Players such as Ivanisevic (might've won 3 Wimbledons), Roddick (should've been a 3/4 slam winner), Davydenko (surely a 1/2 slam winning talent), et-al don't get to walk away from their careers with the "correct" achievements according to their talent and effort if their best years/tournaments coincide with that of one or two players fundamentally better than them, even if only on a certain surface, and all their opportunities to win big are not entirely about them delivering on a given day. We didn't used to get a 15 year period where 93.5% of slam finals involved at least one of the three greatest players of all time... play the match, or two, of their life at just the right moment and the reward could be MaliVai Washington in the Wimbledon final. Do it in 2010, beat Federer (then Novak, albeit the ****ty serving 2010 version, back-to-back) and Berdych's reward is a healthy and in form Nadal.
Players such as del-Potro, Hewitt, Kuerten, Safin end up in the basket of "what might have been" had injuries not plagued them (and I won't be surprised if in the years well after retirement Murray starts to let on how bad his back, or hip, was in a few of the big matches he lost) but then again maybe injury free their careers might've gone like Roddick and further achievements wouldn't have transpired, regardless...
Players such as Courier, Wawrinka, Pat Rafter, Michael Stich, Kafelnikov, et-al end up with their careers being probably about right, sometimes slightly overachieving in some ways.
Courier is basically the poster boy for peaking at exactly the right time to cash in, smack bang in the changing of the guard space between a number of top players dropping off and the flourishing of Sampras, along with Agassi maturing. Transplant one or two of the top grinders (the aforementioned Berdych for example) from the last 15 years into the years when Courier achieved the most and they likely end up having Courier's career. Transplant Courier's best years to 2008-2012 and he never wins a slam, only makes 1, 2 at a stretch, slam finals and gets to a maximum ranking of world #5. He was a hard working grinder who proved that ugly consistency and a strong mentality absolutely can win a lot of tennis matches but would he have consistently beat Fedalovic? You're having a laugh, and almost certainly didn't sit through any of his matches when he was in his prime, if you think so.
Murray belongs alongside Becker and Edberg. If not alongside then just a notch below.