The short-sightedness of the 'Slams are everything' approach when comparing careers

[timnz]

This thread comes out of two observations. I have seen some postings on this forum with wording such as 'Slams are everything'. The other observation is some comparing Wawrinka's career with Murray since they both have 3 slam wins. They are effectively the same mind set - the 'Slam wins are everything' mindset. It is highly short sighted for the following reasons that come out in a Wawrinka Murray comparison.

Wawrinka/Murray

3 Slam wins each - however, Murray has 8 Slam runner-ups - so what are Wawrinka's next 8 best slam results? They are 4 Semi-finals and 4 Quarter finals.

Question: Is 8 Slam runner-ups better than 4 Semi's and 4 Quarters? Obviously yes. The problem comes when we simply look at Slam final wins, forgetting that winning a slam is 7 matches not 1.

Masters 1000 - Wawrinka 1 (with 2 runner-ups) - Murray 14 (with 7 runner-ups)- self evidently Murray way better. Again, forgotten completely if you simply look at slam wins.

Olympic Singles - Wawrinka - reached 2nd round in 2008, Murray - won gold twice 2012 and 2016

Best ranking Wawrinka 3, Best ranking Murray 1 (and has been in the top 5 for the best part of the last 7-8 years)

Recent addition: WTF win for Murray. Stan and Andy are still on 3 Slams each but there is a gulf between them in achievement terms.

So in reality Murray and Wawrinka aren't even in the same conversation. But if you adhere to the 'Slam wins are everything - you would think they are on par.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

This thread comes out of two observations. I have seen some postings on this forum with wording such as 'Slams are everything'. The other observation is some comparing Wawrinka's career with Murray since they both have 3 slam wins. They are effectively the same mind set - the 'Slam wins are everything' mindset. It is highly short sighted for the following reasons that come out in a Wawrinka Murray comparison.

Wawrinka/Murray

3 Slam wins each - however, Murray has 8 Slam runner-ups - so what are Wawrinka's next 8 best slam results? They are 4 Semi-finals and 4 Quarter finals.

Question: Is 8 Slam runner-ups better than 4 Semi's and 4 Quarters? Obviously yes. The problem comes when better simply look a Slam wins, forgetting that winning a slam is 7 matches not 1. This is completely forgotten if you simply look at slam wins.

Masters 1000 - Wawrinka 1 (with 2 runner-ups) - Murray 14 (with 7 runner-ups)- self evidently Murray way better. Again, forgotten completely if you simply look at slam wins.

Olympic Singles - Wawrinka - reached 2nd round in 2008, Murray - won gold twice 2012 and 2016

Best ranking Wawrinka 3, Best ranking Murray 1 (and has been in the top 5 for the best part of the last 7-8 years)

So in reality Murray and Wawrinka aren't even in the same conversation. But if you adhere to the 'Slam wins are everything - you would think they are on par.

Just like Hewitt is still better than Wawrinka despite him having 3 slams and Hewitt only 2..

Murray is already in the conversation with guys like Courier and even Becker if he wins a couple more majors.

 

[pc1]

This thread comes out of two observations. I have seen some postings on this forum with wording such as 'Slams are everything'. The other observation is some comparing Wawrinka's career with Murray since they both have 3 slam wins. They are effectively the same mind set - the 'Slam wins are everything' mindset. It is highly short sighted for the following reasons that come out in a Wawrinka Murray comparison.

Wawrinka/Murray

3 Slam wins each - however, Murray has 8 Slam runner-ups - so what are Wawrinka's next 8 best slam results? They are 4 Semi-finals and 4 Quarter finals.

Question: Is 8 Slam runner-ups better than 4 Semi's and 4 Quarters? Obviously yes. The problem comes when better simply look a Slam wins, forgetting that winning a slam is 7 matches not 1. This is completely forgotten if you simply look at slam wins.

Masters 1000 - Wawrinka 1 (with 2 runner-ups) - Murray 14 (with 7 runner-ups)- self evidently Murray way better. Again, forgotten completely if you simply look at slam wins.

Olympic Singles - Wawrinka - reached 2nd round in 2008, Murray - won gold twice 2012 and 2016

Best ranking Wawrinka 3, Best ranking Murray 1 (and has been in the top 5 for the best part of the last 7-8 years)

So in reality Murray and Wawrinka aren't even in the same conversation. But if you adhere to the 'Slam wins are everything - you would think they are on par.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Fedeonic]

Murray is already in the conversation with guys like Courier and even Becker if he wins a couple more majors.

I'd put Andy in the Courier group (Guga, Vilas, Courier), he needs at least 2 more Slams to be in Becker's group.

 

[spirit95]

I don't think there is anyone on this board who looks at slam tallies and nothing else.

 

[tennisaddict]

Can you convince Serena fans that she cannot compare herself to Graf ? Amd what happens when Serena is compared to Martina and Chris , both of whom achieved bucketloads more than the majors ?

What about Lendl vs Borg ? Lendl was a symbol of consistency for so long and was a role model for the current gen.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I'd put Andy in the Courier group (Guga, Vilas, Courier), he needs at least 2 more Slams to be in Becker's group.

I agree, but I don't think it will be long before he enters the Becker group IMO.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Even if Murray had 2 Slams he would still be greater than Wawrinka. More than one comparison can be found where a player with less Slams can be considered as the greater one. "Slams are everything" approach is absolutely stupid.

 

[timnz]

I'd put Andy in the Courier group (Guga, Vilas, Courier), he needs at least 2 more Slams to be in Becker's group.

Why do you put him in the Courier group? What career achievements did you include your calculations? Thanks for responding

 

[timnz]

I don't think there is anyone on this board who looks at slam tallies and nothing else.

It would be very boring for me to do so, but I can direct you to posting after posting showing the 'slams are everything approach'

 

[Phoenix1983]

I'd put Andy in the Courier group (Guga, Vilas, Courier), he needs at least 2 more Slams to be in Becker's group.

He's already much greater than Guga. Vilas/Courier, he could be argued to be greater than despite their extra slam.

Wawrinka is obviously behind Hewitt and Nastase despite having one more slam, and also arguably behind Safin.

 

[Fedeonic]

Why do you put him in the Courier group? What career achievements did you include your calculations? Thanks for responding

Having one big year like Courier 1992 or Guga 2000 ending the year as N°1, winning consistenly in ther favorite surfaces, several M1000s won, 3-4 Slams won against decent opposition.

 

[nadalfan2013]

This thread comes out of two observations. I have seen some postings on this forum with wording such as 'Slams are everything'. The other observation is some comparing Wawrinka's career with Murray since they both have 3 slam wins. They are effectively the same mind set - the 'Slam wins are everything' mindset. It is highly short sighted for the following reasons that come out in a Wawrinka Murray comparison.

Wawrinka/Murray

3 Slam wins each - however, Murray has 8 Slam runner-ups - so what are Wawrinka's next 8 best slam results? They are 4 Semi-finals and 4 Quarter finals.

Question: Is 8 Slam runner-ups better than 4 Semi's and 4 Quarters? Obviously yes. The problem comes when we simply look at Slam final wins, forgetting that winning a slam is 7 matches not 1.

Masters 1000 - Wawrinka 1 (with 2 runner-ups) - Murray 14 (with 7 runner-ups)- self evidently Murray way better. Again, forgotten completely if you simply look at slam wins.

Olympic Singles - Wawrinka - reached 2nd round in 2008, Murray - won gold twice 2012 and 2016

Best ranking Wawrinka 3, Best ranking Murray 1 (and has been in the top 5 for the best part of the last 7-8 years)

So in reality Murray and Wawrinka aren't even in the same conversation. But if you adhere to the 'Slam wins are everything - you would think they are on par.

I see that the Novak fans are now creating threads not only to bash Murray because he dethroned Novak from no.1, but also bashing Wawrinka because he has destroyed Novak several times in important matches. Stop crying Novak fans!!! Try to handle Novak's decline and end of career with more dignity and class. Both Murray and Wawrinka are great champions, stop finding new ways to put them down because you are so butthurt that Nole is not on top anymore!!!

 

[timnz]

I see that the Novak fans are now creating threads not only to bash Murray because he dethroned him from no.1, but also bashing Wawrinka because he has destroyed Novak several times in important matches. Stop crying Novak fans!!! Try to handle Novak's decline and end of career with more dignity and class.

I thought it was known that I am mostly a Federer fan (though deeply impressed by the careers of Nadal and Djokovic). Not bashing Wawrinka at all. I think he is awesome, particularly his one handed backhand. Such power and variety!

Quite simply I am not a fan of slam wins are everything thinking. My belief is that tennis is more than 8 weeks a year and that slams are more than the final match.

 

[Terenigma]

OP is right but its a joke that it took him getting to #1 to make this forum realise he is and always has been better than players like Wawinka, Del Potro, Hewitt and especially Roddick. Also to people thinking that no-one doubted this or was always looking at Slams, that is simply not true. Im sure the other Murray supporters on this forum will back me up when i say that he is CONSTANTLY getting flack about his achievements.

There have been countless threads and posts saying if Wawrinka wins another slam (1 better than Andy) then he is better and it's a joke. People also seem to forget that even if you did focus on slams, He's still won more slams than Federer in the last 5 years and is 1 away from equaling Nadal.

Slams are not everything, i would actually argue that slams are somewhat overrated due to the fact that so many players on the tour simple cannot compete in a B05 format and that B03 matches are a better indication of the true best players in the world. Thats why its the Big 4, that's why players who have occasional great days will never be as good and that's why Murray is an ATG and a proud member of the Big 4 and a member of arguably the strongest top-teir generation of tennis.

 

[nadalfan2013]

OP is right but its a joke that it took him getting to #1 to make this forum realise he is and always has been better than players like Wawinka, Del Potro, Hewitt and especially Roddick. Also to people thinking that no-one doubted this or was always looking at Slams, that is simply not true. Im sure the other Murray supporters on this forum will back me up when i say that he is CONSTANTLY getting flack about his achievements.

There have been countless threads and posts saying if Wawrinka wins another slam (1 better than Andy) then he is better and it's a joke. People also seem to forget that even if you did focus on slams, He's still won more slams than Federer in the last 5 years and equals Nadal.

Slams are not everything, i would actually argue that slams are somewhat overrated due to the fact that so many players on the tour simple cannot compete in a B05 format and that B03 matches are a better indication of the true best players in the world. Thats why its the Big 4, that's why players who have occasional great days will never be as good and that's why Murray is an ATG and a proud member of the Big 4 and a member of arguably the strongest top-teir generation of tennis.

Last 5 years = 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016

Nadal won 4 slams, Murray 3 slams, Federer 1 slam.

Thank you.

 

[pc1]

He's already much greater than Guga. Vilas/Courier, he could be argued to be greater than despite their extra slam.

Wawrinka is obviously behind Hewitt and Nastase despite having one more slam, and also arguably behind Safin.

As much as I love Guga, his career record outside of his three French Opens isn't that great. I do think if he did not have the hip injury that he would've going on to much greater things but it's only speculation.

 

[Terenigma]

Last 5 years = 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016

Nadal won 4 slams, Murray 3 slams, Federer 1 slam.

Thank you.

My mistake and fixed but my point still stands. There is no contest that Murray has been one of the biggest names on the tour for the last 5 years. Before that he was still closer to the clouds than he was ever on the ground. I just wish this forum would remember that tennis is more than slams and singular performances.

 

[S'in-net]

Last 5 years = 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016
Nadal won 4 slams, Murray 3 slams, Federer 1 slam.
Thank you.

And Djokovic won 8 slams which is the other three put together and that's after his 2011 year

Not to derail the thread though

Murray is the best player in the world at the moment
and has been a member of the big four since 2008
Two Olympic Golds can't be watered down either
Not when he's beaten Djokovic/Federer/Nishikori/Del Potro from Silver match onwards
His Masters series runs winning 7/9 current venues puts him on par with the others as well

 

[punterlad]

I'd put Andy in the Courier group (Guga, Vilas, Courier), he needs at least 2 more Slams to be in Becker's group.

Lol you have just contradicted the OP! Becker had 6 slams courier 4 slams but courier was no.1 for 58 weeks to beckers 12!

So you are saying slams are everything . Which is why I argue nadal is either goat or only second to federer at worse.

Any other argument put forward puts courier way ahead of Becker

 

[punterlad]

I thought it was known that I am mostly a Federer fan (though deeply impressed by the careers of Nadal and Djokovic). Not bashing Wawrinka at all. I think he is awesome, particularly his one handed backhand. Such power and variety!

Quite simply I am not a fan of slam wins are everything thinking. My belief is that tennis is more than 8 weeks a year and that slams are more than the final match.

I have respect for that viewpoint even though I don't agree because historically players are judged on the majors. I'm not saying it's right.

The best way of debating this is courier v Becker. Who had the better career?

 

[timnz]

I have respect for that viewpoint even though I don't agree because historically players are judged on the majors. I'm not saying it's right.

The best way of debating this is courier v Becker. Who had the better career?

Becker had a far better career than Courier. Weighted at ATP weighting (divided by 1000):

Scale is: (SV x 2) + (SEFNL x 1.5) + (SEFOL x 1.3) + (SEFRUNL x 1) + (SRU x 1.2) + (TOP9 x 1) + (TOP9RU x 0.60) + (SEFRUOL x 0.80) + (OSG x 0) + (SSF x 0.72) + (SEFSFNL x 0.60) + (500S x 0.50)

Becker = (6 x 2) + ((1 + 1) x 1.5)) + (3 x 1.3) + ((4 + 1) x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (13 x 1) + (8 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (8 x 0.72) + ((2 - 1) x 0.60) + (9 x 0.50)= 57.36

Courier = (4 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (3 x 1.2) + (5 x 1) + (0 x 0.60) + (2 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (4 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (5 x 0.50) = 23.58

(BTW I rate Becker ahead of Edberg and Wilander)

Everything that in today's terms you can earn 500 points and above per event is counted. That is:

• Slam Victories (SV) 2000 ATP points
• Slam Runner-ups (SRU) 1200 ATP points
• Slam Semi-finals (SSF) 720 ATP points
• Season end final victories with no loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFNL) 1500 ATP points
• Season end final victories with one loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFOL) 1300 ATP points
• Season end final runner-ups with no loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFRUNL) 1000 ATP points
• Season end final runner-ups with one loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFRUOL) 800 ATP points
• Season end final semi-finals with no loss before the semi-final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFSFNL) ATP 600 points
• Masters 1000 equivalent victories (we will call (Top 9)) ATP 1000 points
• Masters 1000 equivalent runner-ups (TOP9RU) ATP 600 points
• Olympic Gold Metal Singles (OSG) ATP 0 points **
• 500 Series equivalents (500S) ATP 500 points

 

[Gizo]

Yeah exactly. It has never made sense to only focus on grand slams and ignore the rest of the tour events and players' achievements. The tour is over 11 months long, and doesn't just consist of 8 weeks for the slams. Grand slams are the most important factor in judging players' careers, but they aren't the only factor.

And from a historical perspective it's well known that the grand slam count wasn't considered to be an overly significant measure of greatness until 90s, i.e. Borg never cared about overhauling Emerson's unimportant grand slam title record (Laver said he didn't even know that Emerson held this record until many years afterwards), Evert skipped RG years in a row in her prime and recently said that 'no-one was counting back then' etc. For a long time the Wimbledon title count was more important than the overall grand slam count, i.e. Navratilova was obsessed with overhauling Helen Wills Moody's record 8 Wimbledon titles (which she did), but she didn't care about chasing down Court's record 24 grand slam titles. Borg overhauling Perry's post-challenge round era record of 3 consecutive Wimbledon titles was similarly a huge deal. He could have entered more Australian and French Opens to attempt to overtake Emerson, but it just wasn't a goal for him.

 

[Djokovic2011]

I see that the Novak fans are now creating threads not only to bash Murray because he dethroned Novak from no.1, but also bashing Wawrinka because he has destroyed Novak several times in important matches. Stop crying Novak fans!!! Try to handle Novak's decline and end of career with more dignity and class. Both Murray and Wawrinka are great champions, stop finding new ways to put them down because you are so butthurt that Nole is not on top anymore!!!

What the hell did I just read?! timnz didn't even mention Djokovic in his OP so what on earth are you waffling on about? And which of us fans apart from the odd troll here or there that infest all fanbases have you seen crying? Lay off the crack mate - it's really no good for you.

 

[spirit95]

It would be very boring for me to do so, but I can direct you to posting after posting showing the 'slams are everything approach'

If you want. But I don't think there is anyone who is 100% blind to anything but slam tally.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

OP is right but its a joke that it took him getting to #1 to make this forum realise he is and always has been better than players like Wawinka, Del Potro, Hewitt and especially Roddick. Also to people thinking that no-one doubted this or was always looking at Slams, that is simply not true. Im sure the other Murray supporters on this forum will back me up when i say that he is CONSTANTLY getting flack about his achievements.

There have been countless threads and posts saying if Wawrinka wins another slam (1 better than Andy) then he is better and it's a joke. People also seem to forget that even if you did focus on slams, He's still won more slams than Federer in the last 5 years and is 1 away from equaling Nadal.

Slams are not everything, i would actually argue that slams are somewhat overrated due to the fact that so many players on the tour simple cannot compete in a B05 format and that B03 matches are a better indication of the true best players in the world. Thats why its the Big 4, that's why players who have occasional great days will never be as good and that's why Murray is an ATG and a proud member of the Big 4 and a member of arguably the strongest top-teir generation of tennis.

I'm sorry but before 2016 he was not better than Hewitt.

 

[Fedeonic]

I have respect for that viewpoint even though I don't agree because historically players are judged on the majors. I'm not saying it's right.

The best way of debating this is courier v Becker. Who had the better career?

By far Becker, more Slams, a Masters title, more M1000s equals, more overall titles and for me it was the de facto N°1 in 1989, also Becker was a big match player (when not playing Edberg of course), same could not be said about Jim. However, Courier was more regular and that's why he was more time at N°1.

 

[timnz]

I'm sorry but before 2016 he was not better than Hewitt.

Hewitt isn't exactly a low bar. 2 Slams, 2 x YE number 1, 2 x WTF champion.

 

[timnz]

By far Becker, more Slams, a Masters title, more M1000s equals, more overall titles and for me it was the de facto N°1 in 1989, also Becker was a big match player (when not playing Edberg of course), same could not be said about Jim. However, Courier was more regular and that's why he was more time at N°1.

Becker was hugely dominant over Edberg in the H2H - 25-10. He was also dominant over Edberg in best of 5 matches as well.

 

[NGM]

What's that? Slams are not everything. BUT they are the biggest thing and if two players have the same number of slams the other factors counted as tie break. This is the Murray and Wawrinka case.

 

[cc0509]

I agree, but I don't think it will be long before he enters the Becker group IMO.

You guys are hilarious if you think Murray is going to start to mop up every slam and double his total career slam count at age 29. There is no sense of balance on this forum!

 

[timnz]

What's that? Slams are not everything. BUT they are the biggest thing and if two players have the same number of slams the other factors counted as tie break. This is the Murray and Wawrinka case.

Don't agree at all. 10 Slams + 5 WTF is ahead of 11 Slams + 0 WTF - all other things being equal. Wawrinka would still be way behind if he gets on 4 slams before Murray.

 

[NGM]

Don't agree at all. 10 Slams + 5 WTF is ahead of 11 Slams + 0 WTF - all other things being equal. Wawrinka would still be way behind if he gets on 4 slams before Murray.

It's your opinion. The closet thing with your example are Djokovic and Nadal comparison and even in this case, there are more people consider Nadal is greater than Djokovic as proved by polls done at height of Djokovic's reign.

The more extreme case will be Wawrinka and Hewitt comparison. I would like to know what is the people's view on this case.

 

[Fedeonic]

Becker was hugely dominant over Edberg in the H2H - 25-10. He was also dominant over Edberg in best of 5 matches as well.

Their biggest matches (Slam finals, WTF and WCT finals) was Edberg up 3-2, unless you want to consider Davis Cup finals matches which gives Becker the edge of 5-3.

 

[punterlad]

Becker had a far better career than Courier. Weighted at ATP weighting (divided by 1000):

Scale is: (SV x 2) + (SEFNL x 1.5) + (SEFOL x 1.3) + (SEFRUNL x 1) + (SRU x 1.2) + (TOP9 x 1) + (TOP9RU x 0.60) + (SEFRUOL x 0.80) + (OSG x 0) + (SSF x 0.72) + (SEFSFNL x 0.60) + (500S x 0.50)

Becker = (6 x 2) + ((1 + 1) x 1.5)) + (3 x 1.3) + ((4 + 1) x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (13 x 1) + (8 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (8 x 0.72) + ((2 - 1) x 0.60) + (9 x 0.50)= 57.36

Courier = (4 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (3 x 1.2) + (5 x 1) + (0 x 0.60) + (2 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (4 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (5 x 0.50) = 23.58

(BTW I rate Becker ahead of Edberg and Wilander)

Everything that in today's terms you can earn 500 points and above per event is counted. That is:

• Slam Victories (SV) 2000 ATP points
• Slam Runner-ups (SRU) 1200 ATP points
• Slam Semi-finals (SSF) 720 ATP points
• Season end final victories with no loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFNL) 1500 ATP points
• Season end final victories with one loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFOL) 1300 ATP points
• Season end final runner-ups with no loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFRUNL) 1000 ATP points
• Season end final runner-ups with one loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFRUOL) 800 ATP points
• Season end final semi-finals with no loss before the semi-final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFSFNL) ATP 600 points
• Masters 1000 equivalent victories (we will call (Top 9)) ATP 1000 points
• Masters 1000 equivalent runner-ups (TOP9RU) ATP 600 points
• Olympic Gold Metal Singles (OSG) ATP 0 points **
• 500 Series equivalents (500S) ATP 500 points

Bottom line is the rankings are irrelevant in determining players place in history.

 

[punterlad]

By far Becker, more Slams, a Masters title, more M1000s equals, more overall titles and for me it was the de facto N°1 in 1989, also Becker was a big match player (when not playing Edberg of course), same could not be said about Jim. However, Courier was more regular and that's why he was more time at N°1.

Which is exactly why when it comes to determine a players place in history the rankings are irrelevant and nadal has to be either top of the pile or at worse second behind federer.

Those who have Sampras over nadal or Djokovic over nadal are very misguided .

I was a massive courier fan back in the day but I agree Becker was better. Courier at his peak more consistent. And that's what the rankings reflect....consistency.

Murray by far the most consistent player this year.

However If in London in two weeks we have murrray at his peak best face off in final with Djokovic at his peak best there will only be one outcome and that's a Djokovic win. I would love Murray to win but simple truth is at peak levels Murray is 4th of the big four, Djokovic is third and nadal and federer are 1 and 2 depending on who people support .

 

[helterskelter]

Good post and, yes, obviously the Wawrinka = Murray claim is merely an example of the Slam TITLES are everything belief in action. I personally think that Slam results are by far the most important - but being runner-up in a Slam counts for a lot, especially at the level of a Murray or a Wawrinka. Any way you cut it, Murray is way ahead.

This thread comes out of two observations. I have seen some postings on this forum with wording such as 'Slams are everything'. The other observation is some comparing Wawrinka's career with Murray since they both have 3 slam wins. They are effectively the same mind set - the 'Slam wins are everything' mindset. It is highly short sighted for the following reasons that come out in a Wawrinka Murray comparison.

Wawrinka/Murray

3 Slam wins each - however, Murray has 8 Slam runner-ups - so what are Wawrinka's next 8 best slam results? They are 4 Semi-finals and 4 Quarter finals.

Question: Is 8 Slam runner-ups better than 4 Semi's and 4 Quarters? Obviously yes. The problem comes when we simply look at Slam final wins, forgetting that winning a slam is 7 matches not 1.

Masters 1000 - Wawrinka 1 (with 2 runner-ups) - Murray 14 (with 7 runner-ups)- self evidently Murray way better. Again, forgotten completely if you simply look at slam wins.

Olympic Singles - Wawrinka - reached 2nd round in 2008, Murray - won gold twice 2012 and 2016

Best ranking Wawrinka 3, Best ranking Murray 1 (and has been in the top 5 for the best part of the last 7-8 years)

So in reality Murray and Wawrinka aren't even in the same conversation. But if you adhere to the 'Slam wins are everything - you would think they are on par.

 

[helterskelter]

Just like Hewitt is still better than Wawrinka despite him having 3 slams and Hewitt only 2..

Murray is already in the conversation with guys like Courier and even Becker if he wins a couple more majors.

Probably in the conversation with Courier even if he doesn't win another major.

 

[timnz]

Bottom line is the rankings are irrelevant in determining players place in history.

We look to them every year to see who the YE number 1 is.

 

[timnz]

It's your opinion. The closet thing with your example are Djokovic and Nadal comparison and even in this case, there are more people consider Nadal is greater than Djokovic as proved by polls done at height of Djokovic's reign.

The more extreme case will be Wawrinka and Hewitt comparison. I would like to know what is the people's view on this case.

Actually it appears my view is in the majority. I did a poll some time ago (over 70% of the respondents said that 10 slams + 5 WTF was superior to 11 Slams + 0 WTF :

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ment-10-slams-5-wtf-vs-11-slams-0-wtf.534695/

 

[Fedeonic]

Which is exactly why when it comes to determine a players place in history the rankings are irrelevant and nadal has to be either top of the pile or at worse second behind federer.

Those who have Sampras over nadal or Djokovic over nadal are very misguided .

Nadal is barely above Sampras in my list, Djokovic with another non-AO Slam and/or another YE#1 win could reach Nadal and Sampras, unless that other non-AO Slam win is Roland Garros, he's automatically N°2 behind Federer.

 

[timnz]

Nadal is barely above Sampras in my list, Djokovic with another non-AO Slam and/or another YE#1 win could reach Nadal and Sampras, unless that other non-AO Slam win is Roland Garros, he's automatically N°2 behind Federer.

What are your thoughts on a Djokovic Sampras comparison? 2 Slams less for Djokovic yes, but 19 more Masters 1000's on Djokovic's side. That is a huge difference. I think it easily superior to 2 slams. (At Masters 1000's - Sampras + Agassi combined < Djokovic)

(Other factors are on par: 286 weeks for Sampras at number 1 , 223 weeks for Djokovic at number 1, same number of WTF's - 5 each (though Djokovic had 3 unbeaten whereas Sampras had 0))

 

[smoledman]

Slams are everything in this sport. Let's not pretend otherwise. The casuals only pay attention to slams.

 

[mika1979]

Actually it appears my view is in the majority. I did a poll some time ago (over 70% of the respondents said that 10 slams + 5 WTF was superior to 11 Slams + 0 WTF :

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ment-10-slams-5-wtf-vs-11-slams-0-wtf.534695/

Unfortunately people argue to suit what makes their favourite player greater. I have followed tennis since 89 and for me the highest level of tennis was from 2009 to 2013 with Djokovic 2011 being peak individual level I have seen. Murray has been a huge part of that era and for this reason I think he is better than a number of people with more slams. Also other stats such as winning percentages point to this.

 

[timnz]

Unfortunately people argue to suit what makes their favourite player greater. I have followed tennis since 89 and for me the highest level of tennis was from 2009 to 2013 with Djokovic 2011 being peak individual level I have seen. Murray has been a huge part of that era and for this reason I think he is better than a number of people with more slams. Also other stats such as winning percentages point to this.

We each have our own opinion here. My view is that Slams are the most important events however, they aren't the only events. Events such at the WTF (which in points and in tennis history has been rated only a little lower than a slam), Masters 1000/Super 9's - though they have lesser impact - they still should factor in. It isn't nothing that Djokovic's Masters 1000 career is better than Sampras' and Agassi's combined.

 

[duaneeo]

So in reality Murray and Wawrinka aren't even in the same conversation.

Well, Wawrinka is more in the same conversation with Murray than Murray is in the same conversation with the other 'Big-4'.

 

[ANDYbhGENIUS]

If you want. But I don't think there is anyone who is 100% blind to anything but slam tally.

Spot on - it is the first denominator, after which you have some 7 or 8 other denominators which normally should be taken into account....

But nothing here at TT is normal, which is why you get junk thread after troll thread, like this one. It is a self-supporting and inducing system of junk, exaggeration, distortion, hate, and seeking arguments. There are a few exceptions, but that is it.

 

[mika1979]

We each have our own opinion here. My view is that Slams are the most important events however, they aren't the only events. Events such at the WTF (which in points and in tennis history has been rated only a little lower than a slam), Masters 1000/Super 9's - though they have lesser impact - they still should factor in. It isn't nothing that Djokovic's Masters 1000 career is better than Sampras' and Agassi's combined.

I think that the points system has it about right.

 

[nowhereman]

Agreed, OP. Although, given the emphasis and attention the slams get, it's no wonder this attitude exists.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Nadal is barely above Sampras in my list, Djokovic with another non-AO Slam and/or another YE#1 win could reach Nadal and Sampras, unless that other non-AO Slam win is Roland Garros, he's automatically N°2 behind Federer.

Why does Djokovic need to win another non-AO Slam? Hard courts feature the toughest competition since that is the surface on which most players' games are best adapted so surely another AO title would elevate him even more?