Wawrinka is superior to Murray since 2014

[Tsongerer]

How many people here think Wawrinka (2014>current) is better than Murray has ever been? WTF's, Masters and Olympics are best of 3's (except for the Olympics Final) and about 10% of the importance that Grand Slams have (please, let's be real). So when you take that into account Wawrinka has been superior since 2014.

Grand Slams:
3 vs 1 (4-1 if he wins tomorrow)
vs Big 3 in Grand Slams:
5-4 vs 0-8(!)
H2H in Grand Slams:
2-1

Wawrinka beat big 3 players in all the 3 finals (and beat them in earlier rounds as well in 2 out of the 3 tournaments he won, Djokovic QF AO14 and Federer RG15).
Murray beat 0 big 3 players in the 1 Grand Slam he won.

 

[movdqa]

When Wawrinka is playing well and his head is in the game, I do think that he's better than Murray. But, as hard as it is to say this, Murray has been more consistent than Wawrinka which is why he's #1.

 

[Newcomer]

For me, Wawrinka is already a better overall player than Murray, doesn't matter if he wins or loses this final. Murray is just more consistent at beating the likes of Berdych and Nishikori. However, 99% of the times when he faces real opposition the only thing where he can be trusted is at making a lot of errors on big points. That's the reason why he lost so much finals. Wawrinka is maybe not consistent enough, but on a good day he is usually VERY good.

 

[movdqa]

The painful thing is that Murray can play a lot better than what we see him doing. He can play a good aggressive and offensive game of tennis but then he reverts back to "let's see if you can get the ball by me" defensive stuff. He can hit serves a lot better than he does these days but he chooses not to. He has all of the tools and things were a lot better a while ago - maybe it was Lendl or not.

 

[Zetty]

Very hard to deny at this point, he's eclipsed him of late with slam performance, the most important metric

 

[RF-18]

Murray is a better and more decorated player than Wawrinka. Fact is Murray and Waw have played two 5 setters at RG where both have won a match each, but remember Murrays best or 2nd best surface is not clay, it is his worst, while Waws game is best suited for clay.

Three slams each - but Murray has a much better career where Wawrinka really can't compare.

Murray

Three GS titles
1 WTFs title
14 masters titles
2 Olympic Gold singles medals
8 GS runners up
1 davis cup title (won it by himself)
45 tour titles overall
One YE#1 and currently with lots of weeks at #1

Wawrinka

Three GS titles
1 Masters title
1 davis cup title
16 titles overall

Murray is in fact superior to Wawrinka, leave this ''since 1999'' stuff.

 

[Wander]

I like watching Wawrinka play more, but I would rather have had Murray's career results-wise.

 

[Mainad]

Wawrinka beat big 3 players in all the 3 finals (and beat them in earlier rounds as well in 2 out of the 3 tournaments he won, Djokovic QF AO14 and Federer RG15).
Murray beat 0 big 3 players in the 1 Grand Slam he won.

You don't seem to be aware that he has won 3 Grand Slams and beaten Djokovic (then ranked either #1 or #2) in the final of 2 of them!

 

[ojo rojo]

Nah

 

[Tsongerer]

You don't seem to be aware that he has won 3 Grand Slams and beaten Djokovic (then ranked either #1 or #2) in the final of 2 of them!

Everything I mentioned is between 2014>current.

Murray is a better and more decorated player than Wawrinka. Fact is Murray and Waw have played two 5 setters at RG where both have won a match each, but remember Murrays best or 2nd best surface is not clay, it is his worst, while Waws game is best suited for clay.

Three slams each - but Murray has a much better career where Wawrinka really can't compare.

Murray

Three GS titles
1 WTFs title
14 masters titles
2 Olympic Gold singles medals
8 GS runners up
1 davis cup title (won it by himself)
45 tour titles overall
One YE#1 and currently with lots of weeks at #1

Wawrinka

Three GS titles
1 Masters title
1 davis cup title
16 titles overall

Murray is in fact superior to Wawrinka, leave this ''since 1999'' stuff.

I am comparing them from 2014>current, Wawrinka was a top 15/20 player before that, nothing more and nothing less so useless to compare as Wawrinka was simply another player.

You mention finals, since when is consistently losing an acomplishment? I dare to bet Berdych reached more Grand Slam quarterfinals than Wawrinka, Ferrer maybe as well.

You have a lot of mugs that are good in Masters and got as far as top 5 ATP ranking but would get to a Grand Slam semifinal every 3 years (or worse).

I disregard BO3 tournaments in player comparisons, as simple as that.

Also, if Murray would win 10 more masters for the remainder of his career but Wawrinka would win his 4th Grand Slam today, he will go down as the more succesfull player in tennis history.

 

[abmk]

Murray is a better and more decorated player than Wawrinka. Fact is Murray and Waw have played two 5 setters at RG where both have won a match each, but remember Murrays best or 2nd best surface is not clay, it is his worst, while Waws game is best suited for clay.

Three slams each - but Murray has a much better career where Wawrinka really can't compare.

Murray

Three GS titles
1 WTFs title
14 masters titles
2 Olympic Gold singles medals
8 GS runners up
1 davis cup title (won it by himself)
45 tour titles overall
One YE#1 and currently with lots of weeks at #1

Wawrinka

Three GS titles
1 Masters title
1 davis cup title
16 titles overall

Murray is in fact superior to Wawrinka, leave this ''since 1999'' stuff.

Murray is the better/greater/player as of now, no doubt.
But at bolded part : Murray won in 4 sets last year, it wasn't a 5-setter.

 

[Mainad]

Everything I mentioned is between 2014>current.

Didn't spot that. Okay then.

I am comparing them from 2014>current, Wawrinka was a top 15/20 player before that, nothing more and nothing less so useless to compare as Wawrinka was simply another player.

You mention finals, since when is consistently losing an acomplishment? I dare to bet Berdych reached more Grand Slam quarterfinals than Wawrinka, Ferrer maybe as well.

Since when is getting to a Grand Slam final not an accomplishment? Is it better to lose in an earlier round?

You have a lot of mugs that are good in Masters and got as far as top 5 ATP ranking but would get to a Grand Slam semifinal every 3 years (or worse).

I disregard BO3 tournaments in player comparisons, as simple as that.

Also, if Murray would win 10 more masters for the remainder of his career but Wawrinka would win his 4th Grand Slam today, he will go down as the more succesfull player in tennis history.

So for you only Slams count and nothing else? Do you think the tour would last 5 minutes if it only consisted of the 4 Slams?

 

[TheFifthSet]

Since the end of 2013, yes. Career-wise, no. Thread premise valid.

 

[Paul Harman]

Compare Murray 2011-now and Stan 2014-now if you must add dates, since that would 's when both players reached their potential.

 

[Tsongerer]

Compare Murray 2011-now and Stan 2014-now if you must add dates, since that would 's when both players reached their potential.

Both 3 Grand Slams, Stan's wins were more impressive, if he wins today against the greatest claycourt player of all time (who is neither injured like 2009 or in the worst form of his whole career like 2015) he is simply proven the better player.

Murray couldn't even dream of beating Nadal at FO or Djokovic at AO.

 

[Mainad]

Both 3 Grand Slams, Stan's wins were more impressive, if he wins today against the greatest claycourt player of all time (who is neither injured like 2009 or in the worst form of his whole career like 2015) he is simply proven the better player.

IMO needs to get the #1 ranking before he can confirm that.

Murray couldn't even dream of beating Nadal at FO or Djokovic at AO.

How the heck would you know what Murray is capable of dreaming?

 

[ComeBackKimiko]

Assuming boldly he does get the FO, and no further slams, Stan would really do well to ice the cake with a WTF to make this argument.
Defending USO and YE#1 would obviously close the door on the argument definitely and forever.
This would be a great year to do it with all the turmoil among top players.
I wish he could summon Stanimal for WTF just once.

 

[Kalin]

Is Andy really 0-8 in his last 8 GS matches vs the top guys? Ouch..... This is Nishikori level of suckitude

 

[Mainad]

Is Andy really 0-8 in his last 8 GS matches vs the top guys? Ouch..... This is Nishikori level of suckitude

Well, hardly considering Nishikori has only ever been good enough to make 1 Slam final whilst Murray has at least won 3 of them and beaten one of the top guys in 2.

 

[Kalin]

Well, hardly considering Nishikori has only ever been good enough to make 1 Slam final whilst Murray has at least won 3 of them and beaten one of the top guys in 2.

Just kidding; I have a quota of at least once per day making fun of Andy and thrice of Humbalito. Otherwise, I consider my day wasted

 

[BGod]

Pretty clearly yes. Weakest time for rankings.

 

[Gary Duane]

The painful thing is that Murray can play a lot better than what we see him doing. He can play a good aggressive and offensive game of tennis but then he reverts back to "let's see if you can get the ball by me" defensive stuff. He can hit serves a lot better than he does these days but he chooses not to. He has all of the tools and things were a lot better a while ago - maybe it was Lendl or not.

He CHOOSES not to serve better???

That's absurd...

 

[ComeBackKimiko]

He CHOOSES not to serve better???

That's absurd...

You could make an argument that a passive mindset overall would affect his serving.
It's all mental with Murray, there's no other explanation why he can hit a running forehand at a severe angle harder than he hits a routine forehand with all the time in the world to line it up. He plays best when he is forced by circumstance to instinctually trust his skills. Murray's conscious brain is his own worst enemy, I think even his fans would agree with that.

 

[Gary Duane]

You could make an argument that a passive mindset overall would affect his serving.
It's all mental with Murray, there's no other explanation why he can hit a running forehand at a severe angle harder than he hits a routine forehand with all the time in the world to line it up. He plays best when he is forced by circumstance to instinctually trust his skills. Murray's conscious brain is his own worst enemy, I think even his fans would agree with that.

I would argue that a passive mindset means that someone thinks he has a better chance of winning that way. Fear drives a lot of things, and fear of losing will directly affect play style in crises.

There are some people who become more aggressive when they are challenged, by default. That has not always been the case with Federer, but it certainly has been at times and has definitely been true this year.

I think Murray, as much as any top player, freezes at times. More than anything else I see it on his 2nd serve. Part of it is that he doesn't have a great deal of spin on it. Others have suggested this may be a by product of former back problems. But he definitely pulls back.

Nadal, supposedly, hits way bigger in practice, so in some way he is playing with a governor on most of the time. Who knows if he could be even more effective some days, playing even bigger? But he may have other reasons...

There is a very fine line between playing under control and playing tight vs over-playing. Murray in his SF looked tight to me. Thiem, on the other hand, over-played. It looked to me as if he wanted to approach the match like Stan aka Diesel, but when Stan goes into super-aggressive mode it always looks to me as if he is in control, once he gets over nerves.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

I would argue that a passive mindset means that someone thinks he has a better chance of winning that way. Fear drives a lot of things, and fear of losing will directly affect play style in crises.

There are some people who become more aggressive when they are challenged, by default. That has not always been the case with Federer, but it certainly has been at times and has definitely been true this year.

I think Murray, as much as any top player, freezes at times. More than anything else I see it on his 2nd serve. Part of it is that he doesn't have a great deal of spin on it. Others have suggested this may be a by product of former back problems. But he definitely pulls back.

Nadal, supposedly, hits way bigger in practice, so in some way he is playing with a governor on most of the time. Who knows if he could be even more effective some days, playing even bigger? But he may have other reasons...

There is a very fine line between playing under control and playing tight vs over-playing. Murray in his SF looked tight to me. Thiem, on the other hand, over-played. It looked to me as if he wanted to approach the match like Stan aka Diesel, but when Stan goes into super-aggressive mode it always looks to me as if he is in control, once he gets over nerves.

Agreed, I guess sometimes one can naturally retreat to that careful style even if logically he knows it is not the best chance to win. It is an instinctual feeling that playing passively will help, despite on a cerebral level knowing playing one's regular game would be best. I'd say Rafa suffers from this too. He's often said he has to stand closer to the baseline and dictate (in fact he said about this match vs. Stan.) Saying and doing it under pressure are different things, especially when the passive play "feels" more comfortable. Habits stemming out of fear are hard to break.

 

[Gary Duane]

Agreed, I guess sometimes one can naturally retreat to that careful style even if logically he knows it is not the best chance to win. It is an instinctual feeling that playing passively will help, despite on a cerebral level knowing playing one's regular game would be best. I'd say Rafa suffers from this too. He's often said he has to stand closer to the baseline and dictate (in fact he said about this match vs. Stan.) Saying and doing it under pressure are different things, especially when the passive play "feels" more comfortable. Habits stemming out of fear are hard to break.

There is a quote from BJK somewhere about the the person who wins choking less than the person who loses.

She said something like: "Everyone chokes. The person who chokes less wins."

I believe she is 100% right.

But I can't find it.

In a close match I don't think any player plays at his very best. You see players put on clinics in matches when they are extremely lose, hitting every line, making every serve, totally zoned.

In my own field I know that the very best musicians talk about only playing their best a few times in their lives. But the audience doesn't know that. Fans don't know because they are not watching a competition.

In sports we always know when a famous athlete is not at his best.

He loses something big, or he barely wins something that he should cruise through.

That's the whole point of losing ugly.

If for you a poor day is still better than most people's best day, the poor day won't hurt you.

Being in a really tight final has to impact the nerves of any human being.

 

[Red Rick]

And I'm equal to Roger Federer on Roland Garros since 2016.

Just about as relevant

 

[Bukmeikara]

They are about even. Stan won more Slams but Murray won more tournaments with the Big 5 included+ he became number 1.

 

[KINGROGER]

Wawrinka has a much higher peak.

 

[MatsPhilander]

No question-Murray has lost 3 GS finals & won 1. He lacks the mental strength against the big boys at the slams-Nadal, Novak & Fed, while Stan has beaten them all-twice beating two of them to win a tournament.

 

[Gazelle]

Now I know why Mainad roots for Murray. They are both great defenders.

 

[Chanwan]

Stan has 3 GS, a Masters, DC and 9 smaller tournament wins.
Muzz has one GS, WTF, year end no. 1, Olympic Gold, DC and how many Masters? 5? Not sure.

Gotta go with 3 slams but arguments for Muzz can be made

 

[zagor]

No, just because Stan matches-up better against Novak in BO5 than Murray (and even that's a bit overstated) doesn't mean Stan's peak is superior to Andy's all-around. I think Stan's mythical slam final prowess reputation is gonna take a hit today and people will stop talking about him in hyperboles.

Just look at their last two FO matches to realize how tough an in-form Murray can be for Stan.

 

[Deleted member 512391]

The myth about Stan would not have existed had he, like Andy, played (prime) Federer in three out of his first four Major finals, I don't see him winning any of these potential matches due to a bad match-up that an in-form (let alone prime) Fed represents for him. So, while he's been impressive in his Major finals, he was also a bit lucky to avoid his toughest opponent.

 

[MatsPhilander]

The myth about Stan would not have existed had he, like Andy, played (prime) Federer in three out of his first four Major finals, I don't see him winning any of these potential matches due to a bad match-up that an in-form (let alone prime) Fed represents for him. So, while he's been impressive in his Major finals, he was also a bit lucky to avoid his toughest opponent.

Of course-because he wasn't good enough to even make a final until 2014. Murray wasn't good enough to win one until 2012.

 

[Deleted member 512391]

Of course-because he wasn't good enough to even make a final until 2014. Murray wasn't good enough to win one until 2012.

Yes, but Andy continued to lose to Roger in Majors after 2012, winning one (AO 2013) out of three matches. It's a similar story with Stan (winning one out of four after 2014). But, my point is that Stan's perfect record in Major finals, while indeed impressive, is not an indicator of his superiority over Andy. It could have been all different had he played Roger, a player who really troubled him more than any other player on tour, in my opinion.

 

[veroniquem]

Wawrinka is not superior to Murray, is not a member of the big 4 and is most definitely not an all time great.
All time great have the brilliance (to win tier 1 events) + consistency (to do it repeatedly).
Wawrinka was never anywhere close for consistency.
Don't get me wrong, he is an excellent player, someone capable of winning big like Davydenko. The difference is that Davydenko didn't like the best of 5 format and could not beat Fed to save his life whereas Wawa prefers the best of 5 format and matches very well against Djoko.
Wawa's top achievements were always beating Djoko. I feel like that was his big feat in AO 2014, it just did not get as much emphasis as RG 2015 and USO 2016 because it did not happen in final but as well as Nadal played in 2013, at AO, Djoko was the man to beat, not Rafa. And yes, he beat older Fed in his worst slam (RG) but then again, so did Gulbis to put that win into a bit of perspective. As far as I can remember, Wawa never beat Fedal at W or USO or AO (bar that one match where Nadal got injured. Mind you, the Wawa fans have been ferociously unable to accept that the injury played some part in the outcome of that final and that yes Wawa won a SET before the injury happened but the injury still facilitated his winning the MATCH in the end. ) Wawa did not even have to go through Murray ( 1 of the 2 best hard court players in 2016) to win USO because the gong took care of that business for him.
Kudos to Wawa for capitalizing whenever he had the chance and his main hurdle was Djoko. That is still an admirable achievement. But it is not enough- in and of itself- to turn him into an ATG or as legend would have it a "tennis beast" magically immune to losing in slam finals as a rule.

 

[papertank]

Wawrinka is basically the anti-Murray. While Murray grinds it out consistently at every tournament yet usually blows it on the biggest occasions, Stan is the exact opposite, only bringing his A game to a few tournaments a year and absolutely crushing it when he does.

In terms of who is the better player? Well yes H2H is fun to talk about but at the end of the day it's about results, and in terms of results Murray is wayyy ahead of Stan.

Still though, there's no way it's not frustrating for Murray to see Stan waltz into these grand slams and earn the same amount of major titles as him. Tennis really is a strange sport.

 

[donquijote]

OP is 10 years old and has been watching only slam finals since AO 2014. Only explanation to this thread. By the way Murray has been No1 last 8 months or so.

 

[Bender]

You can't just look at GS finals performances and say one is better than the other...

If you take into account Stan's performance everywhere else, and then average that with his best GS performances, that average looks terrible compared to Murray's.

Not to mention Murray has far more GS finals to his name as well.

 

[bluetrain4]

Ostapenko is superior to Serena since May 2017.

 

[RF-18]

Everything I mentioned is between 2014>current.



I am comparing them from 2014>current, Wawrinka was a top 15/20 player before that, nothing more and nothing less so useless to compare as Wawrinka was simply another player.

You mention finals, since when is consistently losing an acomplishment? I dare to bet Berdych reached more Grand Slam quarterfinals than Wawrinka, Ferrer maybe as well.

You have a lot of mugs that are good in Masters and got as far as top 5 ATP ranking but would get to a Grand Slam semifinal every 3 years (or worse).

I disregard BO3 tournaments in player comparisons, as simple as that.

Also, if Murray would win 10 more masters for the remainder of his career but Wawrinka would win his 4th Grand Slam today, he will go down as the more succesfull player in tennis history.

Why not compare before 2014? Why cherry pick to make stan look better? You can't punish Murray for being already a great player when he was young and that wawa wasn't so great and had to wait until he got 30 to peak and have his best results.

Cherry picking does not work.