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.
But Murray played most of his matches while Fedal were still *just* in their peak years. So in fact his two slams are more impressive, than an Olderer and post-op Kneedal.
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.
Uhmmmm...Stan's catching them at the right time. Good luck beating Federer/Nadal from say '07 till '10. Beating Djokovic in a major final, well even Andy managed that twice. :lol:
Though not on grass and there's not much to suggest that his peak play is better than Murray's on faster HC either. Stanimal is a slow court beast at peak.
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 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!
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).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxLRr5vcVRw
People keep saying this, doesn't make it true. I've never seen Wawrinka put on a display like Murray did against Nadal in the deciding set, losing only 4points.
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.
Yes, but not a great deal. I mean, it's impossible not to think, "Damn Andy, he has as many as you now."
But realistically, as of right now, no one would rate Stan's career ahead or equal to Murray's. And it's not like this wikipedia page is going to change soon to kick out Murray: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Four_(tennis)
It's a good stat, but I wouldn't make a big deal out of it tbh. He definitely showed signs that he was up for the choke in AO'14... and that was against a Nadal who could barely serve or clear the service line with his groundstrokes :lol:.
Man Wawrinka will beat Andy anytime with this powerful game of his.
Djokovic needed 5 sets to beat Murray but Stan Wawrinka needed only 4 sets to beat Djokovic. The unbeatable one!
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.
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.
Murray's career is still WAY above at this point (and believe me I am no Murray fan). Wawrinka would need an extra slam to even make it a debate between the two right now.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Mens Tennis Forums
18.5M posts
87.7K members
Since 2002
A forum community dedicated to male tennis players and enthusiasts. Talk about everything from the ATP, NSMTA, to college Tennis and even everything about equipment. It's all here!