Thiem and Medvedev will win more slams than Murray and Wawrinka


Murray is not like a one time phenomenon

Not sure why it is a surprise if Thiem, Medvedev, Tsitsipas, Sinner all achieve more than him


2012 Murray could have gotten more than 3 slams in Feds weaker era. Poor guy surely.

prime against prime Nadal and Fed, peaked in 2012-13 against prime Djokovic, suffered injury, and then after that Djokovic peaked.

Guy had it the toughest but at his peak was better than guys like Roddick/Hewitt
Last edited:
But would their slams have the same value? The devaluation of slams has already begun thanks to weak era. Wawrinka and Murray were also second tier players in their era. Thiem and Medvedev will most likely be the best of their era lmao.


Murray seems to have had the hardest cards dealt to him, in terms of ability vs opportunity. Lost count the number of slams where he got to the final or semi-final but lost to Nad/Djo/Fed in ridiculous form. The guy was up against arguably the 3 best players of all time pretty much his whole career.

He was a tiny notch below the top 3 at their best but I can't help but feel he was short-changed with his eventual slam count. Wawrinka did amazingly well to blast his way to 3 slam titles, but outside of those 3 he was very inconsistent - 3 purple streaks got him 3 slams, so fair play. Only have to look at his Masters/tour general records to see the difference between him and Murray though.

It goes without saying Murray would have dominated a Medvedev/Thiem/Zverev era.
Last edited:
Stan's wins are way better than Thirm's though.
How many times have you seen Stan trouble Rafa on clay?

Stan is a bigger threat in big matches on HC against Nole but that's it.

Thiem has 3 wins against Big 3 at slams and came really close in 2 other matches against them (at USO vs. Nadal and in AO vs. Nole).

FWIW, Thiem not close to Murray's achievements, even though I think he'll surpass Andy's slam count. Andy played in toughest possible era, obviously.