Who will be greater: Thiem or Murray?

Who will end up as a greater player?

  • Total voters
    78
  • Poll closed .
Krish872007 said:
I guess Cilic and Stan would be the closest comparables to Thiem from that list - probably worth seeing how far Thiem goes in thenext few years and if he is able to elevate his game to new heights
Click to expand...
It may be recency bias, but I think that at the end of 2021, Thiem will be world number 1, and Medvedev will be in the top 3.
 
Amritia said:
Ooh that's a close one. Aussies have better record at cricket to be fair. Think they've got a slightly better rugby record too. Have Rod Laver so ahead on tennis as well.
Click to expand...

So they're marginally better at a few sports, whereas the UK is better at everything else.

Agreed upon by all objective sports observers.
 
New Rule:

No more GB vs Australia sporting comparisons in this thread.

The only country comparison allowed is GB vs Austria.
^Specifically on the grounds of who is greater out of their last 2 slam champions.
 
The big concern regarding Thiem is that he's lost most of the "big" finals he's played in.

He's played in 4 GS finals and lost 3 of them (won one of them by the skin of his teeth off a major choke from Zverev)

He's played in 2 WTF finals and lost them both

He's played in 3 Masters finals and lost 2 of them (he also lost in the SF 3 other times)
 
Also, besides slams, Thiem has a lot of other categories to catch up to Murray on:

- Murray has 14 Masters, Thiem currently only has 1
- Murray has 2 Olympic Golds, Thiem has 0
- Murray has a 77% career win percentage, Thiem is currently at 66%
- Murray has 46 career titles, Thiem is currently at 17
- Murray made the finals at all four slams, Thiem has yet to make it past R16 at Wimbledon

Now, these are the categories I think Thiem will pass Murray in:

- Slams: Thiem is a threat at 3 of the slams, so I think it would be a dissapointment if he doesn't win more than 3 majors before he retires
- YEN1: Thiem should be YEN1 at least once in his career just like Murray
- Weeks at N1: Murray has 41, a very attainable number for Thiem if he keeps this up and Djokodal begin gradually slowing down
- WTF: Murray has 1, Thiem should at least win this one once as well given his level of play there so far
 
I don’t even like Murray but Thiem can win 10 slams and still not be on his level
 
clout said:
Also, besides slams, Thiem has a lot of other categories to catch up to Murray on:

- Murray has 14 Masters, Thiem currently only has 1
- Murray has 2 Olympic Golds, Thiem has 0
- Murray has a 77% career win percentage, Thiem is currently at 66%
- Murray has 46 career titles, Thiem is currently at 17
- Murray made the finals at all four slams, Thiem has yet to make it past R16 at Wimbledon

Now, these are the categories I think Thiem will pass Murray in:

- Slams: Thiem is a threat at 3 of the slams, so I think it would be a dissapointment if he doesn't win more than 3 majors before he retires
- YEN1: Thiem should be YEN1 at least once in his career just like Murray
- Weeks at N1: Murray has 41, a very attainable number for Thiem if he keeps this up and Djokodal begin gradually slowing down
- WTF: Murray has 1, Thiem should at least win this one once as well given his level of play there so far
Click to expand...
Good post.
Thiem has a lot of work to do.
But I think over the next 5 years, he will be the most successful player. I see him winning 5 more Slams and 10 Masters, with quite a bit of time at World number 1.
 
Better comparison would be with Wawrinka. Murray was in countless major finals, Davis Cup and gold metal champ, and of course a former number 1.
 
Amritia said:
Good post.
Thiem has a lot of work to do.
But I think over the next 5 years, he will be the most successful player. I see him winning 5 more Slams and 10 Masters, with quite a bit of time at World number 1.
Click to expand...

So you think the Big 3 will all drop out of contention in the next 5 years?
 
Timmy isn't gonna be in his prime for 5 more years lol. 3 at most. He's gotta maximize the next 2 years, hold off the NextGen, and kick Fedalovic butt at the Slams.
 
No matter what Thiem does he will be dogged as a guy that won “cheap slams” in post Big 3 era. Murray’s huge edge at M1000 is obviously a factor too.
As of now, Thiem needs to win more darn titles before he gets compared to greats like Murray.
 
Mainad said:
So you think the Big 3 will all drop out of contention in the next 5 years?
Click to expand...
No I don't think they'll drop out of contention, I just think over the next 5 years Thiem can average 1 slam a year. I think that will be more than anyone else in the next 5 years.
 
Amritia said:
There's two ways to approach this:

1/ Firstly, who will achieve more in their career when both retired? Murray unlikely to add to tally, while Thiem who just turned 27 should be at peak level for 5+ years. Athletes these days are tending to both peak and decline later, so I wouldn't put too much importance on the fact Murray had achieved more at the age of 27.
Current stats: Murray 3 slams + 46 titles, Thiem 1 slam + 17 titles.

2/ Who will have reached a higher level? Murray on grass and Thiem on clay are relatively obvious, so perhaps consider who would have reached a higher level on hard courts? Given how powerful Thiem's game is, could one argue that at his absolute best he'd be able to blast Murray off court (like how Stan beat Murray in USO 2010 & 2013). Both players have great foot speed, but Murray is slightly more intelligent at anticipating where to move. Murray also has more variety, would that give him the edge over Thiem's power?
Click to expand...
Murray has 3 Majors an OG and 14 m1000s.
Thiem has 1 major when the 2 GOATS were not playing 1 m1000 title. He is 27.

As much as i like Thiem he is never going to get close to Murrays career.
 
Thiem is more comparable to Roddick than to Murray. And Roddick for now is still ahead.

Even in terms of competition, I'd say that Roddick was more screwed than Thiem.
 
Muzza.
Thiem would still be Slamless if Zverev didn't start serving WTA serves.
It seems like the only way he can win big finals is if his opponent chokes even harder than him. That makes me doubt if he will even get to 3 Slams to begin with.
 
Apollo17 said:
Muzza.
Thiem would still be Slamless if Zverev didn't start serving WTA serves.
It seems like the only way he can win big finals is if his opponent chokes even harder than him. That makes me doubt if he will even get to 3 Slams to begin with.
Click to expand...
This.

What makes people think Thiem will easily keep the Next Gen at bay when he has already lost big finals to them and was damn close to losing a slam final too?
 
Last edited:
mike danny said:
This.

What makes people think Thiem will easily keep the Next Gen at bay when he has already lost big finals to them and was damn close to losing a slam final too?
Click to expand...
Because he's better than them.
He was injured against Zverev, and still managed to pull off the win. He lost to Tsitsi and Med in WTF finals, but indoor hard with low bounce isn't his strongest suit; on outdoor hard he would beat both of them.
Showed great resilience from 4-0 down in final set TB vs Djokovic in WTF.

Also, he was fatigued in the AO final this year. He had a much tougher draw than anyone, having to face Nadal in QF, and had a day less rest before the final compared to Djokovic, was 2 sets to 1 up, and then said he felt drained.
 
Apollo17 said:
Thiem would still be Slamless if Zverev didn't start serving WTA serves.
Click to expand...
Zverev’s serving wasn’t what made him
lose the final. His choking was the issue. Even had he served for the match in the third set, he wasn’t getting across the finish line. Thiem would still have choked marginally less and taken the title.
 
thiem's got a ways to go. needs at least 1 wimbledon title, and time at #1 would be pretty necessary too. could get there but a lot of work to be done.
 
Amritia said:
Because he's better than them.
He was injured against Zverev, and still managed to pull off the win. He lost to Tsitsi and Med in WTF finals, but indoor hard with low bounce isn't his strongest suit; on outdoor hard he would beat both of them.
Showed great resilience from 4-0 down in final set TB vs Djokovic in WTF.

Also, he was fatigued in the AO final this year. He had a much tougher draw than anyone, having to face Nadal in QF, and had a day less rest before the final compared to Djokovic, was 2 sets to 1 up, and then said he felt drained.
Click to expand...
I mean, he got straight setted by Zverev in a clay Masters final, so I really wouldn't trust him to beat Tsitsi or Meddy in a big final on outdoor hard either. And he beat Big 3 ( even if they were in their post prime versions ) multiple times indoors, so the surface really shouldn't be used as an excuse for him falling short in both of his WTF finals.
Not to mention, your whole post seems to be about finding excuses for all of his shortcomings in big finals.
 
Amritia said:
There's two ways to approach this:

1/ Firstly, who will achieve more in their career when both retired? Murray unlikely to add to tally, while Thiem who just turned 27 should be at peak level for 5+ years. Athletes these days are tending to both peak and decline later, so I wouldn't put too much importance on the fact Murray had achieved more at the age of 27.
Current stats: Murray 3 slams + 46 titles, Thiem 1 slam + 17 titles.

2/ Who will have reached a higher level? Murray on grass and Thiem on clay are relatively obvious, so perhaps consider who would have reached a higher level on hard courts? Given how powerful Thiem's game is, could one argue that at his absolute best he'd be able to blast Murray off court (like how Stan beat Murray in USO 2010 & 2013). Both players have great foot speed, but Murray is slightly more intelligent at anticipating where to move. Murray also has more variety, would that give him the edge over Thiem's power?
Click to expand...

Murray developed late on the dirt, and his peak clay game is not far from Thiem's actually(the difference is much lesser than it is on grass). Unfortunately for Andy, his physical decline stopped his further clay court rise.
 
skaj said:
Murray developed late on the dirt, and his peak clay game is not far from Thiem's actually(the difference is much lesser than it is on grass). Unfortunately for Andy, his physical decline stopped his further clay court rise.
Click to expand...
I’ve not seen Murray on clay play at the level Thiem did when he beat Nadal at Madrid 2017.
Nadal was in superb form at the time (unlike his 2015 and 2016 clay losses to Murray).

Djokovic was also 3 slams unbeaten before Thiem beat him in RG 2019 SF in 5 sets. Murray wouldn’t have done that imo.
 
Thiem has the luxury of gaining confidence against the big 3 by playing older versions of them. Murray was beaten into submission so many times from his early years to his prime that he’ll never have the self belief Thiem has against them. Despite that, Murray still had success against them and a stellar career.
 
Thiem. But with choking habits he would find it difficult to surpass Murray. Yet he is contender at 3/4 Slams, he can win few masters and certainly he has chance to become #1. Big three gonna fall soon - so I vote for him.
 
Amritia said:
There's two ways to approach this:

1/ Firstly, who will achieve more in their career when both retired? Murray unlikely to add to tally, while Thiem who just turned 27 should be at peak level for 5+ years. Athletes these days are tending to both peak and decline later, so I wouldn't put too much importance on the fact Murray had achieved more at the age of 27.
Current stats: Murray 3 slams + 46 titles, Thiem 1 slam + 17 titles.

2/ Who will have reached a higher level? Murray on grass and Thiem on clay are relatively obvious, so perhaps consider who would have reached a higher level on hard courts? Given how powerful Thiem's game is, could one argue that at his absolute best he'd be able to blast Murray off court (like how Stan beat Murray in USO 2010 & 2013). Both players have great foot speed, but Murray is slightly more intelligent at anticipating where to move. Murray also has more variety, would that give him the edge over Thiem's power?
Click to expand...

Thiem has higher peak everywhere except grass. It's just obvious. He was 2-1 up against Novak in AO final. Murray lost all finals in 3-4 sets.
 
D.Nalby12 said:
Thiem has higher peak everywhere except grass. It's just obvious. He was 2-1 up against Novak in AO final. Murray lost all finals in 3-4 sets.
Click to expand...

The Djokovic Murray faced was 9000 times better lol.
Okay not that much but that virtual bagel was many levels worse indeed, Murray wishes he faced such wobblovic.

Peak Murray beats peak Thiem everywhere lol. (It's close on clay but Thiem is guaranteed to choke if they are playing a final.)
 
Thiem also got tired when 2 sets to 1 up because he had 2 long QF and SF vs Rafa and Zverev. Also had a day less break for final than Nole.

But it’s also true that Murray’s AO finals vs Novak was him at his peak- 2011, 2013, 2015, 2016.
 
AnOctorokForDinner said:
The Djokovic Murray faced was 9000 times better lol.
Okay not that much but that virtual bagel was many levels worse indeed, Murray wishes he faced such wobblovic.

Peak Murray beats peak Thiem everywhere lol. (It's close on clay but Thiem is guaranteed to choke if they are playing a final.)
Click to expand...

Weapon less Murray ain't beating peak Thiem anywhere except for grass. Match will be on Thiem' racket - he has got really big game. Not much as Stan Wawrinka but he has better movement, better forehand. So Peak wise he is with Wawrinka IMO. A more consistent Wawrinka I'd day.
 
Amritia said:
Thiem also got tired when 2 sets to 1 up because he had 2 long QF and SF vs Rafa and Zverev. Also had a day less break for final than Nole.

But it’s also true that Murray’s AO finals vs Novak was him at his peak- 2011, 2013, 2015, 2016.
Click to expand...

2013 / 2015 form wasn't that special. That Novak was beatable - as shown by Wawrinka.

I give you 2011/2016 Version - he was near unbeatable.
 
D.Nalby12 said:
2013 / 2015 form wasn't that special. That Novak was beatable - as shown by Wawrinka.

I give you 2011/2016 Version - he was near unbeatable.
Click to expand...
True. Murray will be really disappointed with both those efforts.
However Thiem has never found the consistency Murray had for so long. Next year is big for him.
 
AnOctorokForDinner said:
The Djokovic Murray faced was 9000 times better lol.
Okay not that much but that virtual bagel was many levels worse indeed, Murray wishes he faced such wobblovic.

Peak Murray beats peak Thiem everywhere lol. (It's close on clay but Thiem is guaranteed to choke if they are playing a final.)
Click to expand...

They have met 4 times but, with the possible exception of 2015, neither could be said to have been at their peak. Murray beat Thiem twice (both on hardcourt) in 2014-15 while Thiem won their last 2 matches in 2017-19 (a close 3 setter on clay and a straight set win on hardcourt in their last meeting) but, of course, they were against broken hip Murray.
 
D.Nalby12 said:
In beginning of 2020 Novak was in red hot form - some of the best I've seen him playing.
Click to expand...
Not really. He was good enough at the ATP Cup, I guess, but he played some sub-par tennis for parts of that AO final. Can't see any of 2011-2016/2019 AO Djokovic doing that, except for 2015 in that horrid match with Wawrinka, but even then he never dipped that far.
 
Murray definitely reached his prime far quicker than Thiem.

Murray reached his first Grand Slam final aged 21, won his first Masters 1000 aged 21, and won his first Grand Slam title aged 25.

Thiem really started playing world class tennis in 2017, aged 23, when he beat Nadal in ATP Rome, and crushed a subpar Djokovic in the RG QF.
He reached his first Grand Slam final aged 24, won his only Masters 1000 aged 25, and won his first Grand Slam after just turning 27.

There’s a clear pattern emerging of Thiem being 2 years behind Murray in terms of progression by age.
 
Breakpointerer said:
Literally:(
Click to expand...
cf-terrysilver1.gif
 
D.Nalby12 said:
Thiem has higher peak everywhere except grass. It's just obvious. He was 2-1 up against Novak in AO final. Murray lost all finals in 3-4 sets.
Click to expand...

Murray faced significantly better versions of Novak at the AO.
Its actually the other way around.
Murray has a higher peak than Thiem except on clay.
 
D.Nalby12 said:
Weapon less Murray ain't beating peak Thiem anywhere except for grass. Match will be on Thiem' racket - he has got really big game. Not much as Stan Wawrinka but he has better movement, better forehand. So Peak wise he is with Wawrinka IMO. A more consistent Wawrinka I'd day.
Click to expand...

nope. Thiem's FH isn't better than stan's FH. In fact, Stan's is better peak to peak. He also doesn't need to stand back as much as Thiem does.
There's also the tiny little matter of Stan peaking at the biggest moments/stages and Thiem not doing well in those.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

clout
  • Poll Poll
Better clay courter: Thiem or Murray?
2 3
Replies
124
Views
4K
AnOctorokForDinner
AnOctorokForDinner
aman92
  • Poll Poll
Peak Murray vs Peak Medvedev on Hard Courts - who wins?
2
Replies
76
Views
3K
Djokodalerer31
Djokodalerer31
clout
  • Poll Poll
Better career: Thiem or Soderling?
Replies
25
Views
959
HetTheGreaterer
HetTheGreaterer
La Grande
  • Poll Poll
Who is better: Dominic Thiem or David Goffin?
Replies
35
Views
3K
okdude1992
okdude1992
BGod
  • Poll Poll
Greater Grass Court Player? Murray vs. Nadal
9 10 11
Replies
528
Views
14K
NatF
NatF
Back
Top