To people denying the concept of a ''big 4'', and comparing Murray to Wawrinka - here are some stats

[MeatTornado]

I think after his 2011 season nobody had doubts he will be an all time great. When did Murray have anything like that? The best season of his career was 2016, but he wasn't even the best player that year despite ending number 1.

The 12 months between Wimbledon 2012 and Wimbledon 2013?

Everyone thought he turned a corner after he made the Wimbledon final, won Olympic Gold over Novak & Roger, and then beat Novak to win the USO Open. Only the biggest haters thought he wasn't an equal contender at that point.

 

[tennis_pro]

Wawrinka has 3 different Slams and his draws were 10000x tougher.

Just saying.

 

[Mark jd]

The 12 months between Wimbledon 2012 and Wimbledon 2013?

Everyone thought he turned a corner after he made the Wimbledon final, won Olympic Gold over Novak & Roger, and then beat Novak to win the USO Open. Only the biggest haters thought he wasn't an equal contender at that point.

And then he ruined everything by choking that Shanghai final in which he had 5 match points. For me this was the moment when I understood Murray will never be an all time great. And I was right.

 

[captainbryce]

Here’s some other stats:

Djokovic: 13 slams
Nadal: 17 slams
Federer: 20 slams

Djokovic, the third player in the Holy Trinity of modern tennis, is within 4 slams of matching Nadal, and 7 away from Federer! Yet he has won 10 more slams than Murray has. He has also won 5 more grand slam titles than every other active player outside of “The Big Three” combined (Murray 3, Wawrinka 3, Cilic 1, Del Potro 1).

In other words, Murray is not even in the conversation, much less Wawrinka who has accomplished even less. Don’t get me wrong, Murray and Wawrinka are both great players and I respect what they’ve accomplished as tennis champions. But the reality is, they are NOT contemporaries of the big three. They are merely being fairly successful existing in the era of the big three. There is no “Big 4” because 4 is so far away from 3, that you might as well try to claim a big 7 instead!

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

The problem of there being a big 4 (or not) is completely unrelated to the Murray/Wawrinka debate.
Murray is clearly the most successful of the two, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to call him one of "the big 4".
Murray has not distanced himself from the field enough to make the big 3 part of a group of 4.
There's wayyyy more distance between him and any of the big 3 than between him and the rest of the field.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

I did read an ESPN article in 2015 that used #s to reveal that Murray is basically one of the GOATs, just not as much as the current Big 3...but above Sampras and Agassi. If he weren't competing with all 3 of them, he'd have a lot more Slams, and if none of them existed he'd arguably be the GOAT. That's how great he really is...not just the 4th-best of his era but maybe Top 6-8 all-time.

People actually believe this.
So now we can just give players imaginary titles because of how strong their opposition was.
If you're using conjecture, then you have to use it across the board and not just for Murray.
Use it for Agassi (if there was no Sampras) and suddenly he's an ATG too. And don't forget he's already leading by 5.
Another interesting thought experiment: remove Murray, and none of the big 3 would cease being ATGs.
Also, remove any great player's 3 main rivals and there's a chance they'll be ATGs too.
But you would need to remove all big 3 (and their 50 Slams) for Murray to even have a chance of being one.

 

[Rosstour]

People actually believe this.
So now we can just give players imaginary titles because of how strong their opposition was.
If you're using conjecture, then you have to use it across the board and not just for Murray.
Use it for Agassi (if there was no Sampras) and suddenly he's an ATG too. And don't forget he's already leading by 5.
Another interesting thought experiment: remove Murray, and none of the big 3 would cease being ATGs.
Also, remove any great player's 3 main rivals and there's a chance they'll be ATGs too.
But you would need to remove all big 3 (and their 50 Slams) for Murray to even have a chance of being one.

*Agassi is already an ATG
*Not giving him any imaginary titles, but ELO does not lie
*Re the other ATGs, it's almost like Rafa is already removed. They never met in a Slam final but one could assume that Rafa denied Andy a W10 by beating him in the SFs. It's really been Fed and Djok who have just killed him. So really if one of those two were not in the picture then Andy is looking at a lot more opportunities.

 

[Rosstour]

People actually believe this.
So now we can just give players imaginary titles because of how strong their opposition was.
If you're using conjecture, then you have to use it across the board and not just for Murray.
Use it for Agassi (if there was no Sampras) and suddenly he's an ATG too. And don't forget he's already leading by 5.
Another interesting thought experiment: remove Murray, and none of the big 3 would cease being ATGs.
Also, remove any great player's 3 main rivals and there's a chance they'll be ATGs too.
But you would need to remove all big 3 (and their 50 Slams) for Murray to even have a chance of being one.

*Agassi is already an ATG
*Not giving him any imaginary titles, but ELO does not lie
*Re the other ATGs, it's almost like Rafa is already removed. They never met in a Slam final but one could assume that Rafa denied Andy a W10 by beating him in the SFs. It's really been Fed and Djok who have just killed him. So really if one of those two were not in the picture then Andy is looking at a lot more opportunities.

 

[BeatlesFan]

I don't see what arguments there are to put him on the same level with Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.

Murray has 17 slams less than Fed and 10 less than even Djokovic. Maybe that puts it into perspective.

 

[Mainad]

The problem of there being a big 4 (or not) is completely unrelated to the Murray/Wawrinka debate.
Murray is clearly the most successful of the two, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to call him one of "the big 4".
Murray has not distanced himself from the field enough to make the big 3 part of a group of 4.
There's wayyyy more distance between him and any of the big 3 than between him and the rest of the field.

When the rest of the field close the title gap with him (he is currently 18 titles ahead of the next most titled player, Ferrer) and win as many big titles across the board as he has (he's currently on 20 including his Olympic titles which is 16 ahead of the next big titled player, Wawrinka) and reach the top of the rankings like he has (no-one in the rest of the field has been ranked higher than #3) , only then can you argue that he is closer to the rest of the field than to the Big 3.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Murray is called big4 because of the number of matches he played against the big4.

Even Federer-Nadal or Roddick-Federer was called a rivalry despite being loopsided.

 

[clout]

When the rest of the field close the title gap with him (he is currently 18 titles ahead of the next most titled player, Ferrer) and win as many big titles across the board as he has (he's currently on 20 including his Olympic titles which is 16 ahead of the next big titled player, Wawrinka) and reach the top of the rankings like he has (no-one in the rest of the field has been ranked higher than #3) , only then can you argue that he is closer to the rest of the field than to the Big 3.

Again, with all due respect to Murray (who's a great champ), the gap between him and the rest of the field in these stats are still smaller than the gap between him and Fedalovic.

In overall titles, Ferrer has 27, which is 18 behind Murray's 45, while Murray's 45 is 24 short of Djokovic's 69.

In big titles, Wawrinka has 4, which trails Murray's 20 by 16, but Murray's 20 trails Djokovic's 48 by 28!

In terms of reaching world number one, Murray has spent 41 more weeks at number one than any other player since the beginning of 2004, however, he's still a mammoth 141 weeks behind Nadal's 181. As for year end number one, Murray's 1 YEN1 is 1 year ahead of the rest of the field, but 3 behind Nadal and Djokovic who did it 4 times. Although Murray is the only other active player besides the big three to crack the top 2, Murray only finished in the top 2 twice in his career, 2 more than any other active player, but 4 behind Djokovic's 6 top 2 finishes.

Please don't get it twisted, I'm not saying Murray isn't a fantastic player (like some others are ridiculously suggesting), but the fairest assessment of this big 3/4/5 dilemma is that Murray's career stats are not as far away from the rest of the field as Murray's stats are from the big 3's. Honestly theres no shame on Murray here since the other three guys are the three greatest open era players (at least IMO) and 3 of the 4 greatest players of all time.

 

[clout]

deleted double post

 

[Mainad]

Again, with all due respect to Murray (who's a great champ), the gap between him and the rest of the field in these stats are still smaller than the gap between him and Fedalovic.

In overall titles, Ferrer has 27, which is 18 behind Murray's 45, while Murray's 45 is 24 short of Djokovic's 69.

In big titles, Wawrinka has 4, which trails Murray's 20 by 16, but Murray's 20 trails Djokovic's 48 by 28!

But that's still double digit big titles twice over. Wawrinka, the one with the next highest number, isn't even half way there!

In terms of reaching world number one, Murray has spent 41 more weeks at number one than any other player since the beginning of 2004, however, he's still a mammoth 141 weeks behind Nadal's 181. As for year end number one, Murray's 1 YEN1 is 1 year ahead of the rest of the field, but 3 behind Nadal and Djokovic who did it 4 times. Although Murray is the only other active player besides the big three to crack the top 2, Murray only finished in the top 2 twice in his career, two more than any other active player, but 4 behind Djokovic's 6 top 2 finishes.

Nevertheless, reaching #1 is a seminal achievement which no-one else outside of the Big 3 has ever come close to achieving and Murray held it for a double digit number of weeks, again twice over. Nobody else has even reached the #2 ranking for even 1 week!

Please don't get it twisted, I'm not saying Murray isn't a fantastic player (like some others are ridiculously suggesting), but the fairest assessment of this big 3/4/5 dilemma is that Murray's career stats are not as far away from the rest of the field as Murray's stats are from the big 3's. Honestly theres no shame on Murray here since the other three guys are the three greatest open era players (at least IMO) and 3 of the 4 greatest players of all time.

But however much you want to twist it, he is still far ahead of the rest of the field in what he has won except in the Slam count. He really belongs in a tier entirely of his own.

 

[Mainad]

Double post deleted.

 

[clout]

But that's still double digit big titles twice over. Wawrinka, the one with the next highest number, isn't even half way there!



But however much you want to twist it, he is still far ahead of the rest of the field in what he has won except in the Slam count. He really belongs in a tier entirely of his own.

I agree that Murray is a league of his own because he's far ahead of everyone else, but lightyears behind the league that Fed, Rafa and Nole are in. And in my judgement, the league that everyone is in is closer to Murray's "own league", then Murray's "own league" is to the big three's. Again, Murray is an awesome player but that's just my own opinion on how this big "x" should be and I feel like there's a good amount stats that back that up. Of course others can disagree cuz that is just my opinion at the end of the day.

 

[Mainad]

I agree that Murray is a league of his own because he's far ahead of everyone else, but lightyears behind the league that Fed, Rafa and Nole are in. And in my judgement, the league that everyone is in is closer to Murray's "own league", then Murray's "own league" is to the big three's. Again, Murray is an awesome player but that's just my own opinion on how this big "x" should be and I feel like there's a good amount stats that back that up. Of course others can disagree cuz that is just my opinion at the end of the day.

This whole line of argument is really quite pointless. To say that Murray is closer to the rest of the field than to the Big 3 is not saying much at all because he is just too far ahead of them except in the shared Slam count with Wawrinka. Let's just agree that he is entirely in a league of his own but still shares achievements with the Big 3 that no other player does.

 

[Zetty]

.

 

[Zetty]

The disrespect in this thread is amazing, Murray's achievements and consistency are at another level than Wawrinka's.

 

[D.Nalby12]

That semi stats is irrelevant. Doesn't matter he went deep hundred times or whatever. Actually his W/SF ratio is pretty poor (3/21 = 14%). As someone said before "glorified gatekeeper" is correct way to describe his career than dominant Big player. No dominant player gets his arse handed 85% of times he makes the Slam semis.

 

[D.Nalby12]

Dp

 

[joekapa]

Grand Slams: Murray 3 Wawrinka 3

Grand Slam Finals: Murray 11 Wawrinka 4

Grand Slam semi-finals: Murray 21 Wawrinka 9

Masters titles won: Murray 14 Wawrinka 1

Other titles: Murray 28 Wawrinka 12

Olympic Gold Medals: Murray 2 Wawrinka 1

Weeks at no.1: Murray 41 Wawrinka 0

Highest career ranking: Murray 1 Wawrinka 3

People who say that Murray and Wawrinka are the same level........have no idea.

 

[Plamen1234]

....

Novak who just got through a tough 5 setter against Del Potro. LOL.

Murray had an easy-peasy draw up until the final and still dropped a set to a journeyman semifinalist (Janowicz). He also nearly lost to Verdasco ON GRASS (huge LOL here).

Stop overrating this mug, God. It's so grating to see Djokofanboys act like he was any different from Roddick or Hewitt, Federer was just better at crushing subpar competition.

Get over it.

Djokovic fans hype up Murray because lets not forget that their boy gave Murray 2 Slams.US Open 2012 final - atrocious performance by Djokovic,like he went on the court with intent of losing this match.

 

[hoodjem]

Murray's BH > Djokovic's
Murray's first serve > Djokovic's
Comparable Forehand
Murray's Foot Speed > Djokovic's
Murray's Smash > Djokovic's
Murray's Lob >>>>>>>>>> Djokovic's
Comparable ROS
Murray's Slice >>>>>>>>>> Djokovic's

Big Two.

 

[joekapa]

Djokovic fans hype up Murray because lets not forget that their boy gave Murray 2 Slams.US Open 2012 final - atrocious performance by Djokovic,like he went on the court with intent of losing this match.

How many does Federer have against Murray ?

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

When the rest of the field close the title gap with him (he is currently 18 titles ahead of the next most titled player, Ferrer) and win as many big titles across the board as he has (he's currently on 20 including his Olympic titles which is 16 ahead of the next big titled player, Wawrinka) and reach the top of the rankings like he has (no-one in the rest of the field has been ranked higher than #3) , only then can you argue that he is closer to the rest of the field than to the Big 3.

He is closer to them in the most important metric, which is number of Slams.

 

[maximus]

Grand Slams: Murray 3 Wawrinka 3

Grand Slam Finals: Murray 11 Wawrinka 4

Grand Slam semi-finals: Murray 21 Wawrinka 9

Masters titles won: Murray 14 Wawrinka 1

Other titles: Murray 28 Wawrinka 12

Olympic Gold Medals: Murray 2 Wawrinka 1

Weeks at no.1: Murray 41 Wawrinka 0

Highest career ranking: Murray 1 Wawrinka 3

Murray definitely belongs to the Big 4. No question.

 

[maximus]

Grand Slams: Murray 3 Wawrinka 3

Grand Slam Finals: Murray 11 Wawrinka 4

Grand Slam semi-finals: Murray 21 Wawrinka 9

Masters titles won: Murray 14 Wawrinka 1

Other titles: Murray 28 Wawrinka 12

Olympic Gold Medals: Murray 2 Wawrinka 1

Weeks at no.1: Murray 41 Wawrinka 0

Highest career ranking: Murray 1 Wawrinka 3

Murray definitely belongs to the Big 4. No question.

 

[Noleberic123]

The big three rank 1,2, and 4 all time in slam titles. Where does Murray rank? Serious question. I can’t find a list that goes below 5 career slams(T-28 all time).

Where did you find that list?

 

[MrFancypants]

Where did you find that list?

Suprisingly hard to find a list.

Not sure rules for posting links.

https://www.totalsportek.com/tennis/grand-slam-titles-winners-mens-women/

 

[NatF]

Murray being well above Wawrinka in terms of career doesn't make him a credible add on to the Big 3.

 

[hothanded]

I like Stan, but there's no doubt that he was very much ''in the right place at the right time'' in all 3 of his Grand Slam triumphs.

That is true of Murray as well so really no difference.

 

[hothanded]

All I know is I consider Wawrinka and Murray closer than Murray is to the Big 3 or than say Berdych or even Del Potro is to Wawrinka. I will leave it at that.

 

[KarmaKorps]

None of us Murray fans consider Murray anywhere near the Big 3 in terms of slam count. The term Big 4 is not about placing Murray in the same league as the big 3. It's about placing 4 individuals far, far above the rest of the ATP roster.

When you consider everything that the ATP tours offers in terms of achievement (slams and non-slam events), there are a select group of individuals who are significantly - order of magnitude -above the rest of the ATP tour. There are 4 individuals who have separated themselves by an order of magnitude in terms of titles. It isn't about how close these 4 individuals are from each other, it's how far above any one of them are from the rest of the ATP tour. Murray, much less than the big 3, but still hugely ahead of anybody else in terms of career achievement.

It's unfortunate that you slam-counters are struggling with this concept. Many of the responses act as though the OP (and Murray fans) are trying to compare 3 slams to 13/17/20. You are inventing an argument by venturing there...

 

[Topspin Slice]

Wawrinka has 3 different Slams and his draws were 10000x tougher.

Just saying.

Wawrinka’s slam wins were very much comparible to Murray’s. 2014 AO Stan faced a crippled Nadal in the final, and his first three rounds were Golubev, Falla, Walkover. His win vs Djokovic was very impressive, and Berdych is a hurdle to be sure, but Murray’s 2012 US open draw was Federer, Berdych, Djokovic in the final 3 rounds, with Raonic in R4 , so I don’t see how (Raonic), Federer, Berdych, Djokovic is 1000x easier than Djokovic, Berdych, injured Nadal?

2016 Wimbledon compared to 2016 US open, we have Tsonga, Berdych, Raonic for Murray vs Del Potro, Nishikori, Djokovic for Wawrinka. Tsonga and Berdych both have similar credentials to Nishikori and Delpo when he’s playing well is great and he was getting back into good form at the time so he’s similar difficulty to them as well, probably a step above. Raonic is a meh slam finalist but he was playing well that tournament, Djokovic is one of the greatest players of all time but was playing like trash compared to his usual self, and only made it to the final in my opinion because of the easiest US open draw of all time, including 3 walkovers/retirements, Janowicz who was on a protected ranking and Monfils who he has never lost to in his entire career. So they aren’t that different.

2013 Wimbledon vs 2015 French Open: fair enough, FO was a tougher draw for sure, Janowicz as a SF opponent is a bit of a gift, but Murray still beat a good Djokovic in the final, once again not 1000x easier.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Sir Andrew MacLeod ftw

 

[nick_crompton]

Grand Slams: Murray 3 Wawrinka 3

Grand Slam Finals: Murray 11 Wawrinka 4

Grand Slam semi-finals: Murray 21 Wawrinka 9

Masters titles won: Murray 14 Wawrinka 1

Other titles: Murray 28 Wawrinka 12

Olympic Gold Medals: Murray 2 Wawrinka 1

Weeks at no.1: Murray 41 Wawrinka 0

Highest career ranking: Murray 1 Wawrinka 3

There will be a big 4 when either of those two earn double digit slam titles. Until then, they are lucky mugs.

 

[donquijote]

At the moment Wawrinka looks like a better player.
Murray ranked 838, Wawrinka 201.

 

[Noleberic123]

Suprisingly hard to find a list.

Not sure rules for posting links.

https://www.totalsportek.com/tennis/grand-slam-titles-winners-mens-women/

Thanks. Outdated though. Djokovic now has 13

 

[nick_crompton]

Murray's BH > Djokovic's
Murray's first serve > Djokovic's
Comparable Forehand
Murray's Foot Speed > Djokovic's
Murray's Smash > Djokovic's
Murray's Lob >>>>>>>>>> Djokovic's
Comparable ROS
Murray's Slice >>>>>>>>>> Djokovic's

As a fellow fed fan, this makes me laugh. You can stop joking with us now

 

[NatF]

Wawrinka’s slam wins were very much comparible to Murray’s. 2014 AO Stan faced a crippled Nadal in the final, and his first three rounds were Golubev, Falla, Walkover. His win vs Djokovic was very impressive, and Berdych is a hurdle to be sure, but Murray’s 2012 US open draw was Federer, Berdych, Djokovic in the final 3 rounds, with Raonic in R4 , so I don’t see how (Raonic), Federer, Berdych, Djokovic is 1000x easier than Djokovic, Berdych, injured Nadal?

2016 Wimbledon compared to 2016 US open, we have Tsonga, Berdych, Raonic for Murray vs Del Potro, Nishikori, Djokovic for Wawrinka. Tsonga and Berdych both have similar credentials to Nishikori and Delpo when he’s playing well is great and he was getting back into good form at the time so he’s similar difficulty to them as well, probably a step above. Raonic is a meh slam finalist but he was playing well that tournament, Djokovic is one of the greatest players of all time but was playing like trash compared to his usual self, and only made it to the final in my opinion because of the easiest US open draw of all time, including 3 walkovers/retirements, Janowicz who was on a protected ranking and Monfils who he has never lost to in his entire career. So they aren’t that different.

2013 Wimbledon vs 2015 French Open: fair enough, FO was a tougher draw for sure, Janowicz as a SF opponent is a bit of a gift, but Murray still beat a good Djokovic in the final, once again not 1000x easier.

Murray didn't play Federer at the USO in 2012...the fact they were scheduled to play doesn't matter when talking about the comparative toughness of their slam roads. Djokovic played far better in his AO 2014 loss to Wawrinka than he did in his loss to Murray at the USO.

As far as Wimbledon 2013 goes, a good Djokovic in the final? Come on man, that was Djokovic's worst slam final to date - he was terribad there.

 

[pat200]

there is no big 4 when the achievements of the 4th player are no where near those of the other 3.

 

[clout]

This whole line of argument is really quite pointless. To say that Murray is closer to the rest of the field than to the Big 3 is not saying much at all because he is just too far ahead of them except in the shared Slam count with Wawrinka. Let's just agree that he is entirely in a league of his own but still shares achievements with the Big 3 that no other player does.

I think we can all agree Murray is indeed in a league of his own for reasons stated above, but there's no way this can be a big four when Murray's total achievements are lightyears behind the other three. That's like Laver, Borg, Sampras and Courier all hypothetically playing in the same era and having people always lumping Courier into the same convo as the other three players, which I'm sure many would find absurd.
The argument for whether Murray is closer to the rest of the field or the big three is all objective though. It just depends on which way you look at it. I personally think the rest of the field is closer to Murray than Murray is to the big three just based on some of the stats out there, but others could certainly have a differing opinion about it, which is 100% fine since everyone is entitles to their opinions and that's what sports debates are all about.

 

[Noleberic123]

Murray didn't play Federer at the USO in 2012...the fact they were scheduled to play doesn't matter when talking about the comparative toughness of their slam roads. Djokovic played far better in his AO 2014 loss to Wawrinka than he did in his loss to Murray at the USO.

As far as Wimbledon 2013 goes, a good Djokovic in the final? Come on man, that was Djokovic's worst slam final to date - he was terribad there.

It's hard to choose between USO 13 and Wimby 13. When it comes to which Djokovic was worse

 

[hothanded]

It's hard to choose between USO 13 and Wimby 13. When it comes to which Djokovic was worse

If you mean just the final he was far worse in the 2013 Wimbledon final. He wasnt great in the U.S Open final but he atleast played 2 good sets.

 

[clout]

It's hard to choose between USO 13 and Wimby 13. When it comes to which Djokovic was worse

they were both quite bad but at least Djokovic matched Rafa almost punch for punch for the first three sets of the USO final. Djoker was legit invisible in the Wimbledon one; that was easily the worst slam final he's ever played before.

If I had to rank Djokovic's level for all his runner-up performances it'd be:

1. 2015 RG
2. 2010 USO
3. 2012 RG
4. 2014 RG
5. 2007 USO
6. 2013 USO
7. 2012 USO
8. 2016 USO
9. 2013 WI

 

[NatF]

they were both quite bad but at least Djokovic matched Rafa almost punch for punch for the first three sets of the USO final. Djoker was legit invisible in the Wimbledon one; that was easily the worst slam final he's ever played before.

Djokovic lost the first set 6-2...and was awful.

 

[clout]

Djokovic lost the first set 6-2...and was awful.

Yea not the first set, but he was easily the better player in sets 2 and 3. Djokovic was horrible in all three sets against Murray in Wimbledon

 

[NatF]

Yea not the first set, but he was easily the better player in sets 2 and 3. Djokovic was horrible in all three sets against Murray in Wimbledon

Yeah at Wimbledon I didn't even feel Djokovic wanted to fight for the win, at the USO he at least fought for a couple of sets and then disappeared.

 

[clout]

Yeah at Wimbledon I didn't even feel Djokovic wanted to fight for the win, at the USO he at least fought for a couple of sets and then disappeared.

Yea pretty much. There were at least more than a couple moments at the USO where it looked like Djokovic was about to take charge in the match, but the Wimbledon match looked like Novak was perfectly fine with handing Andy and all of Britain the Wimbledon title - there wasn't a single moment in that match where it looked like Novak could've won tbh, and he was clearly a better player than Murray at that point too.

 

[Topspin Slice]

Murray didn't play Federer at the USO in 2012...the fact they were scheduled to play doesn't matter when talking about the comparative toughness of their slam roads. Djokovic played far better in his AO 2014 loss to Wawrinka than he did in his loss to Murray at the USO.

As far as Wimbledon 2013 goes, a good Djokovic in the final? Come on man, that was Djokovic's worst slam final to date - he was terribad there.

Lol ok I momentarily lost my ability to read, but my point still stands that Cilic>crippled Nadal.

In absolute terms Djokovic’s USO 2012 performance was his worst final performance imo, but the 2012 US open final was extremely windy, which caused both players to play at a level way worse than what we’d expect, but Murray is a good wind player and Djokovic isn’t especially good in adverse conditions. So it’s a special case. I really think the result of the 2013 Wimbledon final was more about Murray than Djokovic. You can’t say Djokovic wasn’t playing at a good level in 2013 with one major, 2 runner-ups and in the other major being extremely close to beating an extremely well-playing Nadal on his favourite court and making the finals where he would have been a huge favourite to have won the title.