RS
Bionic Poster
Which 12-13 slams does Murray win?If he avoided injury Murray would win 12 or 13 out of the 28, as a direct replacement for Federer. Mainly from 2003-07.
Which 12-13 slams does Murray win?If he avoided injury Murray would win 12 or 13 out of the 28, as a direct replacement for Federer. Mainly from 2003-07.
If he avoided injury Murray would win 12 or 13 out of the 28, as a direct replacement for Federer. Mainly from 2003-07.
He is not gonna play Djokovic and Federer now. He is gonna be up against players he is better than, and with his consistency in his prime he will put himself in alot of chances to win. I'm favouring Murray here but like I said I don't see him winning like Federer did but he is gonna win his fair share of slams, in the vicinity of 6-8.
There are so many variables that it is very hard to make a reasonable guess.
He'd obviously win considerably less than Federer but he'd probably win more than he did now. Not that much more though. He is extremely consistent but he could easily lose to a variety of players in 2003-2005 like Safin, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Roddick, Agassi, Ferrero when these are playing their best. In 2007-2009 Nadal and Djokovic are already there. 2006 would be his best chance, he is a solid favorite at the three non-clay slams. I think he wins Wimbledon and one of the HC in that year alone.
Murray wasn't particularly better than anyone as such, he is in the same league of Hewitt, Safin, Roddick and Stan. Thats why Murray has a losing H2H in best of 5 to even stan .... thats the true murray
Nah murray is a tier above them and that's a fact. All the evidence in the world for it from looking at their careers.
Tier above them but has a losing H2H in bo5 to stan ? haha
He is having 3 slams for a reason, 1-3 slams is his bandwidth, thats his tier in any era.
So what? This is no boxing contest. What has Stan done outside those few weeks? You are judged on what you do against other players and tennis as a whole. Stan is nowhere near Murray.
In slams specifically, he is. Clearly superior on clay and I would argue better on hard as well – not as consistent, of course, but much more deadly against top opposition. He has 2 titles to Murray's 1. 14 top-10 wins to Murray's 10. 9 top-5 wins to Murray's 4. 3 victories over the world number one to Murray's 1. He seems pretty clearly a cut above when it comes to actually winning the toughest matches. Murray murders him on grass, of course.So what? This is no boxing contest. What has Stan done outside those few weeks? You are judged on what you do against other players and tennis as a whole. Stan is nowhere near Murray.
So what? This is no boxing contest. What has Stan done outside those few weeks? You are judged on what you do against other players and tennis as a whole. Stan is nowhere near Murray.
Nah murray is a tier above them and that's a fact. All the evidence in the world for it from looking at their careers.
Nowhere near is an exaggeration, they have the same number of slam titles (which is what this thread is about mainly).
Murray has had a more stellar career obviously but Stan was more scary when he was zoning and mentally tougher in bigger matches than Murray.
How many slam finals does Stan have? He has 4. Sure, he won 3 of them wich is great but at the same time he is no player with the ability of performing for a long period of time where he continously puts himself in chances to win big trophies. How many masters finals does he have anyway? Can't be that many. He can lose to anyone at any point. Just imagine you make this thread but for Wawrinka. Tell me how mich you believe he would be able to outperform the field over a 5 year period.
For me this is key when evaluating a player. That's why I hold Murray higher, cause of how he has the ability of performing year in year out on any surface and puts himself in tail end of big tournaments time and time again. That's why he has such a decorated career in the first place.
Better in what regard? More longevity or consistency doesn't make you win an individual match. He may be "better" than Safin in many stats because he was more consistent or had a longer time at the top. But you put any Murray against late 2004 early 2005 Safin and he loses.
Murray is better than Stan though. Yes Stan when peaking might be higher than Murray but over 10 matches Murray is the more consistent.Murray can be higher in masters, olympics, slam Qf/semis appearances etc etc
Congrats to him
But that is all useless once he reaches the semis/finals and meet that guy who has a higher peak level than him,
Murray has been a guy with extremely consistent level of play vs mediocre players and fell short regularly vs quality players after semis, thats because his peak level was low.
Murray is better than Stan though. Yes Stan when peaking might be higher than Murray but over 10 matches Murray is the more consistent.
Also helps that Stan matchups well with Djokovic while Murray doesn’t. Djokovic dominating benefited nobody post 2011 more than Stan
Murray can be higher in masters, olympics, slam Qf/semis appearances etc etc
Congrats to him
But that is all useless once he reaches the semis/finals and meet that guy who has a higher peak level than him,
Murray has been a guy with extremely consistent level of play vs mediocre players and fell short regularly vs quality players after semis, thats because his peak level was low.
Yeah but that was my point though. RG15 if Stan plays that well but plays Nadal he still loses. Same as US16 if he plays Fedal(US16 was a awful Djokovic).He can better for all he wants but that still isn't giving him more slams because Stan will produce superlative performances in those 2-3 matches that Murray cannot.
So despite being better Murray won't be better in slams tally.
This topic is about slams tally, so peak levels are involved, this is not about who is a more accomplished player.
When Safin or Wawrinka can make 11 slam finals, call me. Then we can have a fair comparison. The thing is, they'd never be good enough to even reach half of that let alone 11. Then we can see how many they can win if they continously have to face Djokovic or Federer in finals. Murray has beaten Djokovic to win 2 of his slams, he has beaten Nadal multiple times, he has beaten Federer. But you don't wanna look at that cause he wasn't hitting insane flashy BH winners.
Just look at Safins career and what he did as a whole and you have your answer to that he in no shape or form belongs in the same league as Murray. He had a few freak performances, congratulations.
Not that much better. You still have Agassi around who would beat him. He would struggle with hewitt and roddick. And once Nadal came on board in 2008 good bye Murray
Murray beat your boy 2 times, ohh yes, thats his only achievement!
Murray's win over Nadal at 08USO was also good but then lets face it, Nadal wasn't great on HCs yet.
Murraty's win over an injured Nadal at 2010AO or over an injured Fed in 2013 in Fed's worst year won't give him any credit either
Safin on the other hand has beaten everyone, Sampras, Novak, Federer, Agassi .... he owned them all when they were fit and strong....
Novak 05? KEKW
Safins performances as a whole compared to Murray is a joke. Look at his timeline. If his peak was so freakish why didn't he do it more often?
Kinda getting off topic, but yeesh, this is actually more lopsided than I thought. For all Murray's consistency at hard court majors, Wawrinka's actually met more top-10 players – 27 to 25. He has a 14-13 (52%) record against them, while Murray's 10-15 (40%). Things lean even more toward Wawrinka's corner if we look at matches against top-5 players – Wawrinka's played 20 matches to Murray's 15, going 9-11 (45%) to Murray's 4-11 (27%). It's not like Wawrinka's record is inflated by a small sample size, or that he had a couple good runs but otherwise lost to players outside the top 10. He's played them more and has a superior win-%.In slams specifically, he is. Clearly superior on clay and I would argue better on hard as well – not as consistent, of course, but much more deadly against top opposition. He has 2 titles to Murray's 1. 14 top-10 wins to Murray's 10. 9 top-5 wins to Murray's 4. 3 victories over the world number one to Murray's 1. He seems pretty clearly a cut above when it comes to actually winning the toughest matches. Murray murders him on grass, of course.
08
Safin beat Novak in 08 after Novak reaching 2 grand slam finals and winning 1 of them as well
So Safin is a legit threat to Novak as well, 2-0 H2H in slams, he would have been an advanced version of wawrinka if they were in same gen
Djokovic would make dogs dinner of him in his prime tennis. Guys like Safin/Wawrinka are the real opportunist. Show up once or twice a year, play "goatiest" tennis of their life while their opponent is tired from winning matches 24/7 and having pressure of winning every match they enter 24/7 then escape for the whole year and beat their chest that they beat a great player.
Safin, at times, was a king but at other times, a clown prince.Safin's feats
Took down Sampras in Slams (twice), including a US Open final in 2000.
Beat Agassi in Slams (twice), including a huge win in 2004.
Beat Kuerten at the FO when Guga was in his prime. And again at the AO the next year (the only time that Kuerten lost before the QF in a Slam that year).
Beat Djokovic in Slams (twice)
Took care of Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian (twice) in the Slams. Beat Ferrero at the French.
Beat peak Federer in a non-clay Slam - the only time that Fed lost in a non-clay Slam in 2004-2007.
He is the only man in history to have beaten Sampras+Agassi+Federer+Djokovic all at the same slam (AO) .... Now those are players with a total of 2+4+6+9 = 21 Australian Opens ..... ..... Only King Marat Safin can pull off such feats !!!
Not that much better. You still have Agassi around who would beat him. He would struggle with hewitt and roddick. And once Nadal came on board in 2008 good bye Murray
As in Tsitsipas's dad? Would that be Greek Orthodox?That's the Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church of Federer, Council of 2003 to you!
Safin, at times, was a king but at other times, a clown prince.
Talented, exciting, charismatic and erratic as heck.
He probably earned being in the Hall of Fame just based on the 2000 US Open (especially crushing Sampras in the final) and the 2005 semi (especially outlasting Roger in an amazing semi) alone. He had other good moments, but not what one would expect.I wish Safin had won 5-6 slams, he certainly deserved to be in a higher tier than he is.
He occasionally being a clown prince with poor work ethic cost him...
Meh he deserved to be where he is, lost to so many mugs and just didn’t care at multiple years worth of Slams imo. But when he was good he was GOAT.I wish Safin had won 5-6 slams, he certainly deserved to be in a higher tier than he is.
He occasionally being a clown prince with poor work ethic cost him...
He probably earned being in the Hall of Fame just based on the 2000 US Open (especially crushing Sampras in the final) and the 2005 semi (especially outlasting Roger in an amazing semi) alone. He had other good moments, but not what one would expect.
Meh he deserved to be where he is, lost to so many mugs and just didn’t care at multiple years worth of Slams imo. But when he was good he was GOAT.
Of course, his upbringing was a lot more similar to Agassi’s than is publicized; and it can be hard to be enthusiastic for the sport after so many injuries…
Eh… wasn’t his Mom like the foremost youth coach in Russia? Not every family has both the daughter AND son get to world #1. He had a psychotically disciplined childhood iirc.A full motivated Safin born in the house of Srdjan Djokovic as Novak's older brother would go on to win 6-8 slams
Upbringing matters....
So you have like 2 matches for Safin going for you where he played outrageous tennis. But over a 5 year period tell me who is gonna have a better career and make more impact on the field Safin or Murray ? It's an easy choice I think. And in the end, in my view showing who the better player is. Like I said this is no boxing context like Wilder vs Fury.
Mostly, yes, I'm including 2007 even if Djoko was there. 2003-2007. 6-8 slams for murray if we are talking about a prime murray 2011-17ish.
So I'm not saying he will win 8 slams, I'm saying 6-8. He will lose some and win some. Not sure how he'd fare against Nadal at Wimbledon, might lose 2007 encounter, but 2006 he can win. At AO, same there, loses a few and will win some. At USO, will lose some and win some. All this will generate in 6-8 slams.
I think he also would be the #1 player in this period due to Nadal not being that great on HC then. Murrays consistency to go deep in slams will generate alot of points, add to that he will win slams aswell, then you have masters wich mostly are on HCs. Murray can also play on clay and has the ability to go deep in every clay masters aswell as FO. Just look at his FO results and compare it to Roddick, Hewitt and Safin. Different ball game of ability.
Nadal will get most his points on clay, but too few clay masters compared to HCs.
Just look at his career and what he has done on every surface and how consistent he has been, not just in slams but outside slams. He is a great tennis player who competes with the best on every surface the whole calender year year in year out.
So you have like 2 matches for Safin going for you where he played outrageous tennis. But over a 5 year period tell me who is gonna have a better career and make more impact on the field Safin or Murray ? It's an easy choice I think. And in the end, in my view showing who the better player is. Like I said this is no boxing context like Wilder vs Fury.
Murray wins zero Slams even with Federer completely out of the picture? That's the premise of this thread.0 Slams for sure. Federer never donated Slams to lesser players. You've take away from - it's something Murray was never capable of.
Murray wins zero Slams even with Federer completely out of the picture? That's the premise of this thread.