[Federer-Fan]

Hi everyone,

Let's compare some stats of Murray and Wawrinka, you'll see the latter is closer to the del Potro/Tsonga/Berdych/Ferrer group than he is to Murray. :yeah:


Grand Slam titles
Murray - 2
Wawrinka - 2
del Potro - 1
Tsonga - 0
Berdych - 0
Ferrer - 0

Grand Slam finals
Murray - 8
Wawrinka - 2
del Potro - 1
Tsonga - 1
Berdych - 0
Ferrer - 0

Grand Slam semifinals
Murray - 17
Tsonga - 6
Ferrer - 6
Berdych - 5
Wawrinka - 4
del Potro - 3

Masters titles
Murray - 10
Tsonga - 2
Wawrinka - 1
Berdych - 1
Ferrer - 1
del Potro - 0

Masters finals
Murray - 14
Ferrer - 7
Berdych - 4
Wawrinka - 3
del Potro - 3
Tsonga - 3

Seasons ended in the top 10
Murray - 7
Tsonga - 5
Berdych - 5
Ferrer - 5
del Potro - 4
Wawrinka - 2

Overall win-loss record
Murray - 527-158 [76.93%]
del Potro - 314-128 [71.04%]
Tsonga - 332-154 [68.31%]
Ferrer - 638-303 [67.80%]
Berdych - 525-273 [65.79%]
Wawrinka - 371-225 [62.25%]

Grand Slam win-loss record
Murray - 150-36 [80.65%]
Tsonga - 91-30 [75.21%]
Ferrer - 128-50 [71.91%]
Wawrinka - 98-40 [71.01%]
del Potro - 63-26 [70.79%]
Berdych - 114-48 [70.37%]

Masters win-loss record
Murray - 168-68 [71.19%]
del Potro - 73-39 [65.18%]
Berdych - 161-92 [63.64%]
Tsonga - 94-56 [62.67%]
Ferrer - 168-101 [62.45%]
Wawrinka - 112-76 [59.57%]

Win-loss record against the top 10
Murray - 77-69 [52.74%]
del Potro - 34-58 [36.96%]
Wawrinka - 41-72 [36.28%]
Tsonga - 35-66 [34.65%]
Ferrer - 52-102 [33.77%]
Berdych - 46-104 [30.67%]

Win-loss record against Federer, Nadal and Djokovic
Murray - 25-47 [34.72%]
Tsonga - 16-42 [27.59%]
del Potro - 14-39 [26.42%]
Berdych - 18-58 [23.68%]
Wawrinka - 15-53 [22.06%]
Ferrer - 17-64 [20.99%]

 

[Mentalmidget]

Nice stats but anyone who has watched tennis for 10 years already knows how much better Murray is, these are great for the 'tards though.

 

[Federer-Fan]

Nice stats but anyone who has watched tennis for 10 years already knows how much better Murray is, these are great for the 'tards though.

Yes, I know. However, lately I heard people saying stupid stuff like 'it's either a Big 3 or a Big 5' or 'Murray is more consistent but Wawrinka has a higher peak so it evens out'... :lol:

 

[Tutsi Frutsi]

Murray is way more consistent, but peak Wawrinka is like peak Federer and peak Tsonga combined.

 

[MurrayMagic1]

THANK YOU SO MUCH. this proves that Murray is by far the superior player

 

[Federer-Fan]

Murray is way more consistent, but peak Wawrinka is like peak Federer and peak Tsonga combined.

Peak Federer would destroy peak Wawrinka in straight sets on any surface...

 

[passingshotDTL]

Stan fans aren't saying that Stan is equal or better than Andy. Obviously Andy has had a greater career!

It'd be nice if people could appreciate Stan's success and not feel the need to put him down, though.

 

[Tutsi Frutsi]

Peak Federer would destroy peak Wawrinka in straight sets on any surface...

Peak to peak Wawrinka would trash Fed at AO and RG, lose in Wimbledon and have 45-55 chances at USO.

 

[Joey Tribbiani]

Yeah. We all know that Murray got more stats and titles and finals and wins.

And we all know that Peakrinka >>> Peakray.

 

[Master Yoda]

Wawrinka would have caused Federer more trouble today.

 

[Chris Kuerten]

The most important thing to realize is that Wawrinka is infinitely better than Tsonga.

 

[MurrayMagic1]

Wawrinka would have caused Federer more trouble today.

:lol: fed owns Wawrinka

 

[RuRo]

Yes, I know. However, lately I heard people saying stupid stuff like 'it's either a Big 3 or a Big 5' or 'Murray is more consistent but Wawrinka has a higher peak so it evens out'... :lol:

Yeah, this was a good post in other threads but we don't really need a whole thread about it since that only adds legitimacy to a debate that isn't worthwhile at this point.

The thing is, I don't see why any of it has to be "Is Murray really Big 4?" or any of those other bullshit questions. The whole point with the Murray situation was that people realised he was a great player competing in a time when he faced the two greatest players of all time (imo) at their best and another all time great that may end up reaching the same level in time who was the exact same age as him. Circa 2011-2012 he had the greatest stats ever for a slamless player, and after 2012-2013 he still has the greatest stats of a 2 slam player other than world number 1 (which is only because of the players he had to compete against for world number 1). It was always going to be inevitable that someone would come along and pick up the same or an even higher number of slams in the years after the "Big 3" above him declined - the only surprising thing was that instead of a new generation player it was an older player that worked on their game and peaked later in life. If Kyrgios or Dimitrov or Coric or Whoeverdafuck picked up a bunch of slams in the next few years no one would say that casts doubts on Murray's abilities or legacy - the whole "Big Four" thing was more about the group's consistency at getting to semifinals and finals, so that someone basically always needed to beat one of the "Big four" to get to the semifinal, and probably two to get to the final and three to win it. Obviously that tends to happen with the tennis seeding system, but compare to the past couple of years where top players have been more prone to upset (you can practically consider it the Anderson quarter if Wawrinka is a top seed and big Kev lands in his section) and you will see that the "Big four" were keeping a tighter grasp on the top prizes and the finalist / semifinalist positions than any other group of players.

 

[IOFH]

Wawrinka has the 2nd highest peak behind Fed doe, Murphy is far behind...

 

[passingshotDTL]

:lol: fed owns Wawrinka

Last year Stan took a set from Fed at Wimbledon, and he beat him at the French Open this year.

(But the way Federer played today, I'm sure it would have been straights for him whether he faced Andy or Stan.)

 

[Fogmeister]

You didn't needed to bring all those stats to show Murray career's is better than Wawrinka. It's obvious.

But one thing, among the 4 slams these guys won, Stan's win against Djokovic in RG was surely the most impressive. :worship:

 

[Chokehater]

:lol: fed owns Wawrinka

Only prior to 2013, just like Djokovic owned Wawrinka until then. Fed is not a great match up for Stan but if he plays well he certainly got a shot.

But if you look at Fed's serve and Stan's ROS in this tourney, Stan would have not broken too often I guess :lol:

 

[Master Yoda]

:lol: fed owns Wawrinka

Last time they met prime Wawrinka dispatched Federer in 3 easy sets.

 

[Chris Kuerten]

Last year Stan took a set from Fed at Wimbledon

*while he was sick and played for the third day in a row because he got screwed by the organizers.

 

[passingshotDTL]

*while he was sick and played for the third day in a row because he got screwed by the organizers.

I try not to think about that match too much because of what might have been, lol.