Who is better? Andy Murray, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Jim Courier?

Why i am comparing

There was a debate in the Jim Courier thread about Andy Murray and Jim Courier. Kafelnikovs name also came up.
So i thought


Of Course there are many aspects to it.You could look at it from the Players Potential. You could look from the Career they had


I think Out of the three

Jim Courier would be the one. He had a great game and an even better mentality, atleast from 91 - 93

Kafelnikov . Highly talented Russian player. Had an all round game and graceful Forehand and backhand. Great player to watch when on form. ........ But had a smewhat weaker temperament

Andy Murray.. Brilliant Tactical player, has an all round game, Potentially on par with Djokovic and Nadal.........
But a Highly suspect Grand Slam Temperament... TILL NOW..

Who is your pick ? Discuss

Why i am comparing

There was a debate in the Jim Courier thread about Andy Murray and Jim Courier. Kafelnikovs name also came up.
So i thought


Of Course there are many aspects to it.You could look at it from the Players Potential. You could look from the Career they had


I think Out of the three

Jim Courier would be the one. He had a great game and an even better mentality, atleast from 91 - 93

Kafelnikov . Highly talented Russian player. Had an all round game and graceful Forehand and backhand. Great player to watch when on form. ........ But had a smewhat weaker temperament

Andy Murray.. Brilliant Tactical player, has an all round game, Potentially on par with Djokovic and Nadal.........
But a Highly suspect Grand Slam Temperament... TILL NOW..

Who is your pick ? Discuss

while your at it, add more transitional champs like guga and hewitt if u can.

What random comparisons.

:superlol::superlol::superlol:

Troll topic.

Mugray should win a slam before he's compared to any decent player.

Murray the mental midget doesnt even have a grand slam.
He is more in the league of weaklings like Davydonkey, Soderclown & Flake

Murray hurry up and win a slam or else you will become tortured and owned by the troll topics till eternity.

Morons this is not a troll topic :p .....I explained myself quite clearly there.

We could add Transitional champs like Hewitt, Kuerton too.

Murray is the hottest therefore the best. See my icon for further details.

Murray is the hottest therefore the best. See my icon for further details.


While you are at it ,Murrays too freckled, looks quite sick. He loses on this one.

Murray has to win a GS first before being able to be in the same room Kafelnikov and Courier are.

You might as well compare Tomic, Rios and Laver :shrug:

Murray could beat either of the other two easily..... but of course he could be assisted by them being out of match practice

Flagged for racism.

I left Courier out, you know. :D

I like Yevgeny overall personally, mainly because Courier was a mental midget

I was debating this issue not so long ago in another thread, I wont bring the same arguments in again. Anyway, here is some interesting stats you could have in mind:

top 10 W/L porcentage for Murray vs some transitional champs:

Murray 0.570
Safin 0.500
Hewitt 0.459
Courrier 0.438
Kafelnikov 0.421
Chang 0.333

You can even include Agassi with 0.548, you should then know Murray is a very special talent..

In fact Murray got a top 10 record that is ahead of Djokovic, Agassi, Connors, Wilander and many other great legends of the game.

I was debating this issue not so long ago in another thread, I wont bring the same arguments in again. Anyway, here is some interesting stats you could have in mind:

top 10 W/L porcentage for Murray vs some transitional champs:

Murray 0.570
Safin 0.500
Hewitt 0.459
Courrier 0.438
Kafelnikov 0.421
Chang 0.333

You can even include Agassi with 0.548, you should then know Murray is a very special talent..

In fact Murray got a top 10 record that is ahead of Djokovic, Agassi, Connors, Wilander and many other great legends of the game.
Overrated stat perhaps, that pretty much tells you how relevant is the head to head comparisson, especially when you include the top 10 lot which can be so much different from one player to another.

Imagine a player that faces the bottom half of the top ten more often, or plays a good matchup for him more often than the others. Sorry but head to head alone does not define greatness.

The can be useful to compare players but not to decide which one is better than the other.

Overrated stat perhaps, that pretty much tells you how relevant is the head to head comparisson, especially when you include the top 10 lot which can be so much different from one player to another.

Imagine a player that faces the bottom half of the top ten more often, or plays a good matchup for him more often than the others. Sorry but head to head alone does not define greatness.

The can be useful to compare players but not to decide which one is better than the other.

Yeah, but odd things like that should even out when you get closer to 100 top 10 meetings. Anyway, just for the record Murray has played the top 3 (Federer, Djokovic and Nadal) 42 times out of his 86 top 10 meetings and his record against the top 3 is 17-25. So against the rest of the top 10 he has only lost 12 times and won 44 times.

Anyway, I think most guys I listed have played less than 50% of their top 10 encounters against the top 3. Murray has not been lucky in avoiding the top 3 and has held his own against this top 3 which is the best since Borg-Mcenroe-Connors if not even greater.

in the end of his career, most probably murray
right now, id say kafelnikov

Courier in his prime and peak in the early 90s was by far the most superior. He managed 4 slams. Kafelnikov is slightly more talented then Murray. Murray is talented in his own right, just not a supreme talent.

This choice is so random

no way murray is on par with courier, that is unless he wins a slam

Murray needs 4 Slams to be compared to Courier

Courier by a mile

Courier



Kafelnikov















Murray

I don't know. The question is, "Who is better?" rather than, "Who has achieved more?" Murray's outstanding win-loss record against top-10 players is relevant to that.

Courier > Kafelnikov > Murray

Murray is the best player among them though. He just isnt lucky to play in mug era. :p

Courier, this is not even close remotely and a strange question to ask. Courier was by far a more talented player than the other two and his accomplishments are 10X more impressive...

why compare Murray to him? absurd, it's like throwing out the question "why do you think Murray is less talented and less accomplished than so and so?"

You might as well compare Tomic, Rios and Laver :shrug:

hahahaha basically this :wavey:

Courier, this is not even close remotely and a strange question to ask. Courier was by far a more talented player than the other two and his accomplishments are 10X more impressive...

why compare Murray to him? absurd, it's like throwing out the question "why do you think Murray is less talented and less accomplished than so and so?"

Darling what happened? Seems like you missed the first post.

Anyways love to you:smooch:

I was debating this issue not so long ago in another thread, I wont bring the same arguments in again. Anyway, here is some interesting stats you could have in mind:

top 10 W/L porcentage for Murray vs some transitional champs:

Murray 0.570
Safin 0.500
Hewitt 0.459
Courrier 0.438
Kafelnikov 0.421
Chang 0.333

You can even include Agassi with 0.548, you should then know Murray is a very special talent..

In fact Murray got a top 10 record that is ahead of Djokovic, Agassi, Connors, Wilander and many other great legends of the game.

Thats a astounding statistic indeed. Shows what one or two Grand Slams makes a difference in a persons career.

He needs to give his all in the GS Semis and Finals. Thats is what it comes to. He has to match the intensity of Nadal or Djokovic. There is no getting away from it

Achievement wise: Courier>Kafelnikov>Murray

Murray is a great player but since Murray isn't a slam winner, he is not the same category.

Achievement wise: Courier>Kafelnikov>Murray

Murray is a great player but since Murray isn't a slam winner, he is not the same category.


He is a great player no doubt about it. Nadal,Federer,Mcenroe all have acknowledged it. Its a matter of time.

You can even include Agassi with 0.548, you should then know Murray is a very special talent..



So,based on that stat Murray is a better player than Agassi?NO.Agassi won everything,Murray so far nothing...

This stat shows that he is very talented,but the fact that he still hasn't won anything BIG(Grand Slam or Olympic Gold) says that when it matters the most he doesn't produce it(which divide best from the good ones) and makes him fade in comparation to other GS winners...

Courier > Kafelnikov > Murray



Although I like Kafelnikov the most,couldn't agree more...but Murray's career is not over so let's wait before we can compare stats.

Courier > Kafelnikov > Murray

Murray is the best player among them though. He just isnt lucky to play in mug era. :p

Obviously you started watching tennis like after 2005. Courier had more rivals than any of the current players have.

Although I like Kafelnikov the most,couldn't agree more...but Murray's career is not over so let's wait before we can compare stats.

Good luck to Andy but there is no way he can win 4 slams. No doubt, if he wins the first that breaks the ice but Courier played finals at all slams.

Wait till Muzza retires before comparing people

Kafelnikov is the better player from technical point of view, Courier is the better match player, Murray is the better player in terms of consistency.

Murray is a better player than either frankly, but he is still far from their achievements (Courier's in particular).

I have been saying that Murray is way better than Kafelnikov and also compared to Courier for some time now. It is finally showing off.

Kafelnikov would never slaughter Federer in an olympic final and defeat Djokovic in a hardcourt slam final. All he could do was make "thank you" speeches to Sampras for beeing inconsistent enought to let him win slams without playing top 10 players.

"Oh such depth the 90s had when top 10 players could disappear like flies in slams" some nostalgitards will claim, some people actually claimed Murray was so bad in slam finals he would not be able to beat Enqvist or old Stich in a slam final, beating peak Nole in a slam final certanly proved them wrong.

Come now, Murray fans, let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Murray is the better player.

Statistically, maybe not, but in terms of ability, he's the best.

Jim Courier was a fucking machine :worship: and a great commentator :yeah:

The current ranking of Courier > Kafelnikov > Murray still stands, even with Andy's USO win.

The current ranking of Courier > Kafelnikov > Murray still stands, even with Andy's USO win.

I dont care about the ranking, the question was who was better and not who has achieved more.

Murray is the better player.

Statistically, maybe not, but in terms of ability, he's the best.

Lmao

courier by a mile

4 grand slams and reached the finals of all 4 slams when they were distinct and different

stupid comparisons

compare murray to roddick, chang, del porto etc

The current ranking of Courier > Kafelnikov > Murray still stands, even with Andy's USO win.

correct

Murray needs another slam if he's to be above Kafelnikov (who, despite not winning any masters, won Olympic Gold as well)

and even then, with two slams, he'd be way behind, for example, Hewitt, because of the weeks at no 1 and Year End Championship

compare Murray to other single slam winners

Murray is 25 and he's being compared to retired players. :facepalm:

Jim by far

KAFELNIKOV!!! Sorry what was the question? :lol:

Courier from the numbers. So far.

I dont know why in the Hell i Opened in this Thread. :superlol:


Because there is no way You can compare People from Different Eras. END OF.

courier by a mile

4 grand slams and reached the finals of all 4 slams when they were distinct and different

stupid comparisons

compare murray to roddick, chang, del porto etc

Even Murray could have reached RG final with Courier's draw. Todd Martin-Stefan Edberg-Michael Stich would be easy for Murray. I think he would beat Agassi in the final aswell.

Stop with the nonsense about 90s beeing so diverse and hard, Courier took advantage of a really weak claycourt era where he dominated the French Open together with Agassi without even caring about claycourt events before RG.

I dont really think you can argue about this, if the 2 RG finalists are americans who together have won 3 matches on clay all season before RG but still reach finals it is a sign of a really weak era. If you can dominate RG without warming up on clay it means there is a real lack of great claycourt players to challenge you.