Murray stats among (other?) ATG

FedeRadi

Rookie
Let's look to some Murray stats among ATGs. I consider 12 open era almost undisputable ATGs who didn't play pre-open era: Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Sampras, Agassi, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.

SLAM:
Titles: 3 (Last.)
Finals: 11 (9th tied with McEnroe, Wilander and Edberg. Better than Becker.)
Semifinals: 21 (8th. Better than McEnroe, Edberg, Becker, Borg and Wilander.)

MASTER 1000:
Titles: 14 (9th. Better than Becker, Sampras, Wilander and Edberg.)
Finals: 21 (9th. Better than Borg, Edberg, Sampras and Wilander.)

WORLD TOUR FINALS:
Titles: 1 (8th tied with Connors, Edberg and Agassi. Better than Wilander and Nadal.)
Finals: 1 (11th tied with Connors and Wilander.)

ALL TOURNAMENTS:
Titles: 46 (11th. Better than Edberg and Wilander.)
Finals: 68 (12th. Better than Wilander.)

ATP RANKING:
YE #1: 1 (10th tied with Wilander and Agassi. Better than Becker.)
Weeks #1: 41 (11th. Better than Wilander and Becker.)
Weeks Top 3: 226 (12th. Better than Wilander.)
Weeks Top 5: 429 (11th. Better than Borg and Wilander.)
Weeks Top 10: 494 (11th. Better than Borg and Wilander.)

ELO RATING:
Peak: 2500 (7th. Better than Connors, Becker, Sampras, Wilander, Agassi and Edberg.)
Best Season End: 2500 (7th. Better than Connors, Becker, Agassi, Sampras, Wilander and Edberg.)

PERFORMANCES:
Total Wins: 673 (11th. Better than Borg and Wilander.)
Win Rate: 77,45% (8th. Better than Sampras, Becker, Agassi, Edberg and Wilander.)
Slam Wins: 189 (8th. Better than Edberg, McEnroe, Becker, Wilander and Borg.)
Slam Win Rate: 80,77% (10th. Better than Becker, Wilander and Edberg.)

CONCLUSION:
Although he is ranked in the lower half almost everywhere, he isn't ranked last alone(So worse than all ATGs) in any stat, aside Slam Titles.
He is better than or tied with Wilander in every stat, aside Slam Titles.
For comparison, a player often considered to belong to Murray's Tier like Jim Courier, making the same comparison with same 12 ATGs would be ranked last alone in 16 out of 20 stats(All but both WTF stats, YE#1 and Weeks #1).
This analysis not even considered two Olympics Titles because their value is debatable.
I agree the worst stat for Murray is the most important one. But for me it's really hard not consider him an ATG since he scores so well in every other metric.
 

daggerman

Hall of Fame
Thanks for the analysis. To me, Murray v. Agassi is an interesting debate. But I don't know if this forum is ready to have it.
 

Djokodalerer31

Hall of Fame
You either win it or not...he is NOT an ATG no matter how much you try to spin it! You want to consider him an ATG if you want (all power to you!), but don't expect masses to agree with you! I wish Murray would somehow managed to pull off a miracle and won say at least 3 more grand slams in near future! But that's probably ain't happening so...all of that hypothetical mambo-jumbo is nothing, but a wishful thinking!
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
The title should read 'Murray stats VS ATG' and not 'Murray stats among other atg'

Nishikori, Raonic and Dmitrov winning 3 majors by not facing Fedal and beating a poor Djokovic will not make them an ATG
 

Mediterranean Might

Professional
You either win it or not...he is NOT an ATG no matter how much you try to spin it! You want to consider him an ATG if you want (all power to you!), but don't expect masses to agree with you! I wish Murray would somehow managed to pull off a miracle and won say at least 3 more grand slams in near future! But that's probably ain't happening so...all of that hypothetical mambo-jumbo is nothing, but a wishful thinking!
Most people are going to consider him an ATG whether you like it or not.

Yes a slam is a slam is a slam... but Murray has accomplished enough in an era with peak Big 3 to be considered an ATG. It's not hypothetical mumbo jumbo, the numbers above speak for themselves.
 

Djokodalerer31

Hall of Fame
Most people are going to consider him an ATG whether you like it or not.

Yes a slam is a slam is a slam... but Murray has accomplished enough in an era with peak Big 3 to be considered an ATG. It's not hypothetical mumbo jumbo, the numbers above speak for themselves.

You are not an ATG if you don't win at least 6 grand slams and have at least one season, where you dominate the rest of the tour! Murray never dominated the rest of the tour with Fedalovic around and thus why his status as an ATG is questionable at best! The closest he ever got to dominating the tour was 2nd half of 2016 season, back when Djokovic was already going through his famous career slump! Not too convincing, sorry...
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
The title should read 'Murray stats VS ATG' and not 'Murray stats among other atg'

Nishikori, Raonic and Dmitrov winning 3 majors by not facing Fedal and beating a poor Djokovic will not make them an ATG

What have those 3 got to do with anything?
 
  • Like
Reactions: K-H

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
Nah mate, mury is no ATG. No dominant slam wins and only one great clutch run (USO 2012). Wilander has the weakest non-slam stats of all ATGs indeed, Murray is a clearly better non-slam player but 4 of Wilander's 7 slems were more impressive than any of Murray's (to wit, 1982 RG, 1985 RG, 1988 AO & USO), and he beat Lendl and Agassi in 2 of the other 3.
 

MeatTornado

Talk Tennis Guru
It's not his fault that he lived in an era so hard to become an ATG. But at the end of the day he still didn't do it.

The guy will go down as a British legend who will be remembered for generations to come. That's good enough. We don't need to pretend he's Borg or McEnroe just because he had the bad luck to play Djokovic and Federer a lot.
 

RaulRamirez

Legend
The "ATG" designation is arbitrary and negotiable, and I still don't know where that line is for me.
I have great respect for Murray's career, but do his other accomplishments -- many of which are better than Wilander's - make up for a 4-slam deficit?
To me, I don't know that it's enough. I would rate his career above that of Vilas, and the other 3-slam winners he's grouped with.

Now, I would probably only extend ATG down to Agassi, and not necessarily include Becker, Edberg and Wilander. Obviously, they were amazing players and easy Hall of Famers, but the line has to be drawn somewhere.
 

James P

G.O.A.T.
I think Murray is an ATG already. I didn't need to read this to think that. Just used the ol' eye test. That said, some of these stats are self-confirming my already formed opinion.
 

duaneeo

Legend
True, but nobody except Stanimal, Judy, Jamie and Andy Murray thinks 3 slams denotes an ATG. NOBODY.

All time great is so non-definitive.

It's not his fault that he lived in an era so hard to become an ATG. But at the end of the day he still didn't do it.

Well, it can be argued that since the Big-3 are considered to be on a higher scale than ATGs, and Murray lost to nearly no one other than a Big-3 (mostly while they were at their peak/prime) at the big tournaments (all 8 slam final losses to a Big-3, eight of 10 slam semifinal losses to a Big-3, and six of 7 Masters final losses to a Big-3), Murray is definitely an ATG.
 

MeatTornado

Talk Tennis Guru
Well, it can be argued that since the Big-3 are considered to be on a higher scale than ATGs, and Murray lost to nearly no one other than a Big-3 (mostly while they were at their peak/prime) at the big tournaments (all 8 slam final losses to a Big-3, eight of 10 slam semifinal losses to a Big-3, and six of 7 Masters final losses to a Big-3), Murray is definitely an ATG.
Maybe the talent was there and he got screwed. It doesn't matter. If you have to explain all that to everyone whenever this comes up over the next 50 years, he's not actually an ATG.

You know who else was constantly running into GOATing opponents? All of the Big 3. They overcame it. That's how you become a legend. Andy didn't. It doesn't matter if he technically may have been as or more talented than some guys with 6+ slams. Life's not fair sometimes.
 

-snake-

Hall of Fame
It's not his fault that he lived in an era so hard to become an ATG. But at the end of the day he still didn't do it.

The guy will go down as a British legend who will be remembered for generations to come. That's good enough. We don't need to pretend he's Borg or McEnroe just because he had the bad luck to play Djokovic and Federer a lot.



Here we go again with the "Marry was so unlucky to play in this stronk era and blah blah blah" narrative. Excuses, excuses. Stan, Marin and Delpops played vs the same guys and bagged slems/a slem.
If he was that good, he would've found a way to get 6 at least. He didn't. That's it.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Here we go again with the "Marry was so unlucky to play in this stronk era and blah blah blah" narrative. Excuses, excuses. Stan, Marin and Delpops played vs the same guys and bagged slems/a slem.
If he was that good, he would've found a way to get 6 at least. He didn't. That's it.

Still found a way to get to #1 though. Don't recall Stan and Delpops doing that.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
True, but nobody except Stanimal, Judy, Jamie and Andy Murray thinks 3 slams denotes an ATG. NOBODY.

Your contempt for 3 "measly" Slams and casual indifference to any other kind of career achievements never fails to amuse me.

And where and when have Andy or any member of his family claimed that he is an ATG???
 

RS

Bionic Poster
Nah mate, mury is no ATG. No dominant slam wins and only one great clutch run (USO 2012). Wilander has the weakest non-slam stats of all ATGs indeed, Murray is a clearly better non-slam player but 4 of Wilander's 7 slems were more impressive than any of Murray's (to wit, 1982 RG, 1985 RG, 1988 AO & USO), and he beat Lendl and Agassi in 2 of the other 3.
2 more slams do it?
 

-snake-

Hall of Fame
Still found a way to get to #1 though. Don't recall Stan and Delpops doing that.



The point is he did just fine and on top of that he got the #1 ranking for a while. What else was he supposed to achieve?


First UK human male person to win a slem since 1700: check


First UK human male person to win WimbelTon since 1700: check


First UK human male person to win multiple slems since 1600: check


Reach the top of the rankings since UK's John Doe pulled it off in 1678: check


The ATG obsession is dumb. Only like 10 guys are legend-like. It's the same in any sport.
 
Last edited:

Mainad

Bionic Poster
2 more slams do it?

Forget it mate, posters like Octorok will never acknowledge anything Murray has done. They just don't like him and that makes them think he must be no good as a player. They are not capable of any true objective opinions on a player's worth no matter what they may have done because their feelings towards them are entirely subjective ie. whether they like them or not.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
The point is he did just fine and on top of that he got the #1 ranking for a while. What else was he supposed to achieve?


First UK human male person to win a slem since 1700: check


First UK human male person to win WimbelTon since 1700: check


First UK human male person to win multiple slems since 1600: check


Reach the top of the rankings since UK's John Doe pulled it off in 1678: check

Isn't that enough?
 

-snake-

Hall of Fame
Isn't that enough?


Yeah, but still no ATG. Unless you mean in the UK. Even when the guy had only 2 majors and the #2 ranking he was ok. The press and lots of users on here want to raise his status to ATG because they feel he "didn't win "enough", or he was abused (?) by Fedalovic. As I said, if he was hiding some unbeatable god mode that was gonna give him 6 extra slams, he'd have probably shown us that in 2009-2012. It never happened.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Murray is not an ATG. If he were, he would have 2-3 more slams, which isn't an insurmountable task. If Stan could win 3 slams, Murray could have won 2-3 more too.

I know he was beaten by Fedalovic many times, but what stops me from giving this serious consideration is that most of his losses were not even close. If he were an ATG, most of his losses would have been closer, instead of more or less routine ones.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Murray is not an ATG. If he were, he would have 2-3 more slams, which isn't an insurmountable task. If Stan could win 3 slams, Murray could have won 2-3 more too.

I know he was beaten by Fedalovic many times, but what stops me from giving this serious consideration is that most of his losses were not even close. If he were an ATG, most of his losses would have been closer, instead of more or less routine ones.

He is an ATG. The stats point to it. You can try to deny it but you are wrong.
 

FedeRadi

Rookie
You either win it or not...he is NOT an ATG no matter how much you try to spin it! You want to consider him an ATG if you want (all power to you!), but don't expect masses to agree with you! I wish Murray would somehow managed to pull off a miracle and won say at least 3 more grand slams in near future! But that's probably ain't happening so...all of that hypothetical mambo-jumbo is nothing, but a wishful thinking!
You are not an ATG if you don't win at least 6 grand slams and have at least one season, where you dominate the rest of the tour! Murray never dominated the rest of the tour with Fedalovic around and thus why his status as an ATG is questionable at best! The closest he ever got to dominating the tour was 2nd half of 2016 season, back when Djokovic was already going through his famous career slump! Not too convincing, sorry...
True, but nobody except Stanimal, Judy, Jamie and Andy Murray thinks 3 slams denotes an ATG. NOBODY.
It's not his fault that he lived in an era so hard to become an ATG. But at the end of the day he still didn't do it.

The guy will go down as a British legend who will be remembered for generations to come. That's good enough. We don't need to pretend he's Borg or McEnroe just because he had the bad luck to play Djokovic and Federer a lot.
Here we go again with the "Marry was so unlucky to play in this stronk era and blah blah blah" narrative. Excuses, excuses. Stan, Marin and Delpops played vs the same guys and bagged slems/a slem.
If he was that good, he would've found a way to get 6 at least. He didn't. That's it.

Some clarifications:
My case is not about what Murray could have done in another era or without Big 3. My case is about what Murray did.

All Time Greats are by definitions, greater than non-ATG. If you think a player is greater or even a player that you consider an ATG, so he's an ATG too.

If you consider Slam Titles the only way to measure greatness Murray isn't an ATG. That's clear and respectable. But I don't agree. Imho, there are some examples where there is no way a player with more slam is greater than a player with less:
-Kuerten(3) isn't greater than Nastase(2).
-Kriek(2) isn't greater than Roddick(1).
-Bruguera(2) isn't greater than Muster(1).
-Gaudio(1) isn't greater than Rios(0).
-Edmondson(1) isn't greater than Nalbandian(0).
And so on...

So I have to consider other stats, and considering them it's hard to consider Murray not in the same tier of Wilander.
4 slam deficit is huge, I'm aware of this.
But:
-5% points better win rate.
-100+ more wins.
-1% points better slam win rate.
-45 more slam wins.
-13 more titles.
-6 more Master 1000.
-1 WTF.
-2 Olympic Golds.
-21 more weeks at #1.
-7 more GS semifinals.
-7 more Master 1000 finals.
-11 more finals.
-40+ more weeks in top 3.
-100+ more weeks in top 5.
-120+ more weeks in top 10.
-Better statistical peak(According to ELO).

This is pretty huge too. And it's hard to find another stat where Wilander is better than Murray aside from slam titles.
So, for someone who, like me, consider other metrics along slam titles, it's really hard to put Murray in a lesser tier than Wilander when he performed better than him in a lot fo metrics and worse only in one(Although that's the most relevant).


It's only my opinion and I respect who has a case to disagree(And, as said, "Only slam titles are relevant" it's enough). But, from what I'm reading, consensus is splitted, so I feel a bit presumptuos "Murray isn't an ATG, no discussion" case.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Murray would have won 5 slams minimum in pretty much any era except the one he played in.
So would Wawrinka. Nadal and Djokovic stopped him at the A0 2013, RG 2013, AO 2015 and RG 2017. Federer stopped him at the USO 2015 and the AO 2017.

Without the Big 3, Stan could have potentially won somewhere between 7 and 10 Slam titles.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
So would Wawrinka. Nadal and Djokovic stopped him at the A0 2013, RG 2013, AO 2015 and RG 2017. Federer stopped him at the USO 2015 and the AO 2017.

Without the Big 3, Stan could have potentially won somewhere between 7 and 10 Slam titles.

He might be on more Slams now than the Big 4th player if the Big 4th player hadn't stopped him at his favourite Slam.
 

StrongRule

Talk Tennis Guru
Then so is Wawrinka.
No. Wawrinka always gave Djokovic a fight in big matches and beat him a few times. So he is not an all time great, he is a lucky mug. An ATG is one who collapses in all big matches against Djokovic and gifts him free titles, one after another. Just like Murray was doing in 2014-2016.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
No. Wawrinka always gave Djokovic a fight in big matches and beat him a few times. So he is not an all time great, he is a lucky mug. An ATG is one who collapses in all big matches against Djokovic and gifts him free titles, one after another. Just like Murray was doing in 2014-2016.

Don't recall him gifting Djokovic Montreal or Rome or the WTF or the #1 ranking in 2015-2016. Can you?
 

StrongRule

Talk Tennis Guru
Murray is not an ATG, not even close. This should be obvious to anyone who isn't a blind Djokovic fanboy for whom the only important stat is how many times a player did collapse in big matches against Djokovic. This is the only stat in which Murray is a true all time great.

The opinion that he would have won much more slams in any other era is ridiculous. All his slam losses were not even close (maybe except for Wimbledon 2012, but even then the last 2 sets were very routine) and he eventually collapsed in most of them. It didn't really had to do with his opponents being too good, it was more about his level not being good enough. Nobody is going to tell me Djokovic was unplayable in RG 2016 final. He was very beatable, yet Murray couldn't even challenge him, leave alone beat him.
 

StrongRule

Talk Tennis Guru
Don't recall him gifting Djokovic Montreal or Rome or the WTF or the #1 ranking in 2015-2016. Can you?
He lost all slam matches without even giving a fight, so you have to bring some useless tournaments like Rome. Thanks for proving my point. :-D :-D :-D :-D
 

StrongRule

Talk Tennis Guru
Not in my view. Look at the stats in OP for Murray. That's ATG material.
The only stat you care about is that Murray gifted so many free titles to Djokovic. The only reason why you hype him. Wawrinka was actually able to challenge and even beat Djokovic in big matches, so you hate him.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Murray is not an ATG, not even close. This should be obvious to anyone who isn't a blind Djokovic fanboy for whom the only important stat is how many times a player did collapse in big matches against Djokovic. This is the only stat in which Murray is a true all time great.

The opinion that he would have won much more slams in any other era is ridiculous. All his slam losses were not even close (maybe except for Wimbledon 2012, but even then the last 2 sets were very routine) and he eventually collapsed in most of them. It didn't really had to do with his opponents being too good, it was more about his level not being good enough. Nobody is going to tell me Djokovic was unplayable in RG 2016 final. He was very beatable, yet Murray couldn't even challenge him, leave alone beat him.

Your contempt for Murray and idolisation of Stan is truly amusing (although I suspect you're only using Stan as a stick to try and beat Murray with).

Stan couldn't even challenge Murray at 2016 RG. Outside the AO and RG he hasn't challenged Djokovic at anything. Murray has successfully challenged Djokovic in 8 big title matches, far more than any other player outside the Big 3.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
The only stat you care about is that Murray gifted so many free titles to Djokovic. The only reason why you hype him. Wawrinka was actually able to challenge and even beat Djokovic in big matches, so you hate him.

Your theory doesn't make sense as Murray has denied Djokovic couple of GS, an olympic gold medal, masters titles, YECs title and YE#1. So your theory falls short. Murray has damaged Djokovic more than Wawrinka.

Maybe I just Think Murray is a really great player? The stats show it. Wawrinka is nowhere near it.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
- Masters weren't mandatory for many of these players
- In some cases the AO wasn't a proper major (e.g. to inflate slam finals) and even the FO (in Connors case) wasn't attended for many years

p.s. Elo is garbage
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Some clarifications:
My case is not about what Murray could have done in another era or without Big 3. My case is about what Murray did.

All Time Greats are by definitions, greater than non-ATG. If you think a player is greater or even a player that you consider an ATG, so he's an ATG too.

If you consider Slam Titles the only way to measure greatness Murray isn't an ATG. That's clear and respectable. But I don't agree. Imho, there are some examples where there is no way a player with more slam is greater than a player with less:
-Kuerten(3) isn't greater than Nastase(2).
-Kriek(2) isn't greater than Roddick(1).
-Bruguera(2) isn't greater than Muster(1).
-Gaudio(1) isn't greater than Rios(0).
-Edmondson(1) isn't greater than Nalbandian(0).
And so on...

So I have to consider other stats, and considering them it's hard to consider Murray not in the same tier of Wilander.
4 slam deficit is huge, I'm aware of this.
But:
-5% points better win rate.
-100+ more wins.
-1% points better slam win rate.
-45 more slam wins.
-13 more titles.
-6 more Master 1000.
-1 WTF.
-2 Olympic Golds.
-21 more weeks at #1.
-7 more GS semifinals.
-7 more Master 1000 finals.
-11 more finals.
-40+ more weeks in top 3.
-100+ more weeks in top 5.
-120+ more weeks in top 10.
-Better statistical peak(According to ELO).

This is pretty huge too. And it's hard to find another stat where Wilander is better than Murray aside from slam titles.
So, for someone who, like me, consider other metrics along slam titles, it's really hard to put Murray in a lesser tier than Wilander when he performed better than him in a lot fo metrics and worse only in one(Although that's the most relevant).


It's only my opinion and I respect who has a case to disagree(And, as said, "Only slam titles are relevant" it's enough). But, from what I'm reading, consensus is splitted, so I feel a bit presumptuos "Murray isn't an ATG, no discussion" case.
The number of Grand Slams is the most relevant all-time criterion. Most people do consider other criteria, but only if two players are tied in Slams. Other criteria would be some kind of "tie-breaker" in case two players are tied in Slams. This is specially true if two players played in the same era. If two players played in the same era and one of them won less Slam titles, he is simply worse. It would be completely unobjective to rank a player with less Slams over a player with more Slams when they played in the same era. The player with most Slams playing in the same era is the greatest of his era, as other players playing in the same era were not talented/good enough to win as many Slams as him. Because Djokovic is the member of the Big 3 with less Slams, the ad hoc excuse that you do not need the most Slams to be the greatest is typical from Djokovic fans. But for the rest of mortals outside Djokovic fans, everyone knows that he who wins the most Slams is the greatest of his era.

With regard to your peak ELO point, I must say that ELO can never be used as a criterion to rank player's greatness. ELO is originally applied to chess, and it is misused out of context in tennis. Plus, there is no official ELO tennis rating, there is only an official ATP rating. Unoffical ELO tennis ratings tend to differ depening on which webpage creates one (Ultimate Tennis Statistics gives a different ELO rasting to players than Tennis Abstract). It means they are unreliable.

Peak ELO can never be a GOAT criterion. Those who praise ELO do not undertand the phenomenon of ELO inflation. We cannot ignore ELO inflation, the phenomenon by which players from the present always have higher ELO rating than players from the past. Murray has a higher peak ELO than Sampras and it does not mean that his level was superior. It only means that Murray could inflate his ELO with victories against the Big 3, while Sampras could not increase his ELO as much because his victories were against players with lower ELO rating. The same phenomenon occurs in chess, players from the present have higher ELO than in the past due to ELO inflation. Yet, no one
claims that a contemporary player like Aronian is greater than a legend like Fisher only because the former achieved a higher peak ELO with the ELO inflation.
 
Last edited:

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
Some clarifications:
My case is not about what Murray could have done in another era or without Big 3. My case is about what Murray did.

All Time Greats are by definitions, greater than non-ATG. If you think a player is greater or even a player that you consider an ATG, so he's an ATG too.

If you consider Slam Titles the only way to measure greatness Murray isn't an ATG. That's clear and respectable. But I don't agree. Imho, there are some examples where there is no way a player with more slam is greater than a player with less:
-Kuerten(3) isn't greater than Nastase(2).
-Kriek(2) isn't greater than Roddick(1).
-Bruguera(2) isn't greater than Muster(1).
-Gaudio(1) isn't greater than Rios(0).
-Edmondson(1) isn't greater than Nalbandian(0).
And so on...

So I have to consider other stats, and considering them it's hard to consider Murray not in the same tier of Wilander.
4 slam deficit is huge, I'm aware of this.
But:
-5% points better win rate.
-100+ more wins.
-1% points better slam win rate.
-45 more slam wins.
-13 more titles.
-6 more Master 1000.
-1 WTF.
-2 Olympic Golds.
-21 more weeks at #1.
-7 more GS semifinals.
-7 more Master 1000 finals.
-11 more finals.
-40+ more weeks in top 3.
-100+ more weeks in top 5.
-120+ more weeks in top 10.
-Better statistical peak(According to ELO).

This is pretty huge too. And it's hard to find another stat where Wilander is better than Murray aside from slam titles.
So, for someone who, like me, consider other metrics along slam titles, it's really hard to put Murray in a lesser tier than Wilander when he performed better than him in a lot fo metrics and worse only in one(Although that's the most relevant).


It's only my opinion and I respect who has a case to disagree(And, as said, "Only slam titles are relevant" it's enough). But, from what I'm reading, consensus is splitted, so I feel a bit presumptuos "Murray isn't an ATG, no discussion" case.

4 slam deficit isn't just huge, it's gigantic. If Murray had 1 less he'd certainly be greater on the basis of other stats, maybe even if he had 2 less. But 4 is far, far too big a chasm, Wilander's slam haul is more than twice bigger.
 
Top