Who will end with more slams Wawrinka or Murray (or same)

Who ends up with more slams

  • Wawrinka

  • Murray

  • tied

Results are only viewable after voting.
slatersleuth

slatersleuth

Banned
This is an interesting question to ponder at this point. I honestly think Wawrinka will end up with more. He has won 3 slams in the last 3 years vs Murray only winning 1 in the last 3 years. So going forward I think he is more likely to win future slams than Murray. I see Wawrinka ending up anywhere from 4 to 6 and Murray at 3 or 4.
 
Deanjam said:
Went with Murray. He's more consistent at getting to finals. If Djoker drops off Murray can clean up.
Click to expand...

Murray has proven to be very beatable in slam finals, he doesnt even have to be playing Djokovic. Who would you favor in a hypothetical slam final between Wawrinka and Murray? Frankly if you say Murray you would be an idiot.
 
Probably Murray. He'll nab a few "Thank god I don't have to play Nadal, Federer, Nole" slams. Stan's level is to up and down. One week he'll play lights out. The next he plays like a challenger
 
Mainad said:
Oh really? I wasn't aware he has been losing to anybody other than Djokovic or Federer in Slam finals! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

He hasnt played anyone other than Djokovic or Federer other than Raonic once, so pretty hard to lose to someone else when he isnt even playing them. In a scenario Djokovic really declines faster than Murray (unlikely IMO when they are the same age and neither is a true late bloomer) Murray would be playing people other than Fedal and Djokovic in slam finals for the first time, and based on his performance in slam finals thus far others would have a decent shot of beating him too. Wawrinka would very likely beat him in a slam final if they should ever meet at that stage. Wawrinka played only Djokovic and Nadal in slam finals and is 3-0. Murray against similar caliber opposition is 3-8.
 
If Rafa remains healthy, then starting in 2017 he would have found his form again, and unfortunately for Stan, Andy & their respective fans, they will end up with 3 career slams each. Excellent for Stan but horrible for Andy considering the amount of finals and good results he's had in the past 5+ years.

Their destiny is depending on Rafa.
 
nadalfan2013 said:
If Rafa remains healthy, then starting in 2017 he would have found his form again, and unfortunately for Stan, Andy & their respective fans, they will end up with 3 career slams each. Excellent for Stan but horrible for Andy considering the amount of finals and good results he's had in the past 5+ years.

Their destiny is depending on Rafa.
Click to expand...

Nadal is done. Maybe 1 final French at best.
 
nadalfan2013 said:
If Rafa remains healthy, then starting in 2017 he would have found his form again, and unfortunately for Stan, Andy & their respective fans, they will end up with 3 career slams each. Excellent for Stan but horrible for Andy considering the amount of finals and good results he's had in the past 5+ years.

Their destiny is depending on Rafa.
Click to expand...
How many more slams do you think Nadal will win.
 
slatersleuth said:
He hasnt played anyone other than Djokovic or Federer other than Raonic once, so pretty hard to lose to someone else when he isnt even playing them. In a scenario Djokovic really declines faster than Murray (unlikely IMO when they are the same age and neither is a true late bloomer) Murray would be playing people other than Fedal and Djokovic in slam finals for the first time, and based on his performance in slam finals thus far others would have a decent shot of beating him too. Wawrinka would very likely beat him in a slam final if they should ever meet at that stage. Wawrinka played only Djokovic and Nadal in slam finals and is 3-0. Murray against similar caliber opposition is 3-8.
Click to expand...
So they have both won the same number of times then, and Murray is better at giving himself opportunities to win more.
 
Mainad said:
Oh really? I wasn't aware he has been losing to anybody other than Djokovic or Federer in Slam finals! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
haha thats exactly what I was thinking when reading it. Some people really do have some strange arguments.

"Murray has proven to be very beatable in slam finals, he doesnt even have to be playing Djokovic."

We should be laughing at him for being beaten by the greatest player there has ever been.
 
cockneyDjoker said:
This is such a strong era. Both Murray and Wawrinka would both win 6+ slams in most other eras. As far as your question goes I think Murray wins 2 more slams and 1 more for Wawrinka.
Click to expand...
You reaffirming that this era is strong in every comment you post doesn't make it true.
 
Flint said:
So they have both won the same number of times then, and Murray is better at giving himself opportunities to win more.
Click to expand...

Yes career wise you are right. However the reason I think Stan will end up with more is the last 3 years he has won 3 slams, and Murray only 1. He is winning more recently. Also in the last 3 years starting from the 2013 U.S Open you have slam finals (4 to 3 for Murray), slam semis (7 to 6 for Wawrinka) so Wawrinka is doing just as well in recent times which is the best barometer going forward IMO at reaching the final stages of events, in addition to being much better winning when he gets there. Both are already "old" players so no difference there, Wawrinka is only 2 years older but more of a late bloomer with less mileage on his body due to his frequent tanking and fewer years of being a top player and playing that number of matches a year.
 
cockneyDjoker said:
This is such a strong era. Both Murray and Wawrinka would both win 6+ slams in most other eras. As far as your question goes I think Murray wins 2 more slams and 1 more for Wawrinka.
Click to expand...

Wawrinka's played about 3 good matches in his career - was a choking chump the other 99% of the time. Not sure how he acquires the three additional slams...

In fact, dude lost his first 27 sets to Nadal.

What a bad@ss
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't be surprised with Wawrinka ending career with more Slam titles than Murray. Murray could have won 5-6 Slams by now but lost too many Slam finals.
 
Antonio Puente said:
Wawrinka's played about 3 good matches in his career - was a choking chump the other 99% of the time. Not sure how he acquires the three additional slams...
Click to expand...
He reached the SF the last few years of the US open only losing to either Djokovic or Federer. I think he could sneak another Us open and another French open.

I doubt he would win Wimbledon in any era.
 
cockneyDjoker said:
He reached the SF the last few years of the US open only losing to either Djokovic or Federer. I think he could sneak another Us open and another French open.

I doubt he would win Wimbledon in any era.
Click to expand...

I see. We're only talking the past 2.5 years.

Well yes, in this 2.5 year era, Stan's Borg and Sampras combined.
 
slatersleuth said:
He hasnt played anyone other than Djokovic or Federer other than Raonic once, so pretty hard to lose to someone else when he isnt even playing them. In a scenario Djokovic really declines faster than Murray (unlikely IMO when they are the same age and neither is a true late bloomer) Murray would be playing people other than Fedal and Djokovic in slam finals for the first time, and based on his performance in slam finals thus far others would have a decent shot of beating him too. Wawrinka would very likely beat him in a slam final if they should ever meet at that stage.
Click to expand...

That remains to be seen. Murray beat Wawrinka this year in the semis at RG where Wawrinka was defending champion so, if Murray is at the top of his game, it's by no means a given.

slatersleuth said:
Wawrinka played only Djokovic and Nadal in slam finals and is 3-0. Murray against similar caliber opposition is 3-8.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the -8 was against Federer or Djokovic, 2 of the ATGs of this era. We have yet to see anybody else beat him in a Slam final or even be good enough to meet him there.
 
Mainad said:
That remains to be seen. Murray beat Wawrinka this year in the semis at RG where Wawrinka was defending champion so, if Murray is at the top of his game, it's by no means a given.
Click to expand...

That was a semi, not a final. Murray in fact has a better W-L ratio in slam semis than Wawrinka I believe. He obviously has a far worse one in slam finals, hence had they met in the final it is unlikely the same outcome would have occured.

Yes, but the -8 was against Federer or Djokovic, 2 of the ATGs of this era. We have yet to see anybody else beat him in a Slam final or even be good enough to meet him there.
Click to expand...

I acknowledge who Murray played, but as I already mentioned Wawrinka in going 3-0 in slam finals beat Djokovic twice and Nadal once. So he played players of the same caliber in those rounds as Murray, so no advantage there.
 
Murray could vulture another Wimbledon and an AO title if he avoids Novak and Fed. However he needs to avoid Wawrinka too (if he bothers to show up)

Murray is quite lucky he's played in a weak era and avoided Fed for his W/USO titles.
 
I really dont know. Wawrinka beats the only big-name player who has stopped Murray winning more slams but Murray is more consistant at beating everyone else. Lets also not forget that Murray made 3 of the 4 finals this year and beat Wawrinka in the one that suprised people the most. French open. You would have to favour him at Australia/Wimbledon too so i think ill say Murray.
 
Terenigma said:
I really dont know. Wawrinka beats the only big-name player who has stopped Murray winning more slams but Murray is more consistant at beating everyone else. Lets also not forget that Murray made 3 of the 4 finals this year and beat Wawrinka in the one that suprised people the most. French open. You would have to favour him at Australia/Wimbledon too so i think ill say Murray.
Click to expand...

Is really Murray more consistent beating everyone but Djokovic these days? Wawrinka has won 3 of the last 4 matches vs Murray himself, and their career head to head is almost tied even with Wawrinka's tiny short prime (so far). Both have lost to Del Potro once this year, but Murray seems more prone to being overpowered by Del Potro than Stan is. Wawrinka has atleast beaten Federer in recent times, I dont even remember the last time Murray did but it has been forever. Wawrinka has won most of his recent meetings with Nadal, Murray has won alot of his recent with Nadal too. Who exactly does Murray do better against today? Atleast of people who matter.

I dont favor Murray more than Wawrinka at the Australian Open. Wawrinka seems much more likely to beat Djokovic there than Murray is, and both rarely lose to anyone else in recent years there, so I would give Stan more chance of winning there again. The only place I give Murray a higher likelihood of actually winning the title right now (not just going deep) is Wimbledon.
 
Wawrinka got lucky not to play Roger in 2 of his winning slams and in the other was a clearly disadvantaged Federer who had to play 3 straight days.
Same for Murray who doesn't ever played Federer at all at his 3 Slam wins.
Murray is more likely to win Slams if Djokovic declines heavily. Wawrinka could zone out a Slam here and there as always, remember he lost to Raonic, an no-BH Del Potro this year and he was so close to lose to Evans recently.
KINGROGER said:
However he needs to avoid Wawrinka too (if he bothers to show up)
Click to expand...
Yes, like in Roland Garros this year, right?
 
Murray has the consistency so got to go with him. I cannot see him finishing with just 3 slams

That said, there really hasn't been a career like stans. Would not be surprised if he's cooked for his career or wins 2 next year
 
Fedeonic said:
Wawrinka got lucky not to play Roger in 2 of his winning slams and in the other was a clearly disadvantaged Federer who had to play 3 straight days.
Same for Murray who doesn't ever played Federer at all at his 3 Slam wins.
Murray is more likely to win Slams if Djokovic declines heavily. Wawrinka could zone out a Slam here and there as always, remember he lost to Raonic, an no-BH Del Potro this year and he was so close to lose to Evans recently.

Yes, like in Roland Garros this year, right?
Click to expand...
As I said (if he shows up) 2015 Wawrinka wins that in straights.

Murray got lucky at W this year too. Easy win for Fed in the F if he wasn't injured and doesn't choke vs Raonic.
 
duaneeo said:
If Djokovic drops off, and if Federer and Nadal remain away or off their games, and if Wawrinka isn't on the other side of the net, and if he's not facing a confident Dimitrov, Anderson, or Nishikori, Murray can clean up.
Click to expand...

Yeah on no planet will Murray ever be a dominant player, with or without Djokovic. Neither will Wawrinka of course, but nobody suggests that of Wawrinka anyway while some, as this thread shows again, foolishly propose that about Murray. You take Djokovic out in the past, and while Murray might have had brief periods at #1 (very brief as he wasnt often in his career #2 to only Djokovic) there is never a time he would have been close to dominant. He even loses every match he plays to a mid 30s Federer.
 
Fedeonic said:
Wawrinka got lucky not to play Roger in 2 of his winning slams and in the other was a clearly disadvantaged Federer who had to play 3 straight days.
Same for Murray who doesn't ever played Federer at all at his 3 Slam wins.
Click to expand...

This part of your post is silly.

2014 Australian Open- Wawrinka beat Djokovic who is the obvious guy to beat and toughest foe here, not Federer. Regardless if you think Federer would have beaten Wawrinka or not (I think Stan would have won) he wasnt lucky to not play him when Federer at that stage of his career was super unlikely to make an Australian Open final anyway (last one was 2010) with people like Djokovic and Nadal almost certain to beat Federer if they played, and many others like Murray, Wawrinka, Tsonga, with a good chance. Keep in mind Federer was the 7th seed so avoiding both Nadal and Djokovic to reach the final would be nearly impossible, and the only way he would have even made the final would be to play neither.

2015 French Open- Yeah like an old Federer was ever going to be a threat to win Roland Garros. Wawrinka won their encounter easily, so obviously wasnt lucky, and if you think a fully fresh Federer wins their match here you are utterly delusional.

2016 U.S Open- Given the year he was having I doubt Federer was ever going to be a big factor this time around if he played the Open. He might have had a decent shot to beat Stan if they played anyway given the surface and the match up, but he wouldnt have likely even reached that far.


Murray you may have more of a point on but:

2012 U.S Open- Federer found a way to lose badly to Clown-dych of all people. Hardly a worthy champion. Murray also successfully beat Djokovic who was clearly the guy to beat on hard courts by now, not Federer.

2013 Wimbledon- Federer was in terrible form all of 2013. I very much doubt he beats Murray here, or even reaches him.
 
csmoove899 said:
You know it's a weak era when Andy Murray is winning multiple slams.
Click to expand...

I think Murray could win 3-4 slams in another of eras. Not all of them, there are some he probably wins only 1 or 2, but alot. Kafelnikov who is a far less talented player won 2 for instance. However if he wins more than 4, I would agree, it shows a weak era. He just doesnt have a spectacular enough level he should be winning anymore than that.
 
slatersleuth said:
2014 Australian Open- Wawrinka beat Djokovic who is the obvious guy to beat and toughest foe here, not Federer. Regardless if you think Federer would have beaten Wawrinka or not (I think Stan would have won) he wasnt lucky to not play him when Federer at that stage of his career was super unlikely to make an Australian Open final anyway (last one was 2010) with people like Djokovic and Nadal almost certain to beat Federer if they played, and many others like Murray, Wawrinka, Tsonga, with a good chance. Keep in mind Federer was the 7th seed so avoiding both Nadal and Djokovic to reach the final would be nearly impossible, and the only way he would have even made the final would be to play neither.
Click to expand...
Federer was in imperious form that AO, assuming Dimitrov pulled the upset against Nadal (at that time, I didn't expect Roger to beat Rafa), Grigor would have to play his own upgraded version, which never came close to beating. Then Federer enters the final with full of confidence, and Wawrinka isn't exactly the type of player who can be hitting endless shots like Nadal or Djokovic or tracking down every single ball from every single corner of the court, Stan can outhit Roger easily, but for an overagressive version of Federer like the one of the US Open 2015, it'd have been a beatdown. In the matches of Tsonga and Murray, he came to the net like 15 times per set. That was some Fedbergesque tactics, Stan suffers a lot when not having time to set up his shots.
I can tell you one more thing, Federer was at that time 10-0 against Stan on hard, and he just came close to beat Roger in WTF 2014 with an appearance of Broken Backerer and still couldn't convert 4 MPs, 3 on Wawrinka's serve. That's why Stan only beat Roger on clay, where he can set up his shots.
 
Murray should win a couple more, Stan is an unknown quantity whether he turns up at another Slam or not. (usually once a year, but no guarantees).
 
KINGROGER said:
As I said (if he shows up) 2015 Wawrinka wins that in straights.

Murray got lucky at W this year too. Easy win for Fed in the F if he wasn't injured and doesn't choke vs Raonic.
Click to expand...

How long are you going to say that for? Federer had a slim chance to beat Murray and that's only if he was serving well.
 
This is just STUPID - Murray has never even won a slam yet ! :mad::mad::mad:

He certainly won't ever even win a MINOR Slam like Wimbledon....

And Stan has already won Wimbledon twice !

Winning the Olympics once means nothing !

How can anybody compare a nobody like Murray to a God like Stan.

Ridiculous people ! :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
 
cockneyDjoker said:
How many more slams do you think Nadal will win.
Click to expand...
None. Post WADA he looks shriveled, he is balding, and without "help" he can't recover anymore. Like photocopying a photocopy, he is just going to get fainter and fainter and fainter.....
 
Wawrinka will end up with more slams than Murray, AND he will just take Murray's grand slam trophies off him leaving him with nothing, like Genghis Khan
 
Better player overall. Which he is.

I know, Stan just beat Novak so now he's the only one that can win around here. He'll lose to Raonic or someone in Melbourne and he'll be back to being another useless mug like the rest.

Honestly, this place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Z
Who will win more slams..Murray or Wawrinka?
Replies
13
Views
966
roysid
roysid
T
Will Wawrinka win more slams than Murray?
2
Replies
90
Views
7K
-NN-
-NN-
N
  • Poll Poll
How many slams will Murray end up with
Replies
22
Views
3K
DSH
DSH
mike danny
Current Big 3 streak, how long will it last and who will end it?
Replies
29
Views
1K
roysid
roysid
deacsyoga
If Wawrinka wins a 4th slam before Murray
Replies
2
Views
426
r2473
r2473
Back
Top