Stan with the hypothetical Career Grand Slam vs Andy Murray

[FrontHeadlock]

no, points is one factor and a reasonable one.
when only top players are playing you allow for a little breathing space and its exactly the right format.

Points are random in some respects and they don't reflect the true prestige of events, unless you think for example 2 Paris Bercy titles are worth one Wimbledon (they aren't).

Likewise, the ATP could award 10,000 points at the WTF and yet everyone would still want to win the Majors.

But in any event, there are some serious drawbacks to the WTF:

• You can win the title with a loss (and rarely with 2 losses)
• Best of 3 sets not Best of 5
• Limiting it to the Top 8 on a particular surface excludes players who are outside the top 8 yet are better on that particular surface
• Limiting it to the Top 8 can include players who are cold (i.e., earned all of their points early in the year) and exclude players who are hot and on a roll at the end of the year.
• The Round Robin format can entrench the favorites, as a player often has to beat the favorite twice to win the event. Imagine having to beat Nadal twice to win RG.
• Being at the end of the year lends itself to more injured players and thus replacements who are both lower ranked and at a disadvantage to advance

 

[travlerajm]

So I know that the possibility of Wawrinka somehow winning Wimbledon is laughable, especially right now. I mean this man never even reached the SF at Wimbledon during his prime.

However, I was wondering who should be ahead if somehow the miracle happened.

Wawrinka

4 Slams (Career Grand Slam)
1 Masters
0 YE #1
0 weeks at #1
0 weeks at #2

Murray

3 Slams (11 Slam finals)
1 YEC
2 Olympic Gold Medals in singles
14 Masters
1 YE #1
41 weeks at #1

Would it really be a miracle?

Djokovic doesn’t want to vaccinate.

Nadal hasn’t done much at Wimbledon in 12 years.

Med is a hardcourt specialist who hates rough surfaces.

Zverev is a slow court specialist who hates fast surfaces.

Murray is on his farewell tour, along with Fed.

Who’s left?

 

[aman92]

Still Murray.. No no 1 and far few masters titles are too big a hole to be covered by a career GS

 

[aldeayeah]

I'd have them about equal. Everything counts, but majors are... major, and the career slam in particular is a rare display of versatility.

 

[aman92]

No

Weeks at #1 - Murray leads
Masters titles - Murray leads
WTF titles - Murray leads

But Stan would lead by 1 slam. Which is enough to discount everything else for some.

It's not really a Rafa Vs Nole comparison.. Stan has far fewer masters, no weeks at No1 etc. Yes Novak leads at weeks at No 1 but it's not that Nadal doesn't have significant weeks at the top. Also they are almost equal at no of titles, masters and match winning %. So yes in that case 1 slam can be a differentiating factor

 

[ibbi]

A lot of it depends on the manner in which he does it, not just that he does. Though, in truth, if Wawrinka with his game were to win Wimbledon that'd for sure be a feat beyond any single thing Murray has ever done.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Murray still leads by 2 dozen and a half country miles.

 

[Thetouch]

Wawrinka in my book. Why? Because I don't know many players (if any) who have won 45+ career titles and only ended up winning 3 slams. I think Murray's title records are a bit inflated due to the fact that he has only won Bo3 finals aside from his 3 GS wins. Austrian Thomas Muster has 44 career titles and we know he only won 1 GS but he mainly won his titles on clay and yet he still won 13 Bo5 finals. I wonder what the numbers would have been had Murray played Bo5 ATP finals. He might have won much less titles which then would put him way below the likes of Edberg and Becker despite being close in career title wins who not only have won more Slams but their overall career titles are on a much higher level. Even Courier has some big victories apart from his 4 GS titles (Key Biscayne, 2x Indian Wells).

 

[Daniel Andrade]

Murray, the disparity in the rest is way too much IMO.

 

[Deleted member 748597]

 

[Zara]

Stan would be better, pretty clearly.

Murray's big problem is that he couldn't hack it vs. high level Bo5 competition. He required gifts wrapped and delivered on his doorstep by Windovic and Exhaustovic in '12/13 and then got a nice RaoMUG waiting for him in the final in '16. Wawrinka beat well playing Djokovic 2 times and also beat Nadal in a Slam final.

Why do you hate my Murray?

 

[onefineday]

You can walk in the room with a certain swagger when you have the Career slam.

 

[Pheasant]

It'd still be Murray in a landslide. There's a lot more to tennis than 8 weeks of the season.

It would start getting interesting if Stan somehow won Wimbledon, the USO, and the WTF this year to bag world #1. Then, I'd have a tough time deciding.

 

[MCallanan]

We are now being told that all that matters is slams. So I’m going with Stan.

Federer fans set that bar many many years ago. In the last two years they’ve done everything in their power to move the goal posts. So if anything the popularity behind the idea that Grand Slams are the end all be all is waning.

 

[Sudacafan]

What made you write this thread?

 

[Deleted member 748597]

What made you write this thread?

Boredom.

 

[Entername]

Weeks at #1 - Murray leads
Masters titles - Murray leads
WTF titles - Murray leads

But Stan would lead by 1 slam. Which is enough to discount everything else for some.

Thing is, more slams + career slam would be a big plus for Stan. Not that I ever see him winning Wimby because he's just not that good on grass on top of him being old as dirt now, but despite Murray smoking him in each other category, it would make them quite equal for me

 

[roysid]

So I know that the possibility of Wawrinka somehow winning Wimbledon is laughable, especially right now. I mean this man never even reached the SF at Wimbledon during his prime.

However, I was wondering who should be ahead if somehow the miracle happened.

Wawrinka

4 Slams (Career Grand Slam)
1 Masters
0 YE #1
0 weeks at #1
0 weeks at #2

Murray

3 Slams (11 Slam finals)
1 YEC
2 Olympic Gold Medals in singles
14 Masters
1 YE #1
41 weeks at #1

Its frankly unfair thread. U gave stan the improbable Wimbledon yet the same favour not given to Murray.
He was strong in AO (5 finals, 1 semi) and also at FO ( 1 final, 2/3 semi)

Have to compare by their actual career stats, not probables.

 

[James P]

It would be really close. I think a career grand slam is worth 4 + 1.5 slams, so 5.5 slams. So 5.5 > 3, then you'd have to weigh the rest of their bodies of work, masters titles, time at #1. It might just overcome Andy's clearly better tennis career. I'd feel more comfortable if Stan had managed to win a couple more masters, though. That gap is enormous.

 

[tennis_pro]

Stans already better

 

[RelentlessAttack]

All that matters is peak level so level so Stan currently and Stan in the hypothetical

 

[FrontHeadlock]

Wawrinka in my book. Why? Because I don't know many players (if any) who have won 45+ career titles and only ended up winning 3 slams. I think Murray's title records are a bit inflated due to the fact that he has only won Bo3 finals aside from his 3 GS wins. Austrian Thomas Muster has 44 career titles and we know he only won 1 GS but he mainly won his titles on clay and yet he still won 13 Bo5 finals. I wonder what the numbers would have been had Murray played Bo5 ATP finals. He might have won much less titles which then would put him way below the likes of Edberg and Becker despite being close in career title wins who not only have won more Slams but their overall career titles are on a much higher level. Even Courier has some big victories apart from his 4 GS titles (Key Biscayne, 2x Indian Wells).

Now this is an interesting argument. Any particular tournaments you think he would have lost had they been Bo5?

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Murray has a more complete resume and leads the H2H

 

[aditya123]

Stans already better

Hi man, How u doing

 

[aldeayeah]

Boredom.

I thought it was a clever gambit to counteract the 21>20 LOLOLOLOL argument!

 

[killerboss]

So at this level, consistency and achievements outside slams do actually matter. Wawrinka needs 5 in my opinion, given Murray's 14 m1000s, getting to no 1 and just his overwhelmingly superior consistency in slams. Even the career slam (the most overrated achievement in the modern game) wouldn't put him ahead.

When it comes to GOAT however it's a different matter. Things like consistency becomes less and less important given the freakish level of consistency they all have. This is when achievements like slam count and slam head to head against main rivals take centre stage.

 

[Sudacafan]

Murray will win the career GS at RG this year with his hip in great condition.
You heard that here first, and I do think you will anywhere else.

 

[tennis_pro]

Hi man, How u doing

not too good, thanks for asking

 

[aditya123]

not too good, thanks for asking

Eh not in that way.. how's investment banking these days?

 

[Deleted member 748597]

I thought it was a clever gambit to counteract the 21>20 LOLOLOLOL argument!

 

[tennis_pro]

Eh not in that way.. how's investment banking these days?

bitcoin please go to moon, stop going sideways now

 

[Thetouch]

Now this is an interesting argument. Any particular tournaments you think he would have lost had they been Bo5?

I went through Murray's career title list yesterday and couldn't really tell at what level some of the tournaments were played. One thing you can notice is that even though he has some 2:0 wins over the Big 3 most of the time he needed to go 3 sets against them and the likes of Stan, Del Potro, Hewitt or anyone who is considered a top player. At the same time has lots of straight final losses in comparison so that might indicate a bit of what I am saying.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

I went through Murray's career title list yesterday and couldn't really tell at what level some of the tournaments were played. One thing you can notice is that even though he has some 2:0 wins over the Big 3 most of the time he needed to go 3 sets against them and the likes of Stan, Del Potro, Hewitt or anyone who is considered a top player. At the same time has lots of straight final losses in comparison so that might indicate a bit of what I am saying.

I suppose the question is, what is his record against top 10-20 players in Bo5 vs Bo3. If he's winning a much higher percentage of Bo3 then you may be on to something.

I agree 3 Majors as compared to 45 titles is low, but he's lost 8 Major finals to Federer and Djokovic, and I doubt he was favored in any of them.

 

[wangs78]

The thing about Stan is I think when he is firing on all cylinders, he really has an almost even chance to beat Novak and Rafa on hardcourts. And probably an even chance against Djokovic on clay, too. Murray’s top level, on the other hand, is still going to result in losses to the Big 3 most of the time. It’s just that Murray’s game is more well rounded so he had more consistent overall results than Stan who relied on big serving and power baseline play to defeat his opponents. In that sense, Wawrinka’s game is not unlike Delpo’s. Despite Murray’s more complete game and resume, I’d rather be Wawrinka if given the choice.

 

[Chanwan]

I would find this excruciatingly tough to decide. Stan would have the CGS + more Slams over Murray but nothing else. Not even slam final appearances. I'd still go with Murray due to Wawrinka's lack of other credentials.

Picking Wawrinka means you only value GS title numbers and nothing else. And even then, it would only 1 more than Murray. This is why I'd lean Murray.

And top level. I think most of us can agree that Stan showed a higher level in two of his slams than Murray did in any of his. Still, I would pick Murray because of the rest

 

[Zara]

not too good, thanks for asking

Awww…what happened? Girl problems?

 

[wangs78]

The thing about Stan is I think when he is firing on all cylinders, he really has an almost even chance to beat Novak and Rafa on hardcourts. And probably an even chance against Djokovic on clay, too. Murray’s top level, on the other hand, is still going to result in losses to the Big 3 most of the time. It’s just that Murray’s game is more well rounded so he had more consistent overall results than Stan who relied on big serving and power baseline play to defeat his opponents. In that sense, Wawrinka’s game is not unlike Delpo’s. Despite Murray’s more complete game and resume, I’d rather be Wawrinka if given the choice.

And another thing about Murray. He’s about the same height as the Big 3 - maybe an inch taller - but looks quite big boned by comparison. But for a biggish guy, he plays a cat and mouse game that I imagine someone the size of David Ferrer would play. It’s just not very appealing to me. Whereas Wawrinka clearly has heavyweight punching power.

 

[Deleted member 748597]

Awww…what happened? Girl problems?

Nadal probably happened.

 

[tennis_pro]

Awww…what happened? Girl problems?

nadal problems