Wawrinka Vs Murray

Greater Player Wawrinka or Murray?


  • Total voters
    31

Sellers

Rookie
Wawrinka won his slams beating the World number 1 Djokovic and other strong players like Nadal in 2014. Murray won his Wimbledon beating the likes of Tsonga and Raomug. Djokovic's main completion was his pigeon Murray and a geriatric grandad. He can't beat himself.

What about the likes of Roddick, Baghdatis, Nalbandian and Phillipousis, are you going to talk down your idol for winning most of the slams during his prime against the likes of them? God forbid Murray doesn't face against 2 of the best ever players to win a slam!

Besides it's not like Andy beat Djokovic for his first two slams, oh and beating him and Federer both in a row at the Olympics right? :rolleyes:

As a big Roger fan you should be fully aware of you can only beat who is in front of you :)
 

shankster

Professional
Even if you don't rate Wawrinka over Murray (understandable), the least we can agree on is that at least we can expand the Big 4 into a Big 5 OR more preferably, split it into a Big 3 + Smaller 2. Do Murray fans at least agree that Wawrinka is closer to Murray than Murray is to the Big 3?
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
probably still Murray but close, a 5th would put Stan ahead (assuming Murray's at 3). Basically saying Murray's consistency, Masters, WTF, # 1 etc is worth about 1.5 slams in this comparison.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
What about the likes of Roddick, Baghdatis, Nalbandian and Phillipousis, are you going to talk down your idol for winning most of the slams during his prime against the likes of them? God forbid Murray doesn't face against 2 of the best ever players to win a slam!

Besides it's not like Andy beat Djokovic for his first two slams, oh and beating him and Federer both in a row at the Olympics right? :rolleyes:

As a big Roger fan you should be fully aware of you can only beat who is in front of you :)

Philipousis doesn't count since it was Fed's first slam win so any opponent is tough.

Nalbandian was a top player so not sure why you mentioned him.

Roddick i'd equate with Murray in terms of being a pigeon. Bagdhatis had a one off big tournament and played about as well as Murray did in the 2015/16 finals.
 

shankster

Professional
probably still Murray but close, a 5th would put Stan ahead (assuming Murray's at 3). Basically saying Murray's consistency, Masters, WTF, # 1 etc is worth about 1.5 slams in this comparison.
What if Stan's 4th is Wimbledon? How much weightage would you give to a Career Slam?
 

Sellers

Rookie
Philipousis doesn't count since it was Fed's first slam win so any opponent is tough.

Nalbandian was a top player so not sure why you mentioned him.

Roddick i'd equate with Murray in terms of being a pigeon. Bagdhatis had a one off big tournament and played about as well as Murray did in the 2015/16 finals.

You can't be serous? Murray is FAR above Roddick and his record against Federer is far more respectable, funny your excuses regarding Mark and Bagdhatis though. Anyway I'm not here to try to put RF down (love the guy) for the sake of argument, I just thought it was blatant hypocrisy from you.

But I still think that only haters or those who consider slams the only metric of success would rank Stan above in this hypothetical scenario where Murray owns by a wide margin in every other area. Maybe if Stan got the CGS or 5 slams assuming Murray wins another, then we can talk.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
You can't be serous? Murray is FAR above Roddick and his record against Federer is far more respectable, funny your excuses regarding Mark and Bagdhatis though. Anyway I'm not here to try to put RF down (love the guy) for the sake of argument, I just thought it was blatant hypocrisy from you.

But I still think that only haters or those who consider slams the only metric of success would rank Stan above in this hypothetical scenario where Murray owns by a wide margin in every other area. Maybe if Stan got the CGS or 5 slams assuming Murray wins another, then we can talk.

Murray's losing performances vs Djokovic at the AO/FO are the same as Roddick's and Bagdhatis losing performances vs Federer.
 

shankster

Professional
I really don't understand this exaggerated importance given to Masters titles etc. In Sampras' era the only thing they cared about was the slams. The only reason why Masters have gained in importance is because the Big 3 have all given as much importance to it as the slams and have dominated them as well. But historically, Masters wins have never been considered as a parameter while gauging greatness. Are we seriously gonna rate the likes of Berdych and Ferrer above Del Potro? After all, he has "just" 1 more slam than them (and both Berdych and Ferrer have a slam final plus several semis to their name anyway). Now see how silly that sounds? Masters, Olympics etc are only a tiebreaker when the slam count is equal, which is why Murray is ahead now but the suggestion that Stan will not be ahead of Murray even with more slams (even with a possible Career Grand Slam) while Murray has won only 2 of the 4 slams is really absurd to say the least.
 

Sellers

Rookie
I really don't understand this exaggerated importance given to Masters titles etc. In Sampras' era the only thing they cared about was the slams. The only reason why Masters have gained in importance is because the Big 3 have all given as much importance to it as the slams and have dominated them as well. But historically, Masters wins have never been considered as a parameter while gauging greatness. Are we seriously gonna rate the likes of Berdych and Ferrer above Del Potro? After all, he has "just" 1 more slam than them (and both Berdych and Ferrer have a slam final plus several semis to their name anyway). Now see how silly that sounds? Masters, Olympics etc are only a tiebreaker when the slam count is equal, which is why Murray is ahead now but the suggestion that Stan will not be ahead of Murray even with more slams (even with a possible Career Grand Slam) while Murray has won only 2 of the 4 slams is really absurd to say the least.

They may not have been a big deal back then, they certainly are now and have been very important for years. Would be a bit boring with just 4 slams a year and no other big, albeit smaller events?

There is a bit of a difference between Berdy and Ferrer have a single master each and no slams at all, this is a bad comparison compared with Murray having 14 to Stans single title. The tour has more events than just the slams, I don't think it's so outlandish to consider vastly better career ranking and consistency including number 1, way more titles, 14 masters, 2 consecutive olympic golds, ATP tour finals, way more wins against RF/Nole/Rafa to be worth more than an extra slam.

Imagine if Federer had very few or no masters and performed crap outside of the slams he has won, he wouldn't have been number 1 for nearly as long, it would harm his legacy for sure. Masters titles and consistency are a big deal which is something Murray is and always will be far ahead of Stan in.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
If it were really ALL about the Slams, then Wawrinka will edge ahead of Murray obviously.

If results on the entire tour are taken into account including ranking, then Murray obviously retains the edge. If he doesn't start winning anything else, then I think Stan needs at least a 2 Slam margin to be considered greater than Murray IMO.
 

shankster

Professional
If it were really ALL about the Slams, then Wawrinka will edge ahead of Murray obviously.

If results on the entire tour are taken into account including ranking, then Murray obviously retains the edge. If he doesn't start winning anything else, then I think Stan needs at least a 2 Slam margin to be considered greater than Murray IMO.
Even with a (lets assume hypothetically) Career Grand Slam?
 

D.Nalby12

G.O.A.T.
I don't think that Ferrer - Delpo is a good analogy, because Murray really owns Stan everywhere else.

Majors: 4 - 3 Stan (if he wins this AO, which is a main assumption in this thread)
WTF: 1 - 0 Murray
Masters: 14 - 1 Murray
Titles overall: 44 - 15 Murray
Weeks at top spot: 12 - 0 Murray (Stan has never been even No. 2)
W/L record: 634–175 (78.37%) vs 440–251 (63.68%) Murray

Murray is simply much more superior, while Ferrer's numbers are very close to Delpo's.

Let's have Player 'A' and 'B'

Majors: 14-12 A
WTF: 5-0 B
Masters: 30-28 B
Titles overall: 69 - 67 A
#1 weeks: 223 - 141 B
YE #1: 4 vs 3 B
W/L: 83% vs 82.33% B
Career Top Ten wins: 180 vs 141 B
Slam comparison: B > A at 3/4 Slams (and also WTF)

So I guess B is simply much superior as he owns A at 4 out of 5 biggest events (or 2/3 surfaces and also indoors), has got more weeks, more Masters and 40 more wins against Top 10 players. What you say?
 
Last edited:

BaddJordan

New User
There is a reason why Lebron cannot touch MJ until he has 7 rings, his record in finals.

There's been a shift recently (past few years) with more athletes making certain sacrifices so they timing themselves for big tournaments, games, etc because the body cant keep up with the demands of being a pro athlete in 2017. Williams sisters were ahead of their time.

Stan please, Murray can shine his balls with his gold medals and minor titles. No amount of non slams can ever make up for a slam.

If Stans surpasses Murray in terms of slams then the "big 4" term would just be embarrassing for Murray.
 

Dave1982

Professional
It's definitely an interesting question and one that probably can't be answered until each has finished their respective careers.

Murray's membership in the "Big 4" is what carries him beyond simply his Slam titles...be it deserving or not.

Most will remember Murray as someone who was simply born in the wrong era....which i personally don't think is fair, on him or others who have come before him and who I'm sure will come after...at the end of the day you can only ever be measured against those you play against and who are essentially within your own era....at the end of the day Murray within that group (based on Slam titles) sits equal 4th....maybe 5th within a few days.

What Murray has going for him is consistency and longevity (he made his first Slam final in 2008 - that is nearly 9 years ago now!).

Stan on the other hand has reached his peak much later in his career and is far more inconsistent across a 12 month period which of course affects his ranking....but he knows when to peak and has an impeccable record when reaching Slam finals.

I think it's going to be a case of Murray being over rated and Stan being under rated....and largely due to circumstance and situation.
 
D

Deleted member 512391

Guest
Let's have Player 'A' and 'B'

Majors: 14-12 A
WTF: 5-0 B
Masters: 30-28 B
Titles overall: 69 - 67 A
#1 weeks: 223 - 141 B
YE #1: 4 vs 3 B
W/L: 83% vs 82.33% B
Career Top Ten wins: 180 vs 141 B
Slam comparison: B > A at 3/4 Slams (and also WTF)

So I guess B is simply much superior as he owns A at 4 out of 5 biggest events (or 2/3 surfaces and also indoors), has got more weeks, more Masters and 40 more wins against Top 10 players. What you say?
Man, their numbers are very close, that's my point. Which isn't the case with the Murray - Wawa discussion. Murray's numbers are much, much better. Bovak's aren't. ;)
 
Top