Slams won beating a member of the Big4

[Underdog]

I’d guess that if you limit your data to Big 3 wins, Rafael will come out on top. That’s a reasonable conclusion, since not only he really had it hardest, but his prime started relatively early (reaching Federer’s) and carried on throughout most of Djokovic’s.
Indeed Federer is done wrong by these stats, because he’s older by a reasonable margin and the tour is not made only of Rafael, Roger and Novak. Rafael, for example, had to beat former RG champion Stan at ‘17 RG F.

 

[mike danny]

For Djokovic Wawrinka would be tougher but not by that much.

I'm pretty sure Djokovic would answer Murray in a heartbeat if asked who would he rather play between him and Stan.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I'm pretty sure Djokovic would answer Murray in a heartbeat if asked who would he rather play between him and Stan.

Definitely. Stan beat him at his peak level and has an even better score against him at slams than both Fedal if we restrict it to after 2011. No way does Murray come close.

 

[Rebel-I.N.S]

Murray got his wins vs a very weak version of Novak in W2013 final, got his win vs Fed in the latter’s worst year and still needed 5 sets, and got one of his wins against Nadal when Rafa was injured. Mental mug or not, Berd fared better at slams vs the big three than Murray did, you have to deal with those facts.

This type of take really undermines your analysis and delegitimises your opinion.

Just smacks of you coming from a position of bad faith on anything pro-Murray.

Arguing that Berdych was a tougher proposition than Murray for the Big 3 at slams is a patently batsh1t theory.

 

[Rebel-I.N.S]

I'm pretty sure Djokovic would answer Murray in a heartbeat if asked who would he rather play between him and Stan.

And yet, Murray beat Djokovic in 8 finals (all of them big titles, btw).

By comparison, Wawrinka beat Djokovic in 2.

 

[mike danny]

And yet, Murray beat Djokovic in 8 finals (all of them big titles, btw).

By comparison, Wawrinka beat Djokovic in 2.

Murray is a better player, but Stan is a tougher match-up.

 

[The Blond Blur]

Murray is a better player, but Stan is a tougher match-up.

He also peaked higher at the schlems outside of Wimby.

 

[travlerajm]

The biggest 4 players in Borg's day were McEnroe, Connors and Vilas. Borg won 7 slams out of the 11 slams he won beating at least one of those players along the way.

That's 63% of the Borg's slams involved beating a Big 4 player against Federer's 40%.

Federer’s peak era had Roddick, Hewitt, and Nadal.

What % of slam wins did he defeat one one those 3?

 

[Rebel-I.N.S]

Murray is a better player, but Stan is a tougher match-up.

I think that’s quite reductive though.

People focus on Wawrinka’s four slam victories.

To me, two of them were impressive and two really were not - it was a freak set of circumstances that Djokovic even made the ‘16 USO final.

Peak Murray on grass is obviously a tougher proposition than Stan for ND. Inverse on clay.

For hard court? I think it honestly depends and Murray matched up reasonably well against Djokovic on North American medium-fast HCs.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

This type of take really undermines your analysis and delegitimises your opinion.

Just smacks of you coming from a position of bad faith on anything pro-Murray.

Arguing that Berdych was a tougher proposition than Murray for the Big 3 at slams is a patently batsh1t theory.

It is a fact you genius that Berd did statistically better than Murray. Given that Murray is the way more successful player it shows that he did extremely badly against them and that his main strength is consistency against lesser players not that he has a particularly heigh ceiling.
lol at thinking that my opinion is delegitimized because you of all people say so.

 

[Rebel-I.N.S]

It is a fact you genius that Berd did statistically better than Murray. Given that Murray is the way more successful player it shows that he did extremely badly against them and that his main strength is consistency against lesser players not that he has a particularly heigh ceiling.
lol at thinking that my opinion is delegitimized because you of all people say so.

The sheer lunacy of your opinions tells me you cannot be reasoned with and I won’t try.

“Yo, I'm finished what I had to say, y’all can continue on…”

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

The sheer lunacy of your opinions tells me you cannot be reasoned with and I won’t try.

“Yo, I'm finished what I had to say, y’all can continue on…”

Or with other words you cannot debunk my “opinion” (which is less of an opinion but a statistical fact btw), but instead to simply admit you are wrong you choose the childish way like “your opinion is lunacy I won’t talk to you anymore” but yea at least with one thing you are right, better to finish it here.

 

[mike danny]

I think that’s quite reductive though.

People focus on Wawrinka’s four slam victories.

To me, two of them were impressive and two really were not - it was a freak set of circumstances that Djokovic even made the ‘16 USO final.

Peak Murray on grass is obviously a tougher proposition than Stan for ND. Inverse on clay.

For hard court? I think it honestly depends and Murray matched up reasonably well against Djokovic on North American medium-fast HCs.

I think the fairest assessment we can make is that Stan is tough for Djokovic everywhere outside Wimb, while Murray is tough for Djokovic at Wimb and the USO.

 

[daggerman]

There's all this debate about Murray's inclusion, yet nobody bothered mentioning that the numbers aren't much different if you exclude him and only include the Big 3:

Nadal - 15
Djokovic - 14
Federer - 7

 

[Wurm]

It is a fact you genius that Berd did statistically better than Murray. Given that Murray is the way more successful player it shows that he did extremely badly against them and that his main strength is consistency against lesser players not that he has a particularly heigh ceiling.

It's also a fact that one of Berdych's wins was over 2015 Rafa who would go on to have a really poor season, another was over Novak in 2017 who was refusing to get his elbow operated on and whose mind and body was in a right old mess, and another one was over Novak in 2010 at Wimbledon when Novak hit 8 double faults, some of them in crucial moments, in the midst of his 09/10 serving troubles.

It's also a fact that Murray is 3-1 against Berdych at slams.

Players still have to get it done when a Big 3 member is in front of them and not able to produce their highest level, for whatever reason, but context matters and unfortunately context requires people to discuss things in good faith.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

It's also a fact that one of Berdych's wins was over 2015 Rafa who would go on to have a really poor season, another was over Novak in 2017 who was refusing to get his elbow operated on and whose mind and body was in a right old mess, and another one was over Novak in 2010 at Wimbledon when Novak hit 8 double faults, some of them in crucial moments, in the midst of his 09/10 serving troubles.

It's also a fact that Murray is 3-1 against Berdych at slams.

Same as it is a fact that Murray’s only win against Fed was at the latter’s worst year and he still needed 5 sets. One other win was against injured Rafa who retired. As for the last sentence you could have saved your time as it is completely irrelevant since I never said Berdych is better than Murray. Of course overall Murray is the better player, but this is exactly my point. If a considerably inferior player like Berd can have a better (or equal if you want to be so pedantic over this Djokovic retirement) H2H against the big three at slams, it shows that Murray, while being consistent against inferior players, does not have a high ceiling and hence is no threat to the big guns at the biggest stage (Berd is also not an exception here, Stan and Tsonga are others). Therefore the idea that he could have had a Becker-like career in the 90s is pretty laughable.

 

[mike danny]

There's all this debate about Murray's inclusion, yet nobody bothered mentioning that the numbers aren't much different if you exclude him and only include the Big 3:

Nadal - 15
Djokovic - 14
Federer - 7

Federer is older than them so of course he didn't get the chance to "pad" his stats against them in his best years. Let's also not exclude Agassi, whom Federer has won 2 slams against.

 

[Third Serve]

He also peaked higher at the schlems outside of Wimby.

I think Muzz had the higher one-match peak at the US Open based on that 2008 match with Nadal.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

There's all this debate about Murray's inclusion, yet nobody bothered mentioning that the numbers aren't much different if you exclude him and only include the Big 3:

Nadal - 15
Djokovic - 14
Federer - 7

Well it puts Nadal at No.1 instead of Djokovic which explains why OP included Murray.

 

[Holmes]

You didn't add Agassi for Federer.

And what's with this cherry-picking? Stan doesn't have any of these things and yet still took 3 slams away from Djokovic.

Agassi was a different era and literally 10 years older. Come on now.

 

[CoolCoolCool]

I'm pretty sure Djokovic would answer Murray in a heartbeat if asked who would he rather play between him and Stan.

Depends on the surface. I don't think he'd choose to face Murray on grass.

 

[mike danny]

Depends on the surface. I don't think he'd choose to face Murray on grass.

Yep, true. But I think he'd definitely choose Murray at the AO and RG.

 

[Sudacafan]

No other players have ever existed apparently.

Correct.

 

[The Blond Blur]

I think Muzz had the higher one-match peak at the US Open based on that 2008 match with Nadal.

I think he was able to dictate play a lot more than usual due to RAFA running on fumes at that point. I’d lean toward Murray if he didn’t wet the bed in the F. But with that showing I’m taking 10 points away from Hufflepuff.