[yellow grass]

In case Wawrinka wins another slam and Murray doesn't, which player would you consider to have a better career?

For me Murray, slams are not everything in tennis

 

[SheepleBuster]

Stan with 3 slams > Murray with 2. Simple

 

[Thierry Champion]

Murray. He was at the top for more than 8 years.
Does Kuerten (3GS and World N1) have a better career than Murray?

 

[yellow grass]

Question for people who chose Wawrinka: What is the use of non grand slam tournaments?

 

[Moozza]

Still Murray. Murray's the more likely to win another slam anyway.

 

[Tennis4Lyf]

Murray to defeat Wawrinka in Wimbly finals 2015.

 

[haasenqvistfan]

I would pick Wawrinka in that scenario. 1 slam is a far bigger difference when you are talking about 2 players with a relatively small number of slams.

 

[acefreely]

Murray. He was at the top for more than 8 years.
Does Kuerten (3GS and World N1) have a better career than Murray?

Yes.

 

[haasenqvistfan]

Kuerten absolutely has a better career than Murray. Stupid question when Kuerten not only has an extra slam, but also has a YE#1 (vs Murray who hasnt spent a week there) and swept the POY awards for his YE#1 year. Easier comparision than Wawrinka with 3 vs Murray with 2 would be.

So if Kuerten is the example, it is a horrible one.

 

[NoProblemFound]

If Stan wins a different slam then Stan, because that would be Slams at 3 separate events. Otherwise, it's a close call. cf. Edberg v. Becker.

 

[M.Bison]

Depends on whether you think Slams are the only thing that matters in tennis. I'd still take Murray's career but I'm a Murray fan and no doubt biased.

 

[haasenqvistfan]

I dont think slams are the only thing to matter in tennis. However a 3 slam winner vs a 2 slam winner is a HUGE difference from say a 9 slam winner vs an 8 slam winner.

I agree which slam he wins next is important. I have a feeling his next slam win will actually be the U.S Open this year though, which would seal it for now IMO (unless Murray has already won Wimbledon, which I actually also predict, which would mean he is still ahead probably, haha).

 

[eldanielfire]

If's, but's and maybe's. He hasn't yet and Murray can still win another slam(s).

 

[SheepleBuster]

Depends on whether you think Slams are the only thing that matters in tennis. I'd still take Murray's career but I'm a Murray fan and no doubt biased.

You probably take Murray's career over Rafa, Roger, and Nole too. lol

 

[NoProblemFound]

I dont think slams are the only thing to matter in tennis. However a 3 slam winner vs a 2 slam winner is a HUGE difference from say a 9 slam winner vs an 8 slam winner.

I agree which slam he wins next is important. I have a feeling his next slam win will actually be the U.S Open this year though, which would seal it for now IMO (unless Murray has already won Wimbledon, which I actually also predict, which would mean he is still ahead probably, haha).

Agreed, since it's 1.5X the number of slams v. 1.125. But Murray does have many, many Masters titles (9?) and I think that matters.

 

[M.Bison]

You probably take Murray's career over Rafa, Roger, and Nole too. lol

I don't think I've ever read a decent post from you. Nothing but gibberish.

Those three have far better careers than Andy.

 

[Ibracadabra]

By todays logic absolutely, it's all about slams in this day and age, even masters are becoming pointless.

 

[haasenqvistfan]

Agreed, since it's 1.5X the number of slams v. 1.125. But Murray does have many, many Masters titles (9?) and I think that matters.

True. Honestly it is still a close call even then. Had Murray spent some time at #1 or won a WTF it would make it easier but he has done neither. He does have a ton more Masters, slam finals, etc...

I dont expect Wawrinka to ever have more majors than Murray so it is probably moot (I expect both to win atleast 1 more but Wawrinka never earlier or ahead probably), but I could totally be wrong on that. I didnt expect Wawrinka to ever get to 2 majors, even a few days ago. My confidence in him is rising.

 

[AndyNonomous]

Wawrinka is an attacking player, so I favour him. Murray depends on his defence too much for me to like his style of play.

 

[haasenqvistfan]

By todays logic absolutely, it's all about slams in this day and age, even masters are becoming pointless.

Honestly it is alot like the Serena vs Navratilova vs Evert debate as things stand now. Although as I said for me 3 slams vs 2 is really a much bigger difference than say 20 vs 18, despite that it is 1 slam difference vs 2. Of course Serena doesnt compare nearly as badly in non slam win stats as Wawrinka does to Murray though, but she is clearly behind still (even discounting joke meaningless things like winning 160 tournaments in the 70s).