Who is the better hard courter: Andrew Barron Murray or Stanislas Wawrinka?
- Thread starter hipolymer
- Start date
The_18th_Slam
Hall of Fame
Murray.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Andrew Barron Murray.
N
nowhereman
Guest
The Muzziah.
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
Not sure if intentional, but it's spelled 'Maury' FYI.
Moirai
[moi-ruh]
noun, plural Moirai
[moi-rahy]
1.
Classical Mythology.
- the personification of fate.
DreddyTennis45
Hall of Fame
Peak agressive Murray (2012-13) would be a handful for Wawrinka but pusher, defensive Murray (2014-present) would be a sitting duck
Clearly Murray. Remember finals percentages is a totally misleading statistic. It is the same as saying that it is better to lose a semi-final than win it, for example Murray's 1-6 hard court slam record 17%. If, instead of making those 6 finals he lost, he instead lost in the semi-finals - then he would be on 1-0 ie 100%. Hence it is better to lose a semi-final than win it.
hipolymer
Hall of Fame
I never mentioned a final percentage, I merely included the finals because making a slam final is still an accomplishment
Great. Apologies - I stand corrected. I was reacting to a lot of posts I see here that someone's slam runner-ups a negative thing - when actually they are an achievement (just a lesser achievement than winning the tournament)
hipolymer
Hall of Fame
Wawrinka beat Murray in 2013 US Open 6-4 6-3 6-2 though
hipolymer
Hall of Fame
We're not arguing about overall, only their hard court resumes.
6august
Hall of Fame
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Wawrinka has 2 HC slams, Murray has one..
Sir Andrew still greater considering his finals, MS1000....
The Green Mile
Bionic Poster
That would be Sir Andy Murray.
6august
Hall of Fame
So you admit Djoker greater than Pistole on hard?
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
I guess it comes down to how much you personally value the extra finals/MS titles as opposed to just GS titles. They are close though.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Wouldn't doubt it...
The Green Mile
Bionic Poster
I know people like to be consistent with their analysis/picks or whatever it is, and people love to pick you up on it, but generally some perspective is always needed.
6august
Hall of Fame
It's OK
Because I myself think atm Nole and Pete are even on hard though Nole has 1 more Slam.
There's a huge gap between a Slam winner and a Slam-less player but when both are multiple Slam winners (especially for double-digit Slam like Nole and Pete) then +/- 1 Slam becomes much less important.
Matthew Lee
Professional
Nishikori 
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
Stan's 2014 AO alone elevates him above Murray.
DreddyTennis45
Hall of Fame
Murray had back problems then. Wasnt 100% fit and underwent surgery after
D
Deleted member 735320
Guest
Honestly the one thing with tennis is it is never present but always the past. Sure Andy won Wimbledon and Olympics but then he lost a few since then. Stan won in NY but could lose early in St. Petersburg tomorrow.The news will stop talking about Stan being a 3 major winner and start talking about his inconsistency. Honestly who cares? He is and forever will be the 2014 AUSSIE, 2015 FRENCH and 2016 US winner. Likewise Andy is the 2012 & 16 Olympic gold medalist; 2013 & 2016 Wimbledon and 2012 US champion, (I think that's right) They just need to play the matches and the H2H records and trophies will determine who is better.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
I'm sorry but 2>1 and that's all that matters.
slatersleuth
Banned
It is a tough choice. 2 slams to 1 is a huge difference. Wawrinka also has a superior peak level IMO. Also while I normally would look at reaching so many extra hard court slam finals as only a positive, reaching that many and losing so many looks bad, especialy when compared to someone who won each time he made it (even if only twice) and is 3-0 in slam finals in general. On the flip side Murray has so many more Masters, slam finals, etc...You could pick either and not be wrong.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
