Stats: Murray vs Wawrinka

USO

Professional
I have seen a few people compare both, someone even said that the Big 4 must include Wawrinka instead of Murray, but they are not even close.

Andy MurrayStan Wawrinka
Slam titles3 (+ 8 finals)3 (+ 1 final)
WTF titles10
Olympics20
Masters 1000141
Career Titles4616
Highest Ranking#1 (41 weeks)#3
H2H vs Each others12-9 (in slams 3-4)9-12 (in slams 4-3)
H2H vs Big 2/DjokovicFederer 11-14 (in slams 1-5)
Nadal 7-17 (in slams 2-7)
Djokovic 11-25 (in slams 2-8)
Federer 3-23 (in slams 1-7)
Nadal 3-19 (in slams 1-3)
Djokovic 6-19 (in slams 4-4)

As you can see Andy Murray beats Stan Wawrinka easily in most of the important categories. The only category Wawrinka is stronger than him is in certain H2H statistics in slams, but otherwise it's not even close!
 
Last edited:

King No1e

G.O.A.T.
I have seen a few people compare both, someone even said that the Big 4 must include Wawrinka instead of Murray, but they are not even close.

Andy MurrayStan Wawrinka
Slam titles3 (+ 8 finals)3 (+ 1 final)
WTF titles10
Olympics20
Masters 1000141
Career Titles4616
Highest Ranking#1 (41 weeks)#3
H2H vs Each others12-9 (in slams 3-4)9-12 (in slams 4-3)
H2H vs Big 3Federer 11-14 (in slams 1-5)
Nadal 7-17 (in slams 2-7)
Djokovic 11-25 (in slams 2-8)
Federer 3-23 (in slams 1-7)
Nadal 3-19 (in slams 1-3)
Djokovic 6-19 (in slams 4-4)

As you can see Andy Murray beats Stan Wawrinka easily in most of the important categories. The only category Wawrinka is stronger than him is in certain H2H statistics in slams, but otherwise it's not even close!
Whenever someone says Wawrinka is just as worthy of "Big 4" as Murray, it usually means they weren't watching during the Big 4 era.
 

D.Nalby12

Legend
Murray can have infinite number of titles - I am happy for him. But Wawrinka has the Peak level that Murray can't match (except on Grass). This is why Murray had to make 11 Slam finals to bag 3rd Slam otoh Wawrinka needed just 3 Finals to get 3 titles. Someone with big game always gonna do some damage regardless of his consistency but someone like Murray who lacks big weapons has to rely on consistency, he must patiently wait and seize the opportunities. Their career stats reflect this reality.
 
Last edited:
We needed a thread for this?

S(a)tan had a contract signed in blood, in 2013, and the results of that Faustian deal was AO14, playing an injured Rafa.

S(a)tan vs RF 1-7 in slams is the most lopsided H2H on this list, and I have to wonder why...
 

USO

Professional
Murray can have infinite number of titles - I am happy for him. But Wawrinka has the Peak level that Murray can't match (except on Grass). This is why Murray despite making 11 finals could bag just 3 otoh Wawrinka needed just 3 Finals to get 3 titles.
But it means that for all those times Murray made those finals, Wawrinka wasn't good enough to do it and lost early. Both managed to Peak 3 times in slams but losing in finals instead of QF is better and means that Murray was closer to Peak more often.
 

D.Nalby12

Legend
But it means that for all those times Murray made those finals, Wawrinka wasn't good enough to do it and lost early. Both managed to Peak 3 times in slams but losing in finals instead of QF is better and means that Murray was closer to Peak more often.
Murray was closer to peak more often but his peak was irrelevant thing in Tennis as far as he is facing Big 3. OTOH Wawrinka at his peak beat Federer - Tsonga - Djokovic back to back to win Slam. He is the only player who defeated prime PlexiVic in Bo5 - something even Nadal or Federer couldn't achieve.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
But it means that for all those times Murray made those finals, Wawrinka wasn't good enough to do it and lost early. Both managed to Peak 3 times in slams but losing in finals instead of QF is better and means that Murray was closer to Peak more often.
The thing is though, that Stan became a contender in 2013. So he hasn't had as many years as Murray to flourish.

After 2013 though, Stan has been better than Murray in terms of slam play.
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
For as much as people laud Wawrinka’s GS wins, his play at the USO ‘16 wasn’t that impressive.
It wasn't, considering the overall state of the tour, but he was rolling over his opponents pretty spectacularly for the most part, and that is quite memorable, especially considering the supposed difference that there was between him and some of those opponents.

:cool:
 

USO

Professional
Murray was closer to peak more often but his peak was irrelevant thing in Tennis as far as he is facing Big 3. OTOH Wawrinka at his peak beat Federer - Tsonga - Djokovic back to back to win Slam. He is the only player who defeated prime PlexiVic in Bo5 - something even Nadal or Federer couldn't achieve.
There's no point of having a stronger peak if you use it once in a blue moon. Murray is just the much more successful player. Nadal beat Djokovic 10 times in slams throughout his career and Federer did it 6 times including 2012 Wimbledon, 2011 FO, those were definitely peak Djokovic. Stop saying false information please.
 

StrongRule

G.O.A.T.
We needed a thread for this?

S(a)tan had a contract signed in blood, in 2013, and the results of that Faustian deal was AO14, playing an injured Rafa.

S(a)tan vs RF 1-7 in slams is the most lopsided H2H on this list, and I have to wonder why...
Murray's 1-5 against Federer is not much better. Though Federer was obviously harder to beat in AO 2013 than in RG 2015.

The big difference is 2-8 vs 4-4 against Djokovic.
 

D.Nalby12

Legend
There's no point of having a stronger peak if you use it once in a blue moon. Murray is just the much more successful player. Nadal beat Plexivic 10 times in slams throughout his career and Federer did it 6 times including 2012 Wimbledon, 2011 FO, those were definitely peak Djokovic. Stop saying false information please.
No point? Winning 3 Slams out of 3 Finals beating Big 3 in all ain't enough for You?

Murray is more successful unless Wawrinka wins 5th Slam.

PlexiVic = Djokovic on Plexicusion Court. He is undefeated there against Fedal. (6-0)
 

USO

Professional
Still better than beating Raonic in Slam final.
As much as I love Federer when Murray beat him in that Olympics final on grass that was huge and it definitely was one of Murray's best matches, he can definitely peak very high. Wawrinka could never do that.
 

StrongRule

G.O.A.T.
That's more to do with a match-up advantage that he has.

That and Djokovic being a complete fool for gifting Stan so many slams.
Gifting? Djokovic didn't play any worse against Wawrinka in their 2014-2016 slam meetings than he did against Murray. The difference is that one player had the game and mentality to challenge him, the other didn't.
 

ravenousRublev

New User
There isnt much of a difference between safin and stan both incredibly inconsistent with a high top level. Murray is more comparable(not in terms of playstyle) to edberg and becker tbe only difference is the amount of slam wins due to the fact he played against far tougher opponents in the big three
 

D.Nalby12

Legend
As much as I love Federer when Murray beat him in that Olympics final on grass that was huge and it definitely was one of Murray's best matches, he can definitely peak very high. Wawrinka could never do that.
Even Goffin would've defeated that Federer coming off playing 5+ hour semis. Why same Murray couldn't win more than a set against Federer in Wimbledon final? No marathon semis.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
As much as I love Federer when Murray beat him in that Olympics final on grass that was huge and it definitely was one of Murray's best matches, he can definitely peak very high. Wawrinka could never do that.
That was more Federer having no level in that final than Murray peaking very high.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Gifting? Djokovic didn't play any worse against Wawrinka in their 2014-2016 slam meetings than he did against Murray. The difference is that one player had the game and mentality to challenge him, the other didn't.
What absolute crap! :D
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Gifting? Djokovic didn't play any worse against Wawrinka in their 2014-2016 slam meetings than he did against Murray. The difference is that one player had the game and mentality to challenge him, the other didn't.
I do consider it gifting to an extent because a guy of Djokovic's caliber should not lose 3 slams to a guy like Stan. Fedal would never do that.
 

D.Nalby12

Legend
That's more to do with a match-up advantage that he has.

That and Djokovic being a complete fool for gifting Stan so many slams.
Djokovic gifted Slams to Murray - not same case with Wawrinka. He got convincingly outplayed. Nothing he could do except hopelessly using drop shots. Wawrinka is very good player plus matchup advantage. But Djokovic had no reason to lose 2 Finals to Murray to whom he owns 8-2 in Slams. It was just poor play from him.
 

USO

Professional
Even if we want to take only the slams into account, Wawrinka didn't manage to peak more often than Murray as they both have 3. But overall as seen is the statistics it's not even close.
 

pj80

Professional
I have seen a few people compare both, someone even said that the Big 4 must include Wawrinka instead of Murray, but they are not even close.

Andy MurrayStan Wawrinka
Slam titles3 (+ 8 finals)3 (+ 1 final)
WTF titles10
Olympics20
Masters 1000141
Career Titles4616
Highest Ranking#1 (41 weeks)#3
H2H vs Each others12-9 (in slams 3-4)9-12 (in slams 4-3)
H2H vs Big 3Federer 11-14 (in slams 1-5)
Nadal 7-17 (in slams 2-7)
Djokovic 11-25 (in slams 2-8)
Federer 3-23 (in slams 1-7)
Nadal 3-19 (in slams 1-3)
Djokovic 6-19 (in slams 4-4)

As you can see Andy Murray beats Stan Wawrinka easily in most of the important categories. The only category Wawrinka is stronger than him is in certain H2H statistics in slams, but otherwise it's not even close!
So you admit that Novak is big 3?
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
There isnt much of a difference between safin and stan both incredibly inconsistent with a high top level. Murray is more comparable(not in terms of playstyle) to edberg and becker tbe only difference is the amount of slam wins due to the fact he played against far tougher opponents in the big three
Becker and Edberg played against ATGs too, you know. I don't think Murray is guaranteed to beat them just because they weren't Big 3.

But hey, that's what tennis fandom has become: whoever is not Big 3 = mug.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
What are you talking about? 2 of his Slam wins were straight setters including 1 against Djokovic.
USO 2012: 5 setter against Novak. But that's not the issue. He should have been 0-2 to Cilic and was 1 point away from a 5th set against Berdych.

Wimb 2013: 5 setter with Verdasco.

Wimb 2016: 5 setter against Tsonga.
 

StrongRule

G.O.A.T.
I do consider it gifting to an extent because a guy of Djokovic's caliber should not lose 3 slams to a guy like Stan. Fedal would never do that.
Wawrinka played very well in these matches though. He couldn't do the same against Federer and Nadal due to matchup issues I guess.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
There isnt much of a difference between safin and stan both incredibly inconsistent with a high top level. Murray is more comparable(not in terms of playstyle) to edberg and becker tbe only difference is the amount of slam wins due to the fact he played against far tougher opponents in the big three
LOL at saying Murray is close to Becker and Edberg. Couldn't even win more slams than Stan despite playing against the same opponents.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Their head to heads against Djokovic are 2-8 and 4-4. Any person on Earth (even one who never watched tennis) will tell you who is the more dangerous opponent for Djokovic.
Sure, Stan has the edge in Slam encounters but to write off TWO Slam final victories including a straight setter as evidence of not being dangerous is just fantasy la la land from somebody who just has no respect.

Murray enjoys double digit victories over Djokovic. Outside the Big 3 no other player can boast that including Stan.
 
Top