Wawrinka on Murray: "He's Way Ahead of Me"

[mike danny]

Only if you take the view that it's all about the Slams. Others (like me) take whole career achievements into consideration.

Sure, but Stan's success does beg the question why couldn't Murray actually win more slams since he's the better player?

 

[Rosstour]

Sure, but Stan's success does beg the question why couldn't Murray actually win more slams since he's the better player?

Hip degeneration in late 20s is one reason

 

[metsman]

The only reason either of them have any slams is due to Djokovic not dominating his era properly. In 04-09 they are winning 0 slams total, guaranteed.

Obviously Stan was much more impressive to win 2 of his slams at least. None of Murray's slams is impressive.

 

[mike danny]

Hip degeneration in late 20s is one reason

He had 9 years to do it beforehand.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

46 titles vs 16? I suspect most people would agree that's way ahead. Stan just being honest and telling it like it is.

That is one stat. In the most important stat they are equal with Stan facing better opponents to boot.

 

[Mainad]

That is one stat. In the most important stat they are equal with Stan facing better opponents to boot.

So, in your view, does that make them equal as players negating everything else Murray did and Stan didn't? Stan fully understands this.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

So, in your view, does that make them equal as players negating everything else Murray did and Stan didn't? Stan fully understands this.

Nope Murray is greater, but “way ahead” stretches it.

 

[sportsfan1]

Yes Murray has much better overall career stats. But the way stan beat prime novak at his very best in slams is something that I don't recall Murray doing much of. Once stan got going in bo5 against novak, the racquet was out of Novak's hands.
Stan for those few times was a threat (only one) that novak had to fear.

Yes Murray has the uso and wimby wins, but he struggled too often against novak.

Your memory fails you. Murray faced prime Djokovic for most of his career and started notching up big title wins against him as far back as 2008, 7 years before Stan got his 1st big win against Djokovic at RG.

Murray has double digit victories over Djokovic including 2 Slams, a WTF and 5 Masters and took his number #1 ranking.

The bolded part of my post stated that Murray has the better overall career stats, but the number and manner of Stan's slam wins over prime novak were much more impressive.

If you look at Murray and Stan's respective slam h2hs against Novak, Murray's is underwhelming outside of wimby '13. Stan beat Novak at slams impressively during Novak's best performance years

In bo3 Stan never really had his best level and Murray was unarguably better there .

Stan has just 6 wins albeit 2 of them were Slams. I think these figures indicate that Stan struggled against Djokovic a bit more.

Stan has 4 wins over novak in slams. Ao '14, rg '15, uso '16 and uso '19.

Murray has 2 - uso '12 and wimby 13.

 

[Mainad]

The bolded part of my post stated that Murray has the better overall career stats, but the number and manner of Stan's slam wins over prime novak were much more impressive.

If you look at Murray and Stan's respective slam h2hs against Novak, Murray's is underwhelming outside of wimby '13. Stan beat Novak at slams impressively during Novak's best performance years

In bo3 Stan never really had his best level and Murray was unarguably better there .



Stan has 4 wins over novak in slams. Ao '14, rg '15, uso '16 and uso '19.

Murray has 2 - uso '12 and wimby 13.

What are you talking about? Murray faced prime Djokovic in BOTH of his Slam wins unless you're going to try and claim Djokovic didn't become prime until 2014 when Stan started beating him? He is 1 of only 2 players to beat Djokovic in a Bo5 set final that went the distance (the other being Alcaraz last year) and the only player outside the Big 3 to beat him in straight sets in a Slam final.

Not negating Stan's fine wins over him at all but that doesn't take anything away from Murray's.

 

[duaneeo]

3-3 in slam titles.
11-4 in overall slam finals.
1-0 in WTF titles.
14-1 in Masters titles.
41-0 in weeks at #1
1-0 in YE #1
11-6 in wins over Djokovic
7-3 in wins over Nadal
11-3 in wins over Federer

And, Andy achieved some of those numbers during the Normal Order. All of Stan's were during the Abnormal Order.

 

[RaulRamirez]

The bolded part of my post stated that Murray has the better overall career stats, but the number and manner of Stan's slam wins over prime novak were much more impressive.

If you look at Murray and Stan's respective slam h2hs against Novak, Murray's is underwhelming outside of wimby '13. Stan beat Novak at slams impressively during Novak's best performance years

In bo3 Stan never really had his best level and Murray was unarguably better there .



Stan has 4 wins over novak in slams. Ao '14, rg '15, uso '16 and uso '19.

Murray has 2 - uso '12 and wimby 13.

I think that it's hard for any of us to define what "much better" or "way better" - and expressions like that - mean.

Yes, Stan has those four wins over Novak at slams, and the wins at AO14 and RG15 were particularly impressive.
I just don't think that their whole careers can be reduced to a handful of matches versus Novak.

But there's no real formula for comparisons - for me, anyway, even though I've tried to come up with one. I think that Andy's overall lead is significant, but what does "significant" mean All else being roughly the same, would I put Stan even or ahead with one more slam? Two more? Three? My quick guess is that he'd need 5 to Andy's 3 given all the other accomplishments Murray had. Perhaps, only 4 if he won Wimby, giving him one of each. Not sure.

 

[Devilito]

It's cool to be humble, it's cringe to be overly humble to the point where you're obviously self deprecating.

 

[sportsfan1]

I think that it's hard for any of us to define what "much better" or "way better" - and expressions like that - mean.

Yes, Stan has those four wins over Novak at slams, and the wins at AO14 and RG15 were particularly impressive.
I just don't think that their whole careers can be reduced to a handful of matches versus Novak.

But there's no real formula for comparisons - for me, anyway, even though I've tried to come up with one. I think that Andy's overall lead is significant, but what does "significant" mean All else being roughly the same, would I put Stan even or ahead with one more slam? Two more? Three? My quick guess is that he'd need 5 to Andy's 3 given all the other accomplishments Murray had. Perhaps, only 4 if he won Wimby, giving him one of each. Not sure.

My post was only about their slam performance versus Djokovic, not whether or how it affects their overall careers. Imo Stan's slam performance against Djokovic is better quantitatively and qualitatively.

Btw, Stan could play very aggressive overall including off the fh, whereas Murray could get passive and slow down especially on his fh. When Murray first started, he was actually picked as the more talented and promising over Djokovic. But he got passive.

 

[Apun94]

One piece from Stan himself on this hotly debated TTW topic

And Happy Birthday Andy!! Thanks for all the memories:

Stan Wawrinka says Andy Murray is 'way ahead' of him with career achievements; unsure he will retire this year - Eurosport

Stan Wawrinka says Andy Murray is “way ahead” of him in terms of career achievements, and doesn’t expect the former world No. 1 to retire this year.

www.eurosport.com

Stan Wawrinka says Andy Murray is “way ahead” of him in terms of career achievements, and doesn’t expect the former world No. 1 to retire this year.
Wawrinka and Murray have both won three Grand Slam titles and at their best were two of the biggest threats to the ‘Big Three’ of Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer.

On how his career stacks up against Andy's:

“For me, he was part of this Big Four era,” Wawrinka told Express Sport about Murray.
“From 18 years old until 30 he was always fighting with the Big Three, he was always there.
“Let’s put it that way, he won ‘only’ three because all the other [players] were taking but he was always in the final, he was always winning a lot. For me, his career is nothing compared to mine. He’s way ahead, he won many more titles, things than me, and his level was close to the Big Three for 10 years.”

On potential retirement:

It’s normal that we receive these questions," he added. "About him, I’m not sure that he’s going to stop this summer. I don’t think so but let’s see how it goes.
“I think when he announced stopping it’s a lot because of the emotion after losing a match but I’m not sure he will stop this summer.
“I think because he’s passionate about the game and I think of course he’s in a mixed feeling; when he’s winning or losing it’s not easy with the emotion. But I think as long as he’s passionate and feels competitive, he will keep going.”

Thank you Stan for saying this. Maybe idiots now at TTW can stop underestimating Murray in terms of his place in history. People here talk about Murray as if he was a one hit wonder journeyman ffs

 

[nolefam_2024]

Murray has 2016.
4 masters, 1 slam, 2 slam runner ups, ATP finals and 90% win rate, ending the year at number 1
Dominance Murray by far. All Stan had was just 2014 where he won 1 slam and 1 masters.

Stan is equal only in slam titles and even yearly consistency he is far removed from the top. Murray was winning 2 big titles from 2008 to 2015 barr 2014. So consistency Murray by far.

Then in slams also apart from winning title, reaching late stages Murray by landslide.

Dominance - Murray far ahead
Slam dominance - Murray slightly ahead
Consistency - Murray far far ahead

Dominance + Consistency = greatness

 

[BGod]

Ya but the what if and legend aspect goes in Stanimal's favor.

Wawrinka was very close to 3 additional Slams while Murray could only have won 2.

Then Murray has dead Novak at Wimbledon, wind Novak at USO and Raonic.

Wawrinka beat Novak on clay and at USO along with Nadal at AO for his first. Double KO match with Murray too is epic.

 

[Rebel-I.N.S]

Ya but the what if and legend aspect goes in Stanimal's favor.

Wawrinka was very close to 3 additional Slams while Murray could only have won 2.

Then Murray has dead Novak at Wimbledon, wind Novak at USO and Raonic.

Wawrinka beat Novak on clay and at USO along with Nadal at AO for his first. Double KO match with Murray too is epic.

Can’t be throwing around terms like “dead Novak” for Murray and then sneak in USO 2016 for Stan.

 

[BGod]

Can’t be throwing around terms like “dead Novak” for Murray and then sneak in USO 2016 for Stan.

You mean polar opposites where Novak was arguably the most rested Slam finalist in history?

 

[Rebel-I.N.S]

You mean polar opposites where Novak was arguably the most rested Slam finalist in history?

It’s clear to anyone who was paying attention that Novak was severely undercooked going into that final.

Between the second round and the semi-final, he played a total of 5 completed sets.