Mens Tennis Forums banner

Does Wawrinka's second slam win lessen Murray's legacy?

6K views 80 replies 52 participants last post by  new-york 
#1 ·
Murray has been a Big 4 contender since 2008, for 7 years, and he's cemented that legacy with 2 slam wins against Nole.

But then arrives 29-30 year old Wawrinka, absolutely decimating Nadal and Nole within the span of a year and a half.

Does Wawrinka's transformation at such a late age diminish what Murray has accomplished during his peak years?

It's an interesting conversation.
 
#3 ·
Not really, the golden age of the big four ended a few years ago. Worse players than Andy will have more slams than him because he played in the toughest era that has ever existed. I wouldn't be surprised if Tomic wins quite a few more slams than Murray will retire with.
 
#74 ·
The problem is Wawrinka is actually much better than Murray if you stop reading DailyMail as your bible. :)
 
#6 ·
Stan's win really has little at all to do with Murray's legacy. Murray is seen as a great player because of how many years he spent as one of the dominant Big 4, not the amount of slams he won (and he has made about 4 times as many slam finals). If anything, Murray has enhanced his legacy over this clay season.
 
#16 ·
No. And Andy still has like 3x as many titles. I adore Stan but let's not get carried away. :lol:
 
#17 ·
I'm not saying that Andy isn't superior, but his entire legacy was founded on the fact that he had the 4th most slams of his generation. And now someone older than him has tied his slam count.

Are people really gonna call him part of the Big 4 thirty years from now?

I doubt it.
 
#18 · (Edited)
I don't think they're related or connected. A day ago it was all "will anyone ever beat Djokovic again???" Now it's "are Murray fans self harming". It's all just hyperbole. I don't think many are that insecure.

Murray has 2 grand slams and so does wawrinka. I felt the same when wawrinka had 1 and cillic had 1. I think it's fab. the more variation the better! Allez!
 
#20 ·
The way i (and probably the majority) see it:
Murray's consistency >>>>> Wawa's consistency (not surprising due to their respective game) but
Wawa's peak level >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Murray's peak level.
So Murray overall the better player but Wawa's peak is much higher.
What Wawa showed today is just science fiction level for Murray (on any surface).
 
#23 ·
If Wawrinka proves anything, it's that you can't treat the tennis player as a homogenous thing. When Wawrinka won AO, the talk was that he was the oldest guy to win his maiden slam since Ivanisevic. Now here we are and he is a multi-major champion, one of just a few to win a Major into their thirties, yet he went *years* in his career without having one at all.

The span in which Stan won his Majors has nothing to do with Murray or his timeline. Andy had actually a very similar two years to win his two majors (so far), but just earlier in his career.
 
#27 ·
Murray does have a better career but what he's better remembered for is being the first British to win Wimbledon in a long time, and also a British winner of Olympic Gold in British soil. But Wawrinka did get a lot closer to him now.
 
#35 ·
Not really. When Federer, Nadal and Djokovic were all in their prime Murray was right up there with them, where was Wawrinka? Nowhere to be seen.

Murray is the far better player in every area. More accomplished in every area also, apart from slam wins. I expect he'll be ahead in that too though when all is said and done. Lets not forget he is more than 2 years younger than Wawrinka as well.
 
#40 ·
Just kidding. Of course no, how would it? It's like saying that Joyce's Ulyses diminishes Scott Fitgerald's legacy.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top