The two remarkable 12 months of Andy Murray's career

[metsman]

5 slams seems reasonable.

Give me a list of eras in which Murray approaches 5 slams. How many other eras does he even sniff 3 Wimbys+USO's in? He only even has like 3 good USO runs period and two of them ended in very mediocre performances(give him a pass on 08 because he was tired), so he'd need the stars to align to win 1 in any period. 1-2 Wimby's is reasonable, but again he's not beating peak Fed/Sampras/Mac/Becker etc. so he'd need to sneak some in maybe in the early 90's or early 00's. AO wasn't even a real major until 89 and had generally pretty strong winners besides 98-99 and 02. And pretty much all those things would need to happen for him to win 5 majors. So late 90's/early 00's is his best bet because 97-first half of 99 was pretty weak and 02 was pretty weak too. And I see Murray being a bit worse with gut strings relative to the field because he struggles with depth of shot anyways and his 2nd serve is a joke even with poly so that makes it tougher.

Bottom line is that a good bit has to go right for him to win 3 or more slams in other periods given how tight the lockdown was on Wimby/USO most years. If his 2012-2016 aligns with Federer's peak instead of Djokovic's there's a good chance he has 0 majors unless he snuck one out beforehand. Every single major from 2003-2009 was won by a player playing at a clearly higher level than Murray is capable of on those respective surfaces, besides 03 USO, 04 RG and 09 USO (And Murray is far from a lock at any of those). So it goes both ways.

 

[mike danny]

Give me a list of eras in which Murray approaches 5 slams. How many other eras does he even sniff 3 Wimbys+USO's in? He only even has like 3 good USO runs period and two of them ended in very mediocre performances(give him a pass on 08 because he was tired), so he'd need the stars to align to win 1 in any period. 1-2 Wimby's is reasonable, but again he's not beating peak Fed/Sampras/Mac/Becker etc. so he'd need to sneak some in maybe in the early 90's or early 00's. AO wasn't even a real major until 89 and had generally pretty strong winners besides 98-99 and 02. And pretty much all those things would need to happen for him to win 5 majors. So late 90's/early 00's is his best bet because 97-first half of 99 was pretty weak and 02 was pretty weak too. And I see Murray being a bit worse with gut strings relative to the field because he struggles with depth of shot anyways and his 2nd serve is a joke even with poly so that makes it tougher.

Bottom line is that a good bit has to go right for him to win 3 or more slams in other periods given how tight the lockdown was on Wimby/USO most years. If his 2012-2016 aligns with Federer's peak instead of Djokovic's there's a good chance he has 0 majors unless he snuck one out beforehand. Every single major from 2003-2009 was won by a player playing at a clearly higher level than Murray is capable of on those respective surfaces, besides 03 USO, 04 RG and 09 USO (And Murray is far from a lock at any of those). So it goes both ways.

I could see him winning something in the period of 1996-2003 which wasn't brilliant.

He doesn't necessarily have to win Wimb's and USO's. He could win some AO's too. AO 1999 could go to him since it was quite weak. AO 2002 could go to him as well if Safin plays as bad as he did against Johansson. Beyond that, I'm not sure.

At Wimb, Sampras was still strong in 1997-2000 and in 1996 Krajicek may upset Murray. his best chance might be 2002 Wimb.

He might win one of 1997 or 1998 USO.

So he might win 4 slams between 1996 and 2003 somehow.

 

[metsman]

I could see him winning something in the period of 1996-2003 which wasn't brilliant.

He doesn't necessarily have to win Wimb's and USO's. He could win some AO's too. AO 1999 could go to him since it was quite weak. AO 2002 could go to him as well if Safin plays as bad as he did against Johansson. Beyond that, I'm not sure.

At Wimb, Sampras was still strong in 1997-2000 and in 1996 Krajicek may upset Murray. his best chance might be 2002 Wimb.

He might win one of 1997 or 1998 USO.

So he might win 4 slams between 1996 and 2003 somehow.

Yeah, so either way we'd need a fairly weak period to make it happen which is the point. Murray isn't winning 3+ slams in most other eras. He has the peak level of most 1-4 slam guys, lower in some cases on some surfaces, just far more consistent across several years which those other guys weren't, and that's the player he is. He maybe has the consistency of a lower tier ATG but without the peak level it doesn't matter.

 

[tennisaddict]

People are being too generous awarding Murray with 5 majors when the fact is he has gone through very mediocre draws to win even 3 . There is no evidence that he would win any more majors than 3 ever.

 

[ibbi]

That second period was nice, but it's tough to argue that it only happened when other top players were missing/in awful form. I don't think it's even close to that first period, which if you couple it with that freakin' 2012 Australian semi final is comfortably the greatest year and a half of his career.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

At which period were all three ATG at the top of their powers? Certainly not 2012-2013 as Nadal was MIA the whole second half of 2012 and Federer was garbage in 2013 and Djokovic was no ATG in a good number of slam finals in that period. Certainly not 2016 where Federer and Nadal were never around and Djokovic mailed it in halfway through 2016.

Murray's done well for himself largely due to his great consistency which allowed him to cash in on certain opportunities, but let's not hype up his peak play as something super special especially given his general playing level in most of his slam finals.

Again, the point of this thread is completely being missed. All due respect to you, but I am going to make it short and sweet.

This thread is about saying that Murray has done far more than Wawrinka, Del Potro, Cilic and all those other guys chasing Fedalovic to be grouped with them. Murray stands alone, in that he was able to deliver consistent results, win a variety of big tournaments from slams, to masters to WTF to Olympics to Davis Cup during a time that three ATGs played, regardless of what their form was, no one else could do it, only Murray did. There is nothing in the OP stating that Murray is their is equal, or the equal of a Borg, Sampras or Agassi or has some Godly tennis peak. It is to say that he at least deserves to be above the rest who played this era...

Everyone is just focused on how many slams he has...yes, I am FULLY aware he won three slams, I am no johnny come lately to this party, I have seen this from start to finish. My point is about saying that Murray has made a decent career for himself, that many would love to have, and comparing him to the others is an injustice to how consistent he has been year in year out. He ranks very high in overall title haul also.

 

[metsman]

Again, the point of this thread is completely being missed. All due respect to you, but I am going to make it short and sweet.

This thread is about saying that Murray has done far more than Wawrinka, Del Potro, Cilic and all those other guys chasing Fedalovic to be grouped with them. Murray stands alone, in that he was able to deliver consistent results, win a variety of big tournaments from slams, to masters to WTF to Olympics to Davis Cup during a time that three ATGs played, regardless of what their form was, no one else could do it, only Murray did. There is nothing in the OP stating that Murray is their is equal, or the equal of a Borg, Sampras or Agassi or has some Godly tennis peak. It is to say that he at least deserves to be above the rest who played this era...

Everyone is just focused on how many slams he has...yes, I am FULLY aware he won three slams, I am no johnny come lately to this party, I have seen this from start to finish. My point is about saying that Murray has made a decent career for himself, that many would love to have, and comparing him to the others is an injustice to how consistent he has been year in year out. He ranks very high in overall title haul also.

Yeah his consistency is definitely far above those guys, and his accomplishments are in a different class as a result, although in Delpo's case we never really got the chance to see(I wouldn't group him in with the other two guys, nor would I group Wawrinka in with Cilic either). I don't think we disagree. I just see too many guys who overstate his peak level with other agendas in mind (which you don't), so I kind of have a natural reflex to Murray discussions.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Yeah his consistency is definitely far above those guys, and his accomplishments are in a different class as a result, although in Delpo's case we never really got the chance to see(I wouldn't group him in with the other two guys, nor would I group Wawrinka in with Cilic either). I don't think we disagree. I just see too many guys who overstate his peak level with other agendas in mind (which you don't), so I kind of have a natural reflex to Murray discussions.

There is nothing here saying he is a GOAT player, it is about recognizing that his consistency has been remarkable, it is something that gets overlooked because of the era in which he has played. But Murray has carved a very decent career out for himself, that outside of Fedalovic, all the current players would love.

 

[mike danny]

People are being too generous awarding Murray with 5 majors when the fact is he has gone through very mediocre draws to win even 3 . There is no evidence that he would win any more majors than 3 ever.

I have already gone through his USO 2012 draw and showed you that it wasn't mediocre. It was actually a fairly difficult one.

And at Wimb 2016, he at least had to deal with an in form Tsonga.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Again, the point of this thread is completely being missed. All due respect to you, but I am going to make it short and sweet.

This thread is about saying that Murray has done far more than Wawrinka, Del Potro, Cilic and all those other guys chasing Fedalovic to be grouped with them. Murray stands alone, in that he was able to deliver consistent results, win a variety of big tournaments from slams, to masters to WTF to Olympics to Davis Cup during a time that three ATGs played, regardless of what their form was, no one else could do it, only Murray did. There is nothing in the OP stating that Murray is their is equal, or the equal of a Borg, Sampras or Agassi or has some Godly tennis peak. It is to say that he at least deserves to be above the rest who played this era...

Everyone is just focused on how many slams he has...yes, I am FULLY aware he won three slams, I am no johnny come lately to this party, I have seen this from start to finish. My point is about saying that Murray has made a decent career for himself, that many would love to have, and comparing him to the others is an injustice to how consistent he has been year in year out. He ranks very high in overall title haul also.

How did I know it'd be metsman you were responding to? He's a classic example of the type of Fed fan I was talking about earlier. Honestly, you could live to 150 and you'd never hear him say a single complimentary word about Murray. Bizarre.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

How did I know it'd be metsman you were responding to? He's a classic example of the type of Fed fan I was talking about earlier. Honestly, you could live to 150 and you'd never hear him say a single complimentary word about Murray. Bizarre.

LOL - You got him on block?

 

[metsman]

How did I know it'd be metsman you were responding to? He's a classic example of the type of Fed fan I was talking about earlier. Honestly, you could live to 150 and you'd never hear him say a single complimentary word about Murray. Bizarre.

I just praised his consistency. Keep going with the chicken little routine though, that's something that won't change in 150 years.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

 

[mike danny]

There is nothing here saying he is a GOAT player, it is about recognizing that his consistency has been remarkable, it is something that gets overlooked because of the era in which he has played. But Murray has carved a very decent career out for himself, that outside of Fedalovic, all the current players would love.

Absolutely. Who was even comparing him to Delpo or Cilic in the first place? Heck, even Delpo doesn't deserve to be mentioned alongside Cilic since he is a much better player who just had bad luck with injuries.

And Murray is certainly a better player than Stan. But if Stan finishes with let's say, 5 majors to Murray's 3, it will be a bit more difficult to make a case for Murray.

 

[Djokovic2011]

LOL - You got him on block?

Best place for him.

 

[aditya123]

No he hasn't.

Yes he has, 3 slams is always >>>>> 2. Basic maths. Kuerten has 3 but all on same surface.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Yes he has, 3 slams is always >>>>> 2. Basic maths. Kuerten has 3 but all on same surface.

Slams aren't the only metric that matters.

Hewitt's 80 weeks at #1, 2 WTF trophies and general consistency put him above Stan. It doesn't matter about the 1 slam differential when there is so much to make up for it.

Kuerten has 40+ weeks at #1, 1 WTF trophy and has also won 3 slams. He too is above Stan.

So nope. Stan needs 4 slams to surpass them both.

 

[abmk]

When do I complain? I call out double standards when Djokovic haters says all his draws are joke, yet others like Wawrinka are going through titanic draws. They all go through the same competition when they are playing in the same era.

As for Djokovic in 2015, since he made what was it...about 15 straight finals from AO 2015 to 2016 against numerous different combinations of players, I put my money on him being in the USO final against Federer, regardless of whether a Stan the previous round takes a set off of him or not. You don't go 15-0 if you are not in the type of insane form Novak was in at that time. So yeah...he destroys his draws and never failed to get to final each and every time, you can quantify that however you want, for me, no draw could stop him = hence he destroyed the field.

In regards to last point...sure upsets can happen, that is why they play the game. Federer could have been upset in 2006, Nadal in 2013...I just wouldn't put money on it.

Its not as simple as that.
Even in a relatively weak year, you can have a tough draw (for instance : fed's AO 17, Stan's RG 15, Stan's USO 16). In a strong year, you can have a relatively weak draw (nadal's USO 13, fed's AO 07).

Djokovic has had his share of tough draws, brutal ones even -- USO 11, AO 12, Wim 14, RG 15 (yeah, he didn't win), but he's also had his share of relatively easy ones - RG 16, AO 16 etc., Some ok ones - USO 15, wim 15 etc.
same goes for Federer and same for nadal.

Just not the case for Stan. His 3 slam wins were all tough ones.
Even RG 17, he had to beat an in-form Murray in 5 sets to get to the final and faced off vs a beasting Nadal in the final (and of course lost)

It is what it is.

Its not double standards to say Stan had it tougher in the same time period in winning the slams (14-16), because he did.

More of djoko's tough draws were in the 11-13 period.


----

Destroy means to beat convincingly. You can't change the meaning. Like I mentioned, he had his difficulties and close matches in each slam in 15 (unlike 2011 where he swept through AO , losing one set and Wim, not going 5 in any match and no 4-setter was as close as USO 15 final)

Re : USO 15, its not just about being able to make the final, its about being able to win it.

Loses one set to Stan in USO 15 final ? A distinct possibility. Loses 2 sets to him ? Another distinct possibility.
Question is would he have the confidence of being able to outlast Federer after a battle with Stan ? Mentally would he have it in him to go up vs that USO crowd in a potential final ?

I can't say either way tbh.
If if it was 11 djoko, I would say, yeah, that SoB will dig in and find his reserves.

 

[abmk]

Edit : double post.

 

[aditya123]

Slams aren't the only metric that matters.

Hewitt's 80 weeks at #1, 2 WTF trophies and general consistency put him above Stan. It doesn't matter about the 1 slam differential when there is so much to make up for it.

Kuerten has 40+ weeks at #1, 1 WTF trophy and has also won 3 slams. He too is above Stan.

So nope. Stan needs 4 slams to surpass them both.

Sorry I disagree , slams is the main metric and accordingly Stan is clearly superior than Hewitt and co.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Sorry I disagree , slams is the main metric and accordingly Stan is clearly superior than Hewitt and co.

That's a very tunnel-vision way of looking at it though.

 

[Sudacafan]

It wouldn’t have been Big Four if it wasn’t because of him.

 

[Sudacafan]

Murray is intrinsically superior to anyone outside the Big Three.
And I can’t project any young gun to be better than this Scott.
Do you?

 

[Sudacafan]

Hanging on in quiet desperation is the Scottish way?
Thought I’d something more to say...

 

[-snake-]

I just praised his consistency. Keep going with the chicken little routine though, that's something that won't change in 150 years.

I've no idea why you (or anyone else) tries to argue with the so-called "Muzz fans". It's been obvious from 1 that 99% of them are from the UK. Nothing wrong with rooting for your countryman but... ehmm. The guy struggled like hell (at his peak) against Tabasco/Janowicz (who????), and every now and then they gift him moral slams because this is the toughest era ever, blah blah blah. He won 3 slams, reached numero 1, and whenever some poster criticizes the mighty Scot, they whine like boyband groupies. I dunno what else they want him to achieve. They're like chronically unsatisfied wives, no d1ck is big enough to please them. If not for the media pushing "the big 4", licking Murry's bum all the time, we wouldn't be having these types of threads.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Its not as simple as that.
Even in a relatively weak year, you can have a tough draw (for instance : fed's AO 17, Stan's RG 15, Stan's USO 16). In a strong year, you can have a relatively weak draw (nadal's USO 13, fed's AO 07).

Djokovic has had his share of tough draws, brutal ones even -- USO 11, AO 12, Wim 14, RG 15 (yeah, he didn't win), but he's also had his share of relatively easy ones - RG 16, AO 16 etc., Some ok ones - USO 15, wim 15 etc.
same goes for Federer and same for nadal.

Just not the case for Stan. His 3 slam wins were all tough ones.
Even RG 17, he had to beat an in-form Murray in 5 sets to get to the final and faced off vs a beasting Nadal in the final (and of course lost)

It is what it is.

Its not double standards to say Stan had it tougher in the same time period in winning the slams (14-16), because he did.

More of djoko's tough draws were in the 11-13 period.


----

Destroy means to beat convincingly. You can't change the meaning. Like I mentioned, he had his difficulties and close matches in each slam in 15 (unlike 2011 where he swept through AO , losing one set and Wim, not going 5 in any match and no 4-setter was as close as USO 15 final)

Re : USO 15, its not just about being able to make the final, its about being able to win it.

Loses one set to Stan in USO 15 final ? A distinct possibility. Loses 2 sets to him ? Another distinct possibility.
Question is would he have the confidence of being able to outlast Federer after a battle with Stan ? Mentally would he have it in him to go up vs that USO crowd in a potential final ?

I can't say either way tbh.
If if it was 11 djoko, I would say, yeah, that SoB will dig in and find his reserves.

Let me just make this clear. This thread was about Murray, you and I are completely going off the rails here. If you want THIS discussion, why won't we start another thread for it? I am not derailing my own thread.

 

[aditya123]

That's a very tunnel-vision way of looking at it though.

Dude you are not getting the point. Hewitt was no 1 because he was in transition period. His reign and slams came when Sampras was aging , losing form and Fed was yet to evolve(2001-2002)
, whereas wawrinka won slams during the big 4 era, Stans path to slams was tougher.

 

[NatF]

Dude you are not getting the point. Hewitt was no 1 because he was in transition period. His reign and slams came when Sampras was aging , losing form and Fed was yet to evolve(2001-2002)
, whereas wawrinka won slams during the big 4 era, Stans path to slams was tougher.

Hewitt was number one (the youngest ever YE #1) because he was a great player. End of.

Hewitt's USO title run wasn't easy and I doubt Wawrinka could win Wimbledon in any era. They excel in largely different conditions.

 

[mike danny]

Dude you are not getting the point. Hewitt was no 1 because he was in transition period. His reign and slams came when Sampras was aging , losing form and Fed was yet to evolve(2001-2002)
, whereas wawrinka won slams during the big 4 era, Stans path to slams was tougher.

Wawrinka would never be no.1 in any era. He hasn't even been ranked world no.2 yet.

 

[Fedforever]

Sure. Two weeks don't make 12 months. How many masters does Stan have? How many WTFs? How many weeks at number one? How many year ending number ones? How many olympic singles gold? Stan can be argued as having a higher potential peak that Murray, no doubt, but this thread is about consistency and being able to deliver over a sustained period of 12 months.

Again, the point of this thread is completely being missed. All due respect to you, but I am going to make it short and sweet.

This thread is about saying that Murray has done far more than Wawrinka, Del Potro, Cilic and all those other guys chasing Fedalovic to be grouped with them. Murray stands alone, in that he was able to deliver consistent results, win a variety of big tournaments from slams, to masters to WTF to Olympics to Davis Cup during a time that three ATGs played, regardless of what their form was, no one else could do it, only Murray did. There is nothing in the OP stating that Murray is their is equal, or the equal of a Borg, Sampras or Agassi or has some Godly tennis peak. It is to say that he at least deserves to be above the rest who played this era...

Everyone is just focused on how many slams he has...yes, I am FULLY aware he won three slams, I am no johnny come lately to this party, I have seen this from start to finish. My point is about saying that Murray has made a decent career for himself, that many would love to have, and comparing him to the others is an injustice to how consistent he has been year in year out. He ranks very high in overall title haul also.

Murray has also had to deal with a lot more than Stan in terms of expectations and pressure in his own country - Stan understandably gets annoyed when he spends half his press conferences talking about Roger but in some ways its probably made life easier being a bit out of the limelight.

I admit I'd rather think Stan was the better player as I warm to him more as a personality than Murray but your logic is irrefutable.

 

[Rafa the King]

He's closer to the Big 3 than he is to Wawrinka because, Slam count aside, he has done most of the things each of them have done, eg. WTF, double digit Masters and #1 ranking and some things none of them have done eg. multiple OSGMs. No other active player can say this.

Nope, if Stan wins another slam he surpasses Murray. Murray's inability to turn up in big matches hurts him more than helps him IMO. He really had a couple of stinkers at the AO, his level fell of a cliff at RG and was mentally uncapable and not brave in almost all the finals he lost.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

 

[Druss]

Going 0:5 in finals at the Aus Open and losing 4 first slam finals surely must be an ATP record that will last for a while.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Hewitt was number one (the youngest ever YE #1) because he was a great player. End of.

Hewitt's USO title run wasn't easy and I doubt Wawrinka could win Wimbledon in any era. They excel in largely different conditions.

Hewitt has beaten Sampras and Federer on grass too, don't think Wawrinka could do that IMO.

Completely different players -- but I do think Hewitt is above Wawrinka for his time at No. 1 and WTF trophies.

 

[cc0509]

Murray is the more accomplished player than Wawrinka is(more Masters, OG medals, the better record at the slams overall) and he's definitely more focused on a day to day basis than Wawrinka is but I think both are unlikely to win more slams due to their injuries and age creeping up. It's time for some of the younger players to shine, baby!

 

[RF-18]

No, I got that point. It's an uneducated point of view.

Hewitt wasn't even fully developed yet. Put his 2004-2005 form into that period and he could win like 4 slams.

Not to mention 2014-2017 is a weak era of its own.

I thought you said the other day there are no weak eras?

 

[mike danny]

I thought you said the other day there are no weak eras?

He didn't start this argument though. Just responding in kind to the guy who did.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I thought you said the other day there are no weak eras?

Well if people want to call 2000-2003 a weak era I will turn around and call today one.

If people want to talk serious with no excuses I won't mention weak eras.

 

[RF-18]

Well if people want to call 2000-2003 a weak era I will turn around and call today one.

If people want to talk serious with no excuses I won't mention weak eras.

Alright got it

 

[abmk]

Let me just make this clear. This thread was about Murray, you and I are completely going off the rails here. If you want THIS discussion, why won't we start another thread for it? I am not derailing my own thread.

ok

but same logic applies to a Murray vs Stan conversation.
Stan has clearly had it tougher in his slam runs compared to Murray.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

ok

but same logic applies to a Murray vs Stan conversation.
Stan has clearly had it tougher in his slam runs compared to Murray.

This is something we can talk about, and I will kindly ask you look back at this thread and look that this discussion about Murray being greater than all other non-big three players is more than just about slams. His consistency, ability to be number one year ending number one, numerous wins in masters, WTF all put him above a Stan. Three great weeks cannot overcome a career like Murray's who may have won three slams against slightly weaker draws, but also has beaten Djokovic in two slam finals, and put together a much stronger overall resume that cannot be denied. Fed fans in this thread have focused too much on slams, this discussion is not just about slams, it is about a full body of work, Murray's consistency and wins at every other level, from slams, to WTF, to masters, to olympics, to davis cup put him above Stan and every other player out side of Fedalovic who played during this time.

 

[Mainad]

Nope, if Stan wins another slam he surpasses Murray. Murray's inability to turn up in big matches hurts him more than helps him IMO. He really had a couple of stinkers at the AO, his level fell of a cliff at RG and was mentally uncapable and not brave in almost all the finals he lost.

Nope, we'll just have to agree to disagree. My previous post stands.

 

[Mainad]

This is something we can talk about, and I will kindly ask you look back at this thread and look that this discussion about Murray being greater than all other non-big three players is more than just about slams. His consistency, ability to be number one year ending number one, numerous wins in masters, WTF all put him above a Stan. Three great weeks cannot overcome a career like Murray's who may have won three slams against slightly weaker draws, but also has beaten Djokovic in two slam finals, and put together a much stronger overall resume that cannot be denied. Fed fans in this thread have focused too much on slams, this discussion is not just about slams, it is about a full body of work, Murray's consistency and wins at every other level, from slams, to WTF, to masters, to olympics, to davis cup put him above Stan and every other player out side of Fedalovic who played during this time.

Self-evidently true, Hitman. Most objective posters can only acknowledge this except for those obsessed solely with the Slam count.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Self-evidently true, Hitman. Most objective posters can only acknowledge this except for those obsessed solely with the Slam count.

Lets just look at the example of Stan v Andy, since out of the group behind Murray, Wawrinka fairly is the most successful. They have three slams, but cases are being made for Wawrinka being more greater just because his three slam wins are seen to be against stronger competition. Murray's overall body of work, which is vastly superior in every aspect seems to be ignored....

Now, what if Nadal equals Federer in slam count? Do we now start putting Nadal ahead because he went through Federer and Djokovic a lot more than anyone else, or do we now celebrate Federer's overall body of work, his superior consistency, his weeks at number one etc? If we do that for Federer, and rightfully so, since firstly it is not only about slams, and secondly consistency should and must be rewarded, then why a different mindset for Murray v Wawrinka? The principle is still the same, even if it is a smaller scale, one went through more ATGs for his slams, but the other's resume is vastly superior in every other aspect.

I think Murray stands alone, if someone does not feel he belongs with Fedalovic, as a big four member - the term big four was coined long before even Djokovic was racking up the slams - then I understand that, but to put him with Wawrinka, Del Potro, Cilic etc is unfair on him also. Wawrinka is the best of the bunch that follows Murray imo

 

[NatF]

Murray is clearly a class above Wawrinka. Should go without saying.

 

[RF-18]

Murray is leagues above Wawrinka as a player. Not surprised the same people are in here spewing the same garbage over and over about competition and who beat who bit the fact remains Murray is league's above Wawrinka. The guy has been a top professional for ten years soon always competing at the top, being consistent week in and week out.

45 titles overall
3 GS titles
11 GS finals
14 MS titles
1 WTFs
2 OSG medals
1 DC title
#1 player

Murray is in a league of his own to the rest of the field behind Fedalovic. Wawrinka will never be considered better in my eyes no matter how many slams he is gonna win.

 

[Mainad]

Murray is leagues above Wawrinka as a player. Not surprised the same people are in here spewing the same garbage over and over about competition and who beat who bit the fact remains Murray is league's above Wawrinka. The guy has been a top professional for ten years soon always competing at the top, being consistent week in and week out.

45 titles overall
3 GS titles
11 GS finals
14 MS titles
1 WTFs
2 OSG medals
1 DC title
#1 player

Murray is in a league of his own to the rest of the field behind Fedalovic. Wawrinka will never be considered better in my eyes no matter how many slams he is gonna win.

You summed it up precisely. He may not have won all the big titles but he has won in every single category of tennis title it's possible to win. Not even all of the Big 3 can boast that and certainly few other players can.

 

[abmk]

This is something we can talk about, and I will kindly ask you look back at this thread and look that this discussion about Murray being greater than all other non-big three players is more than just about slams. His consistency, ability to be number one year ending number one, numerous wins in masters, WTF all put him above a Stan. Three great weeks cannot overcome a career like Murray's who may have won three slams against slightly weaker draws, but also has beaten Djokovic in two slam finals, and put together a much stronger overall resume that cannot be denied. Fed fans in this thread have focused too much on slams, this discussion is not just about slams, it is about a full body of work, Murray's consistency and wins at every other level, from slams, to WTF, to masters, to olympics, to davis cup put him above Stan and every other player out side of Fedalovic who played during this time.

Murray is no doubt a clearly better/greater player than Stan due to better consistency, reaching #1, YE #1, # of masters/titles etc.

but slightly weaker draws ? disagree. try significantly weaker.

Murray's toughest draw -- USO 12 - Cilic, Berdych, Djoko ~ Stan's easiest arguably -- USO 16 - Delpo, Nishi, Djoko
Stan's RG 15 - fed, tsonga and djoko >> murray's wim 13 draw (verdasco, janowicz, a spent djokovic)
stan's AO 14 - djokovic, berdych, nadal >> murray's wim 16 draw (tsonga, lacklusture berdych, first time finalist Raonic)

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Murray is no doubt a clearly better/greater player than Stan due to better consistency, reaching #1, YE #1, # of masters/titles etc.

but slightly weaker draws ? disagree. try significantly weaker.

Murray's toughest draw -- USO 12 - Cilic, Berdych, Djoko ~ Stan's easiest arguably -- USO 16 - Delpo, Nishi, Djoko
Stan's RG 15 - fed, tsonga and djoko >> murray's wim 13 draw (verdasco, janowicz, a spent djokovic)
stan's AO 14 - djokovic, berdych, nadal >> murray's wim 16 draw (tsonga, lacklusture berdych, first time finalist Raonic)

We can be as subjective as we want.

Bottom line, three tougher draws at slams doesn't make Wawrinka Murray's equal. And that is the point of this thread.

Edit - Looking at that slam comparison. You seriously are comparing the Djokovic of 2012 to the one post RG 16. The fact Djokovic made the final of USO 16 is a shock, it was the worst draw of all time, and he had no business being in that final. The first decent player he faced, he lost too. Just happened to be Stan.

Secondly, if you are going to say Djokovic was spent at W 13, then I can equally say that going through Nadal, and then Murray over two days, took the wind out of Djokovic's sails in RG final.

Just mention the names, and I am cool, if you start talking about form, then I will also. And then it gets messy.

 

[RF-18]

You summed it up precisely. He may not have won all the big titles but he has won in every single category of tennis title it's possible to win. Not even all of the Big 3 can boast that and certainly few other players can.

Yup, he has won pretty much everything you can win. Djokovic has no OSG, Federer has no OSG, Nadal has no WTFs. Murray has both.

His career is very well rounded.