murray won his first Slam. Nadal was 22 in the first instance and 26 in the second. Djokovic the same age. In any case, Federer is unique because he is the GOAT. In the absence of Murray and Djokovic from the tour, he is dominating. Who were the competition for Courier? A declining Edberg and Becker? Sampras and Agassi yet to hit their peaks?

Were Edberg and Becker really declining? Didn't Edberg make the '92 US Open final and beat Sampras? Didn't Becker continue to play decent tennis for a few years AFTER the allotted time?

No they wouldn't. Take a peek at the result of this poll and stop acting like a complete clown.

Let's see who voted for Murray and then we'll see who is the "complete clown" you freaking mug.

Oh wow, the Djokovic fans sure do know a lot about Courier.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

By the way, Murray had 1 slam total in the so called "strong era" and that came against Djokovic, and many people debated whether it was actually a legitimate win on the behalf of Murray. I give it to him but it certainly doesn't help your case.

He struggled for many years, much like the guys you HATE Murray to be compared to and unlike Courier who made a name for himself in a competitive era.

 

[cockneyDjoker]

Coming from the guy who didn't leave the forum after a failed bet.

Well... The c**k was going to leave, but stayed because 80% of the great users of this great forum of ours wanted the c**k to stay.

Also the c**k doesn't think you're a joke, I just try to spread peace and love. Plus I felt it was my duty to stick around to educate you on some tennis knowledge The c**k will teach you. You can be my Apprentice, my Darth Vader

Lets get serious and if you'll be so kind to let the c**k ask you this question, and I want you to think seriously before you answer. How many slams would Courier have if he was Murray's age right now???

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Well... The c**k was going to leave, but stayed because 80% of the great users of this great forum of ours wanted the c**k to stay.

More like felt sorry for you.

Also the c**k doesn't think you're a joke, I just try to spread peace and love. Plus I felt it was my duty to stick around to educate you on some tennis knowledge The c**k will teach you. You can be my Apprentice, my Darth Vader

Don't insult me.

Lets get serious and if you'll be so kind to let the c**k ask you this question, and I want you to think seriously before you answer. How many slams would Courier have if he was Murray's age right now???

Maybe more than he had when he played during the early 90s given today lacks any semblance of competition besides old man Fed.

 

[cockneyDjoker]

More like felt sorry for you.

Wrong. The c**k doesn't take himself too seriously and is funny, unlike your good self

Don't insult me.

The c**k would never do such a thing

Maybe more than he had when he played during the early 90s given today lacks any semblance of competition besides old man Fed.

Care to elaborate. No way would he beat Nadal at RG. No way he beats Nole at AO. No way he beats Federer or Murray at Wimbledon and no way he beats any of the big 4 at US open.

Murray had to beat prime Nole in 2 of his slam wins. No way does Courier win any of these finals.

Murray would've won all of Courier's slams if he was in his era, plus 2-3 more.

 

[Fedinkum]

Jim is definitely better, he gets on with the job without Murray's pre-menstruation moaning.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Wrong. The c**k doesn't take himself too seriously and is funny, unlike your good self

Which is why everything you post is a joke.

Care to elaborate. No way would he beat Nadal at RG. No way he beats Nole at AO. No way he beats Federer or Murray at Wimbledon and no way he beats any of the big 4 at US open.

Murray had to beat prime Nole in 2 of his slam wins. No way does Courier win any of these finals.

Murray would've won all of Courier's slams if he was in his era, plus 2-3 more.

If Wawrinka can beat Djokovic at the Australian Open, you bet your bottom dollar Courier could pull off the job once or twice.

Who did your boy beat for his French Open title? Murray of all people. Like Courier wouldn't beat him. Also think he could take a Soderling like finalist if given the chance.

Courier would win the finals if they were on his favored surface, much like Murray.

We've already established you have no idea what you're talking about so it should be a given you'd make a statement like your last.

 

[Doppelganger]

This thread has taken a turn for the ridiculous and I'm checking out. My opinion's been stated, and its Courier, no question. When people are chiming in with ridiculous comments like "Murray would have won all of Courier's slams plus 2-3 more", it's clear the IQ of the thread has dropped 40 points.

 

[-NN-]

I dunno what Murray would have done in Courier's time, I'm just rather sure he's clearly the greater player. Courier flamed out too quickly and then never resolved his game.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I dunno what Murray would have done in Courier's time, I'm just rather sure he's clearly the greater player. Courier flamed out too quickly and then never resolved his game.

Is he really though?

He failed to convert more finals into titles even with a lot more chances. Don't forget Murray is a benefactor of recent medicine/technology, same story when we compare him with other past players.

If he were really greater his resume would say so, and I'm not talking about the Masters.

 

[-NN-]

Is he really though?

He failed to convert more finals into titles even with a lot more chances. Don't forget Murray is a benefactor of recent medicine/technology, same story when we compare him with other past players.

If he were really greater his resume would say so, and I'm not talking about the Masters.

It's the same for everyone else in his era. Courier had good enough health for the most part to resolve his game but perhaps not the will. That matters. It's true that Murray has been given a greater chance to persist on than say the likes of Hewitt, who I'm sure you'll have in the back of your mind regarding the discussion on fitness. Murray has had the hunger and desire to play at a top 5 level for many years. It's his sustained excellence and relevance that pushes him over the top for me. That doesn't mean his relative (to peers) peak is better but it does mean he's accomplished a lot more because he's put himself in contention time and time again. It's not like players couldn't last in past eras - many had very very long careers. It's more likely now than it was then however for a player to overcome their ailments because of the improved sports science. I could have given Courier the nod if he didn't flame out like he did, but it's striking to compare the two in terms of longevity and sustained excellence. Murray gets a lot of credit from me for being ranked in the top-4 for 8 years (and potentially counting). Long story short, most people are massively biased toward peak and I still prefer peak to longevity but give longevity more importance than 99% of people here.

 

[Mainad]

This thread has taken a turn for the ridiculous and I'm checking out. My opinion's been stated, and its Courier, no question. When people are chiming in with ridiculous comments like "Murray would have won all of Courier's slams plus 2-3 more", it's clear the IQ of the thread has dropped 40 points.

That dropped the moment clowns like Sabratha stuck his mucky little oar in and you chiming in with irrelevant comments like it must be Courier because Murray "is a boring baseliner" which merely demonstrates that you don't like his game and not that it necessarily makes him the worse player.

Anyway, enough of this I totally agree. Too much utter rubbish has been spouted on here by the usual suspects to try and derail this thread.

 

[70後]

If you think about it, it has been really difficult to beat Murray for the past 10 years. To be superior to him from the back, only three guys in history can do it. These three just happen to hold 44 slams. To be a better player than Murray, you have to be at least equal with these three guys. All along, the margin between Ray and FedNadDjok has been very slim. Now he is only reaping the well earned position by having managed to stay up there so long.

No time period is ever a monolith. People rise and fall, tides ebb and flow. I even have a lot of suspicion about so called tennis eras since these are artificial, political constructs that don't really stand up to even a closer look.

But like most forums this is a political forum. Only the topic is tennis. This could be a forum about collecting beer bottle caps and the politics and political mudslinging will be exactly the same. Who really minds which beer bottle cap is a greater beer bottle cap than another? Or which beer bottle cap edges which beer bottle cap h2h if they are both tossed off a bar 20 times in a row? That isn't the point though since it is about those who want to control the narrative of beer bottle caps versus those who want to contribute their viewpoint about beer bottle caps.

 

[cockneyDjoker]

If Wawrinka can beat Djokovic at the Australian Open, you bet your bottom dollar Courier could pull off the job once or twice.

No there's now way Courier would defeat Nole at Australian open. Nole would simply just grind him down.

Who did your boy beat for his French Open title? Murray of all people. Like Courier wouldn't beat him. Also think he could take a Soderling like finalist if given the chance.

Don't make me laugh. Courier beat Agassi before he hit his prime and ******g Korda. F**k he lost against Bruguera at the French open final. So don't give me this bulls**t about Nole facing weaker competition because I don't want to break this to you but Murray>>>>>>>>>>Bruguera and Korda

Lets look at the finals Courier was in.

Australian open- Sorry to break this to you but Murray defeats Edberg at both these finals
French open- Korda Bruguera and pre-prime Agassi. Murray wins both. I'm sorry but you're fuc***g deluded if you think that Murray doesn't win 3 French opens here. The guy has defeated much superior Clay court players in Nole and Rafa.

Murray probably also wins at least 1 Wimbledon and 1 US open so that's 6 slams he wins in Courier's day And that's me being conservative. I could easily see Murray winning 8 slams in that era. Courier at best wins 1-2 in this era. So deal with it

Courier would win the finals if they were on his favored surface, much like Murray.

Again no he wouldn't if he couldn't win a French open final against Bruguera. He sure as hell ain't going on a Soderling run in this one and would not win against Nole, Rafa, Stan or Murray.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

That dropped the moment clowns like Sabratha stuck his mucky little oar in and you chiming in with irrelevant comments like it must be Courier because Murray "is a boring baseliner" which merely demonstrates that you don't like his game and not that it necessarily makes him the worse player.

Anyway, enough of this I totally agree. Too much utter rubbish has been spouted on here by the usual suspects to try and derail this thread.

The circus left like 5 missed calls, Murray can't take them all.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

If you think about it, it has been really difficult to beat Murray for the past 10 years. To be superior to him from the back, only three guys in history can do it. These three just happen to hold 44 slams. To be a better player than Murray, you have to be at least equal with these three guys. All along, the margin between Ray and FedNadDjok has been very slim. Now he is only reaping the well earned position by having managed to stay up there so long.

Is that a joke? To be better than Murray you need to be one of the greatest of all time?

Rightio. I guess Becker or Edberg would'nt have had a chance against him.

 

[Thundergod]

Is he really though?

He failed to convert more finals into titles even with a lot more chances. Don't forget Murray is a benefactor of recent medicine/technology, same story when we compare him with other past players.

If he were really greater his resume would say so, and I'm not talking about the Masters.

Can you really blame Murray for not converting all those times?(well a few he could have won) He's had to face 2 of the 5 greatest Open Era players in 10 of those 11 finals while sometimes having to beat another Big 3 member along the way. The field he has/had to face is the most absolute top heavy it will ever be.

 

[NatF]

Can you really blame Murray for not converting all those times?(well a few he could have won) He's had to face 2 of the 5 greatest Open Era players in 10 of those 11 finals. The field he has/had to face is the most absolute top heavy it will ever be.

He played poor or distinctly average by his standards in most of his finals. Murray has proved he's consistently able to beat players like Tsonga, Berdych etc...to get to slam finals. But he's rarely brought his A game to finals for more than a couple of sets - e.g. he's rarely played well enough to beat an in-form ATG. Maybe he wouldn't have converted many anyway because as you said he's had Federer and Djokovic most of the time - but the level of play he's displayed in most of his finals wouldn't have got it done against many in the open era.