Report him for saying Wilander is better than Murray? Sorry, I agree. 4 more slams = game over. Sure, Murray has other noteworthy great achievements, but he never won 7 slams and he never won 3 in 1 year. Wilander's 1988 was one of the best years in tennis history. His career took a huge nosedive after that but so what. He still won 7 slams and had an amazing year that most players would be jealous of and few ever reach.
In every all-time rankings I've ever done, I've always ranked Wilander higher than Andy. Ricardo, as is often the case, simply doesn't read the nuance of what I actually said, instead resorting to his usual immature ad hominem attacks. Here is the first part of my actual quote:
Historically speaking, I think Andy will come to be seen as at the head of the pack that includes Courier, Kuerten, and Ashe; I think he was greater than all three. There's an argument that could be made that he's as good or greater than Wilander, but people will never look past the big Slam title gap, even though Andy was greater in just about every other way.
"There's an argument that could be made..." isn't the same thing as saying Murray is better than Wilander. It is saying that, well, there's an argument that could be made that he's as good or better; it is saying "It is worth considering," not "It is." I question whether black-and-white thinkers like Ricardo understand the difference.
Here's the next part of the quote:
Andy's true level can perhaps best be summarized by his rankings in terms of Slam finals: only eight players (Roger, Rafa, Novak, Sampras, Agassi, Connors, Lendl, Borg) were in more Slam finals, and he's tied with McEnroe, Wilander and Edberg with 11, and just ahead of Becker's 10. That's some good company.
Wilander was 7-4 in Slam finals; Andy was 3-8. The entire argument for Wilander > Murray is because Wilander won four more matches than Andy. But let's look a bit deeper than that.
Wilander's Slam final wins: Lendl x3, Vilas, Curren, Cash, Leconte. In other words, he beat one all-time great three times, one lesser great once (although when he was past his prime), and three second tier types.
Murray's eight losses: Federer x3, Djokovic x5. In other words, he lost to two of the three greatest players of the Open Era a bunch of times - players of a caliber that Wilander never had to face. Andy never lost a Slam final to the likes of Cash, Curren, or Leconte. Lendl was great, but he wasn't Federer/Djokovic.
How about some other numbers (
gasp, evil numbers! Fake facts!):
Overall W-L in ATP finals: Andy 45-22 (67%), Wilander 33-26 (56%). Edge Andy.
Overall W-L in ATP matches: Andy 663-190 (78%), Wilander 571-222 (72%). Edge Andy.
Weeks at #1: Andy 41, Wilander 20. Edge Andy.
Big Titles: Andy 29, Wilander 15. Edge Andy.
Years in top 10: Andy 9, Wilander 7. Edge Andy.
Years in top 5: Andy 8, Wilander 6. Edge Andy.
Years #1: Andy 1, Wilander 1. Tied.
As I said, in just about every way other than Slam wins, Andy had a better record. Yes, Wilander's 1988 was probably better than Andy's best year, 2016, but it isn't a huge gap. Mats won three Slams, but he won only two other big titles, two Masters, and six titles overall; plus he went out of the tour finals in the round robin phase, finishing the year 53-11 (83%). Andy only won a single Slam (although he reached the finals of two others, losing to peak Novak), but he won Olympic Gold, three Master, the ATP final, and 9 titles overall, reaching 13 finals overall (more than twice Mats in 1988) for a 78-9 (90%) record.
So yeah, there's an argument that could be made that Andy was an equal or greater player to Wilander. What Chris pointed out quite accurately is that Ricardo dislikes anything objective--like stats--that disagree with him. He doesn't engage in dialogue, but instead attacks people when they present viewpoints that disagree with him. What's the point of that, really?
