[The Triumvirate]

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.

 

[BAMJ6]

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.

Outside of Britain, it does take a hit

 

[M.Bison]

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.

 

[norwood_10]

Nein.

It's probably more 'big 3' and 'little 3' now- if del Po could get healthy and snatch another one, that might end up being the case!

 

[SERBINATOR]

Stans 2 slam wins are far more impressive than Murray

Andy never beat Fedal on his way to the Slam

+Stan is 100% in Finals that's better than the Top 4 combined considering the Competition today

 

[Roo]

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.

 

[Murray Mint]

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.

This^

 

[bandabou]

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:

 

[The Triumvirate]

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.

History won't remember any of that. History only remembers slams, and Wawrinka beat both Nadal and Nole to win his while Murray only beat Nole.

:shrug:

It's a sad state of affairs but that's how history operates.

 

[M-Bag]

Murray has a legacy?

 

[RuRo]

Nice to see so many Wawrinka fans* so concerned about how his win relates to Murray, a guy who wasn't even in the final.

 

[Coolio_Jack]

Well all is said and done, Murray will be remembered as the more accomplished player and Wawrinka as the one with the higher peak level.

 

[M.Bison]

Murray has a legacy?

Yes, he is a multi-slam and olympic gold winner. Not a failed finalist who ate too many hot dogs and turned into a blob.

 

[Murray Mint]

Yes, he is a multi-slam and olympic gold winner. Not a failed finalist who ate too many hot dogs and turned into a blob.

:haha:

Let's be honest though, Baggy's legacy is pretty great as well when you put it like that.

 

[Mr.Cool]

We don't know that yet, Wawrinka might win a third, Murray might win a third. We can talk about this when all is done.

 

[Bradley~]

No. And Andy still has like 3x as many titles. I adore Stan but let's not get carried away. :lol:

 

[The Triumvirate]

No. And Andy still has like 3x as many titles. I adore Stan but let's not get carried away. :lol:

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.

 

[Wimbles]

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!

 

[M.Bison]

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.

His legacy is being the first British player in 77 years to win Wimbledon and in forty years people will remember him for this.

 

[yuri27]

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).