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

[cockneyDjoker]

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.

I agree. But there's no point explaining yourself to that poster that clearly has an agenda against Nole and Murray

Ask yourself this question. How many of those 11 finals would Courier win. I'll break it down.

US open 2008- No
Australian open 2010- No
Australian open 2011- No chance of winning against Nole the way he was playing
Wimbledon 2012- No
us open 2012- No
Australian open 2013- No
Wimbledon 2013- No
Australian open 2015- No
Australian open 2016- No
French open 2016- No
Wimbledon 2016- This is maybe the only one I would give Courier a chance of winning. Although I wouldn't count Raonic out either.

 

[Fiero425]

I agree. But there's no point explaining yourself to that poster that clearly has an agenda against Nole and Murray

Ask yourself this question. How many of those 11 finals would Courier win. I'll break it down.

US open 2008- No
Australian open 2010- No
Australian open 2011- No chance of winning against Nole the way he was playing
Wimbledon 2012- No
us open 2012- No
Australian open 2013- No
Wimbledon 2013- No
Australian open 2015- No
Australian open 2016- No
French open 2016- No
Wimbledon 2016- This is maybe the only one I would give Courier a chance of winning. Although I wouldn't count Raonic out either.

Courier was one of many "limited" players of that era who pretty much just had a FH; and that was about it! He got away with it for a few years, but after that he was spinning his wheels from '93 Wimbledon loss to Sampras on! OTTH, the last thing I remember of Jim was him blowing a DC match where he was serving, got to 40-L and found a way to give it all back to some player from Germany I'd never heard of on his home court! He had the nerve to use a term like "pigeon" to describe Edberg! I took umbrage in the name of the stylish Swede and will only give JC so much credit for winning his 4 minor majors and making finals elsewhere! Stefan punished him at the USO final in '91 though; 2, 4, & 0 IIRC! Courier accomplished enough with his limited game; 2 AO's, 2 FO's, and ranked #1 for a while!

 

[Boom-Boom]

Courier was one of many "limited" players of that era who pretty much just had a FH; and that was about it! He got away with it for a few years, but after that he was spinning his wheels from '93 Wimbledon loss to Sampras on! OTTH, the last thing I remember of Jim was him blowing a DC match where he was serving, got to 40-L and found a way to give it all back to some player from Germany I'd never heard of on his home court! He had the nerve to use a term like "pigeon" to describe Edberg! I took umbrage in the name of the stylish Swede and will only give JC so much credit for winning his 4 minor majors and making finals elsewhere! Stefan punished him at the USO in '92 though; 2, 4, & 0 IIRC! Courier accomplished enough with his limited game; 2 FO's, 2 FO's, and ranked #1 for a while!

Lol at least he could properly crush an IO forehand unless Sir Andy "pushing" Murray...and he didn't need a string of star coaches to win his first Slam before turning 25 ...

 

[Fiero425]

Lol at least he could properly crush an IO forehand unless Sir Andy "pushing" Murray...and he didn't need a string of star coaches to win his first Slam before turning 25 ...

That IO FH was his "bread and butter!" He was just a gritty player who had to overcome the celebrity & love of Agassi which fueled his drive to the top! I remember him upsetting Agassi in the '91 FO! Another blown major Andre was expected to win, but out of the blue his 1st major was at Wimbledon! Such a strange career by both IMO; both underachieving for different reasons!

 

[DerekNoleFam1]

Murray marginally, with the Masters and Olympics, and career longevity.
Courier was hot for a couple of years, then dropped back to being a journeyman really.

 

[Boom-Boom]

Murray marginally, with the Masters and Olympics, and career longevity.
Courier was hot for a couple of years, then dropped back to being a journeyman really.

Courier a journeyman lol, switch to a Curling forum please

 

[Bobby Jr]

Courier was one of many "limited" players of that era who pretty much just had a FH; and that was about it! He got away with it for a few years..

You must be in dreamland to think he pretty much just had a forehand. He had a great serve for a non-giant/serve and volleyer, a great slice backhand too and his backhand was great on return against big servers for the era.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Courier. Especially if you take peak playing level into account. Which was a higher level than Murray has ever played

Jim Courier

Grand Slam Tournaments:
4 titles
3 runners-up
4 semifinals
4 quarterfinals

World Tour Finals:
0 titles
2 runners-up
0 semifinals

Masters 1000s:
5 titles
0 runners-up
9 semifinals

Other Tournaments:
5 500 titles
9 250 titles


Andy Murray

Grand Slam Tournaments:
3 titles
8 runners-up
9 semifinals
8 quarterfinals

World Tour Finals:
1 title
0 runners-up
3 semifinals

Masters 1000s:
14 titles
7 runners-up
12 semifinals

Other Tournaments:
9 500 titles
16 250 titles


For those who value it, their ranking achievements are fairly comparable, with both having 1 YE#1. Courier has 58 weeks at #1, while Murray is at 21 weeks and counting. He should be able to get to somewhere around 50, at least, by the end of the year.

So who would you say is the greater player between the two?

What about peak level of play? Competitiveness? Courier burned out rather qickly after reaching #1. So, it should be expected that his overall accomplishments would be few compared to most other #1's. But, he won a majority of the major finals he played in, beating two all time greats in 3 of those wins, indications of his competitiveness and short lived peak level of play.

 

[DerekNoleFam1]

What about peak level of play? Competitiveness? Courier burned out rather quickly after reaching #1. So, it should be expected that his overall accomplishments would be few compared to most other #1's. But, he won a majority of the major finals he played in, beating two all time greats in 3 of those wins, indications of his competitiveness and short lived peak level of play.

Courier a journeyman lol, switch to a Curling forum please

Courier became a non-factor after 1993, an above average journeyman from then on is a fair assessment.
By the middle of 1994 he had dropped out of the Top 10 (finished at Number 13), even if he got back to finish the year in the Top 8 in 1995 for the last time.

http://www.tennis28.com/rankings/history/courier.html

This was the reason I rated Murray slightly higher.
It was quite surprising how quickly he dropped back, once the likes of Sampras and Agassi upped their levels.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Courier became a non-factor after 1993, an above average journeyman from then on is a fair assessment.
By the middle of 1994 he had dropped out of the Top 10 (finished at Number 13), even if he got back to finish the year in the Top 8 in 1995 for the last time.

http://www.tennis28.com/rankings/history/courier.html

This was the reason I rated Murray slightly higher.
It was quite surprising how quickly he dropped back, once the likes of Sampras and Agassi upped their levels.

I'm not sure that Courier's decline in the rankings were the result of competition from Sampras and Agassi. If that were the case, then it wouldn't explain why he would drop out of the top 5 much less the top 10 so quickly. Others have speculated that, perhaps, he burned out from overtraining.

 

[timnz]

I'm not sure that Courier's decline in the rankings were the result of competition from Sampras and Agassi. If that were the case, then it wouldn't explain why he would drop out of the top 5 much less the top 10 so quickly. Others have speculated that, perhaps, he burned out from overtraining.

Courier himself explained it in the late 1990s what happened. He said at the time, people worked out how to play him. He confessed that he inside out forehand tactic - though very strong - had limits tactically. Once people worked out how to play him, he was done in the top 5. That combined with going to heavier balls in the mid-1990s- I remember that caused a problem with his arm - and his game was strongly around heavy topspin forehand - and if you have a sore arm that is a problem.

 

[FudgeControl]

Murray.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Courier himself explained it in the late 1990s what happened. He said at the time, people worked out how to play him. He confessed that he inside out forehand tactic - though very strong - had limits tactically. Once people worked out how to play him, he was done in the top 5. That combined with going to heavier balls in the mid-1990s- I remember that caused a problem with his arm - and his game was strongly around heavy topspin forehand - and if you have a sore arm that is a problem.

Thanks! I hadn't heard/read that from Courier. But, I find it hard to believe that a player of his caliber could be "solved," without him making the necessary adjustments to continue to be competitive.

 

[nolefam_2024]

For "grand Slam" read "Slam". As you know, many tennis commentators continue to refer to individual Slams as being "Grand" however strictly incorrect that may be.

Even tennis players are confused. What is a career slam, what is calendar slam and what is a grand slam. I think Fed was confused when they asked him after RG 2009. Its preferable to assume "Grand" slam as a slam instead of a calendar slam.

 

[DerekNoleFam1]

Thanks! I hadn't heard/read that from Courier. But, I find it hard to believe that a player of his caliber could be "solved," without him making the necessary adjustments to continue to be competitive.

I agree, it is like Nadal with his inside-out forehand.
You know it is coming, but cannot stop it.
For whatever reason Courier declined post-1993, and very significantly post-1995.

 

[KINGROGER]

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.

Roddick beat prime Djokovic at AO and prime Murray at Wimbledon. Put him in 2014- present weak era and he'd have a couple of wimbledons and a couple of USOs.

 

[killerboi2]

Roddick beat prime Djokovic at AO and prime Murray at Wimbledon. Put him in 2014- present weak era and he'd have a couple of wimbledons and a couple of USOs.

Absolutely ridiculous man... Prime Djokovic in 2009? That also reteired injured. Kind of like saying that Pete was prime in 92 lmao. Murray was hardly prime in 2009 either. And no he wouldn't win Wimbledon from 2014 onwards. No way is he beating Djokovic or his master or Murray in 2016 who was on his way to no 1 and just wouldn't let it slip to a player of Roddick's standard like he did in 2009. You must be on the same drugs as Sabratha or something.

 

[KINGROGER]

Absolutely ridiculous man... Prime Djokovic in 2009? That also reteired injured. Kind of like saying that Pete was prime in 92 lmao. Murray was hardly prime in 2009 either. And no he wouldn't win Wimbledon from 2014 onwards. No way is he beating Djokovic or his master or Murray in 2016 who was on his way to no 1 and just wouldn't let it slip to a player of Roddick's standard like he did in 2009. You must be on the same drugs as Sabratha or something.

Yes prime Djokovic. Grand slam win, multiple GS finals/SF, multiple masters wins = prime. 21-22 years old too. Fed entered his prime aged 22, Nadal aged 19 so makes sense.

Again, Murray entered his prime when he beat peak Nadal to make USO F in 08 and was winning masters.

Peak Roddick in 2014 - present wins 2014 Wimbledon & USO, 2015 Wimbledon & USO final possibly winning one, Wimbledon 2016. He'd be a multiple slam winner. Only the GOAT at his peak stopped him, and it usually took 4 sets.

 

[BGod]

Ugh, here's a history lesson:

Jim Courier was the 5th guy to make the Final at all Slams. After Rod Laver, Ken Rosewall (who did it in early days), Lendl and Edberg. He also had at one point made 6 of 8 Finals.
Andy Murray was 10th after Agassi, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic while furthermore making his first WTF title match in his 12th season, while Courier made back to back in his 4th and 5th seasons.

US open 2008
Australian open 2010
Australian open 2011
Wimbledon 2012
US open 2012
Australian open 2013
Wimbledon 2013
Australian open 2015
Australian open 2016
French open 2016
Wimbledon 2016

I see 2 likely victories and 5 toss-ups, which will be fair and say 3 victories. That's 5 to Andy's 3.

Now let's acknowledge his lone French Final and how Courier would have made more. Give Courier 91-93 a run at 2012-2014 and he does very well.

 

[Fiero425]

Roddick beat prime Djokovic at AO and prime Murray at Wimbledon. Put him in 2014- present weak era and he'd have a couple of wimbledons and a couple of USOs.

Prime what; hair growing? Please! If Roddick beat anyone, it was almost a decade ago! The only one in his prime then was Federer! Give me a break!

 

[KINGROGER]

Prime what; hair growing? Please! If Roddick beat anyone, it was almost a decade ago! The only one in his prime then was Federer! Give me a break!

Nadal entered his prime in 05 aged 19 when he won the French open and 4 other masters (inc 2 on hard courts) Djokovic entered his prime aged 20 in 07 when he won 2 HC masters, reached 2 GS SF and 1 final.

Federer entered his prime aged 21-22 in 2003 when he won Wimbledon and the YEC.

 

[Fiero425]

Nadal entered his prime in 05 aged 19 when he won the French open and 4 other masters (inc 2 on hard courts) Djokovic entered his prime aged 20 in 07 when he won 2 HC masters, reached 2 GS SF and 1 final.

Federer entered his prime aged 21-22 in 2003 when he won Wimbledon and the YEC.

You and I have different ideas on PRIME! Nadovicray were barely rookies for the most part when Roddick played!! To me to be in your prime, you not only have to be physically at your best, your mind has learned to win when not necessarily playing well or on "best surface" and that takes some maturity IMO! My thought is, mid 20's is more like it! Just because someone wins early, that hardly makes it their prime! Chang won his lone FO at 17; who's prime is at that age besides maybe a gymnast?

 

[KINGROGER]

You and I have different ideas on PRIME! Nadovicray were barely rookies for the most part when Roddick played!! To me to be in your prime, you not only have to be physical at your best, your mind has learned to win when not necessarily playing well or on "best surface" and that takes some maturity IMO! My thought is, mid 20's is more like it! Just because someone wins early, that hardly makes it their prime! Chang won his lone FO at 17; who's prime is at that age besides maybe a gymnast?

Nadal's grass peak 07-08, HC peak 07-09 and 13 as well as 2010 USO clay peak 05-10.

I say prime not only thanks to those GS wins, but the overall consistency, masters wins, title wins etc. For example remove Fedal and Djokovic in 07 likely wins 2-3 majors (Roddick could win 07 USO making it 2 at FO/W) and 2 majors in 08 at both HC maybe a 3rd at RG too.

The only reason he won 3 in 2011 was A: Tsonga took out Fed for him at Wimbledon and B: Fed choked 2-0 and 40-15. Prime Fed wins that in 4.

I think Nole inflated his total with the decline of his major rivals and things going his way.

 

[Fiero425]

Nadal's grass peak '07-08, HC peak '07-09 and '13 as well as 2010 USO clay peak '05-10.

I say prime not only thanks to those GS wins, but the overall consistency, Masters wins, title wins etc. For example remove Fedal and Djokovic in '07 likely wins 2-3 majors (Roddick could win '07 USO making it 2 at FO/W) and 2 majors in '08 at both HC maybe a 3rd at RG too.

The only reason he won 3 in 2011 was A: Tsonga took out Fed for him at Wimbledon and B: Fed choked 2-0 and 40-15. Prime Fed wins that in 4.

I think Nole inflated his total with the decline of his major rivals and things going his way.

Delusional thinking, but still gonna save to my blog; CONGRATS! Will send the addy after I collect a couple more posts!

 

[Djokovic2011]

Nadal's grass peak 07-08, HC peak 07-09 and 13 as well as 2010 USO clay peak 05-10.

I say prime not only thanks to those GS wins, but the overall consistency, masters wins, title wins etc. For example remove Fedal and Djokovic in 07 likely wins 2-3 majors (Roddick could win 07 USO making it 2 at FO/W) and 2 majors in 08 at both HC maybe a 3rd at RG too.

The only reason he won 3 in 2011 was A: Tsonga took out Fed for him at Wimbledon and B: Fed choked 2-0 and 40-15. Prime Fed wins that in 4.

I think Nole inflated his total with the decline of his major rivals and things going his way.

Declined ATG rivals >> no rivals at all

 

[DerekNoleFam1]

Courier barely did anything after the age of 26. He had three-four amazing years where he defeated Agassi and Pete before they really hit their straps, and battled serve/volleys in the back end of the french.

A pioneer for the modern day fit player with a strong fh no doubt, but Murray for mine has been way, wayyyy more consistent. Say what you will about homogenisation, his record is incredible.

Murray is a 5+ slammer in any other era. He is good on fast and now clay courts toward the back end.

but yea different eras so I don't know why I bothered.

Agree, Courier basically fell off the map, Mats Wilander post-1988 style.
Post 1995 Jim Courier was just another Top 30 player, whilst contemporaries were competing for the big prizes.
Murray could still win more Slams too, he is even a dark horse for RG.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Absolutely ridiculous man... Prime Djokovic in 2009? That also reteired injured. Kind of like saying that Pete was prime in 92 lmao. Murray was hardly prime in 2009 either. And no he wouldn't win Wimbledon from 2014 onwards. No way is he beating Djokovic or his master or Murray in 2016 who was on his way to no 1 and just wouldn't let it slip to a player of Roddick's standard like he did in 2009. You must be on the same drugs as Sabratha or something.

Yeah bro, must be on drugs to think Roddick could beat Murray in a major.

What drugs is everyone else on where they seem to imagine Murray is some dominant force? LOL.

 

[70後]

According to Courier's wiki, including and post Wimbledon 1996 1R, Jim would lose 7 1R out of the remaining 12 slams he played, the other exits were a litter of 3R, 2R, and 4R. This was the shocking consequence of his "dead arm" from over training. He had to train that hard, he didn't have the luxury of talent of say Stich.

Yet in 1998 Courier defeated 18 year old Safin in 5 sets in the Davis cup final rubber to bring USA to victory over Russia. This after losing the first match to Kafelnikov also in 5 sets.

Guy was an insanely ferocious fighter and competitor.