The very firm & objective reason why Wawrinka cannot be called greater than Murray
In addition to the obvious aspects of Murray having reached the Autralian Open final 5 times and losing to who is without question the greatest hard courter our game has seen, each occasion. Winning 12 Masters 1000 titles and 2 Olympic Gold medals. There is the factor of doing what Stan will never be able to do and that's win on a specialised surface like grass.
Grass is a very unique surface, even in today's game, as with the way balls react after an opponent slices it or hits a flat shot at you. So Wawrinka would never be able to adopt the style of game he has on other surfaces, on grass surfaces. Chipping the ball back on return, standing far back behind the baseline and taking swings at the ball just wouldn't work. Not with the ball bouncing at your knee caps. This is afterall what Wawrinka does, particularly in return games where he cannot gain the upper edge in the rally (Or stay neutral) with ease, from possessing a good or even reasonable return.
The point is Murray is more capable across a wide range of surfaces and that has been proven by his results on Hard, Grass and even Clay. Or wait, does clay not count because he hasn't won the French, but has beaten Wawrinka at the semi final stage there, Djokovic in the Rome Masters final and Nadal in the Madrid?
Other reasons are one of the keys to being great and achieving in the game is consistency. Wawrinka has none of it. Why? Because he can only play to the level he does occasionally in majors, which is good enough to beat the very elite, when he is FEELING PERFECT.
This shows his game isn't able to stand the test of adversity. Players with great games can stand the test of adversity. When Wawrinka is slightly bothered mentally, he can't play flawless tennis and it's because there is no down-gear from the all-or-nothing style he aims for. Of course he is mentally not the greatest and when faced with adversity the bloke typically throws in the towel. Even Kyrgios has more spirit than this guy. But the fact of the matter is, he needs to be feeling ontop of the world and in perfect harmony with his mind and soul (And hitting rhythm) to perform any where near his best. This is why he plays his best tennis the deeper he goes in a tournament. Both Federer and Djokovic have confirmed this.
You have to look at the picture as a whole, not just in a shallow 'how many majors has he got' context.
For me revolting fan boys like the ones who are making superficial arguments are falling into the 'recency bias' trap.
"Recency bias" is the phenomenon of a person most easily remembering something that has happened recently, compared to remembering something that may have occurred a while back.
In addition to the obvious aspects of Murray having reached the Autralian Open final 5 times and losing to who is without question the greatest hard courter our game has seen, each occasion. Winning 12 Masters 1000 titles and 2 Olympic Gold medals. There is the factor of doing what Stan will never be able to do and that's win on a specialised surface like grass.
Grass is a very unique surface, even in today's game, as with the way balls react after an opponent slices it or hits a flat shot at you. So Wawrinka would never be able to adopt the style of game he has on other surfaces, on grass surfaces. Chipping the ball back on return, standing far back behind the baseline and taking swings at the ball just wouldn't work. Not with the ball bouncing at your knee caps. This is afterall what Wawrinka does, particularly in return games where he cannot gain the upper edge in the rally (Or stay neutral) with ease, from possessing a good or even reasonable return.
The point is Murray is more capable across a wide range of surfaces and that has been proven by his results on Hard, Grass and even Clay. Or wait, does clay not count because he hasn't won the French, but has beaten Wawrinka at the semi final stage there, Djokovic in the Rome Masters final and Nadal in the Madrid?
Other reasons are one of the keys to being great and achieving in the game is consistency. Wawrinka has none of it. Why? Because he can only play to the level he does occasionally in majors, which is good enough to beat the very elite, when he is FEELING PERFECT.
This shows his game isn't able to stand the test of adversity. Players with great games can stand the test of adversity. When Wawrinka is slightly bothered mentally, he can't play flawless tennis and it's because there is no down-gear from the all-or-nothing style he aims for. Of course he is mentally not the greatest and when faced with adversity the bloke typically throws in the towel. Even Kyrgios has more spirit than this guy. But the fact of the matter is, he needs to be feeling ontop of the world and in perfect harmony with his mind and soul (And hitting rhythm) to perform any where near his best. This is why he plays his best tennis the deeper he goes in a tournament. Both Federer and Djokovic have confirmed this.
You have to look at the picture as a whole, not just in a shallow 'how many majors has he got' context.
For me revolting fan boys like the ones who are making superficial arguments are falling into the 'recency bias' trap.
"Recency bias" is the phenomenon of a person most easily remembering something that has happened recently, compared to remembering something that may have occurred a while back.