Murray v. Wawrinka - As it stands

[Moxie]

It's the inevitable conversation now. Both have 3 Majors. Murray has been there longer, but Stan is 3-3 in Majors. Make the case for each.

 

[britbox]

I'll make the case for Murray in that he's got those Masters titles, Olympic titles and he's also appeared in a lot more finals.

I think Stan would need five majors to overtake Murray for career accomplishments.

 

[Moxie]

I agree that Andy has the overall better career record, but I think you're wrong that it would take 5 Majors for him to supersede Andy in people's minds. Majors are the deal-breakers. I'd say 2-3, and that's not my opinion, just what I think others' would be.

 

[DarthFed]

Murray is clearly the greater player now, no question. Way more MS and he has the 2 golds. But if Stan finishes ahead in the slam count it is definitely going to be a real debate. And if it ends up Stan wins the career slam (feels crazy just typing this) and he finishes with more slams than Murray then I definitely give Stan the edge career-wise.

 

[britbox]

I agree that Andy has the overall better career record, but I think you're wrong that it would take 5 Majors for him to supersede Andy in people's minds. Majors are the deal-breakers. I'd say 2-3, and that's not my opinion, just what I think others' would be.

Sorry, I didn't mean 5 more majors, I meant 5 in total.

If Murray has 3 majors and Stan got 4, I'd still have Murray above based on the rest of his achievements. If Stan got upto 5 then I'd have it trumping Andy.

 

[Moxie]

Murray is clearly the greater player now, no question. Way more MS and he has the 2 golds. But if Stan finishes ahead in the slam count it is definitely going to be a real debate. And if it ends up Stan wins the career slam (feels crazy just typing this) and he finishes with more slams than Murray then I definitely give Stan the edge career-wise.

Yes, but isn't this where certain tropes need a little more massaging? Say the stars line up weirdly for Stan at Wimbledon next summer, and he gets the career Slam. And Murray ends up with, say, finally the AO and the USO or Wimby again, i.e., 5. Is Stan better, for the career slam, or is Murray better, for the better overall career, and more Slams? Which weighs more heavily?

 

[Moxie]

And, at the risk of being controversial, (hehe), Murray has, I believe, played all of his Major finals against Roger and Novak, and both in good form. Stan has played two of his three in which the opponent was hampered enough for the commentators to wonder if they would retire, not a small thing. Does anyone else consider this a mitigating factor? Personally, I do.

 

[DarthFed]

I think if it ends up with Murray having more slams you'd have to give him the nod even if Stan manages to win Wimbledon. It only becomes a real debate if Stan wins something like AO again and manages to finish ahead of Murray in the slam count while the latter clearly did tons and tons better outside of that. And one thing that has to be said for Stan is the stars have not aligned for him at all. He has gone through Djokovic in all 3 of the slams he won and he went through Nadal in 2014 AO and Roger in 2015 RG as well as a red hot DP at this USO and Nishikori. Stan's top level game really does dwarf Murray's when you stop and think about it.

 

[DarthFed]

And, at the risk of being controversial, (hehe), Murray has, I believe, played all of his Major finals against Roger and Novak, and both in good form. Stan has played two of his three in which the opponent was hampered enough for the commentators to wonder if they would retire, not a small thing. Does anyone else consider this a mitigating factor? Personally, I do.

Controversial is a nice word for it my dear, I'd call it being bitter to the point of blindness. Stan went through Nole at 2014 AO at his best tournament and was destroying Nadal before the injury (which came at a set and a break down). Murray has been beaten easily by Djokovic in all 5 of their AO meetings aside from 2012 just to point that out. I don't think anyone thought Nole would retire today, the guy played like 13 sets the whole tournament before the match today. The issue seemed pretty minor especially after he was treated for it. Nole was fresh and ready to go, he simply has issues with a red hot Stanimal as does everyone.

So to summarize, Stan had seized control of both of the finals in question before they showed signs of injury and you're going to count that against him? Pretty ridiculous. Murray's win over Djokovic in 2013 Wimbledon came after a major brawl with DP in the semis. You can argue Nole was less fit that match than this one. And Murray played nobody remotely great en route to the Wimbledon title this year.

 

[Moxie]

I think if it ends up with Murray having more slams you'd have to give him the nod even if Stan manages to win Wimbledon. It only becomes a real debate if Stan wins something like AO again and manages to finish ahead of Murray in the slam count while the latter clearly did tons and tons better outside of that. And one thing that has to be said for Stan is the stars have not aligned for him at all. He has gone through Djokovic in all 3 of the slams he won and he went through Nadal in 2014 AO and Roger in 2015 RG as well as a red hot DP at this USO and Nishikori. Stan's top level game really does dwarf Murray's when you stop and think about it.

I rather have to agree with you about Stan's top level game, and that's what makes him hard to parse, especially v. Murray. Novak is the top of the pile, and I think we'd all agree right now that Stan, when he red-lines his game, is all but the only one who can beat him. But Stan has come to this game late, he doesn't have the MS wins, etc., and he is head-scratchingly unreliable outside of the big moments. I'm just wondering where you put him.

 

[DarthFed]

I put him below Murray right now for sure. Murray has the same number of slams and has been a contender at them much longer. And the non-slam resume isn't even a contest obviously.

 

[Moxie]

Controversial is a nice word for it my dear, I'd call it being bitter to the point of blindness. Stan went through Nole at 2014 AO at his best tournament and was destroying Nadal before the injury (which came at a set and a break down). Murray has been beaten easily by Djokovic in all 5 of their AO meetings aside from 2012 just to point that out. I don't think anyone thought Nole would retire today, the guy played like 13 sets the whole tournament before the match today. The issue seemed pretty minor especially after he was treated for it. Nole was fresh and ready to go, he simply has issues with a red hot Stanimal as does everyone.

So to summarize, Stan had seized control of both of the finals in question before they showed signs of injury and you're going to count that against him? Pretty ridiculous. Murray's win over Djokovic in 2013 Wimbledon came after a major brawl with DP in the semis. You can argue Nole was less fit that match than this one. And Murray played nobody remotely great en route to the Wimbledon title this year.

No reason to use a word like "bitter." I'm just having a conversation. Stan was up a set and a break at 2-0 in the second when Nadal's back went. That's not a place when you could say that he, in his first final, and at that point still a very flaky player, would surely have gone on to win the title. That was much earlier than in this final, when Novak pulled up lame. However, the murmur amongst his faithful was that Novak wasn't 100%, anyway. Never the case for Murray facing Fed and Djoker. Just saying.

 

[DarthFed]

Yeah but if you're going to use the injury excuse when it came late in a match that Stan had taken control of you have to do the same for saying Nole was probably a little gassed for the 2013 final after a brutal semifinal with DP. Or you could try to take away some of the 2012 win vs. Nole because it was played in insane wind. I personally wouldn't take anything away from either Murray or Stan for any of these matches in question but that seems to be what you are trying to do here.

Also as I pointed out before Stan had major wins before the finals of 2014 AO and 2015 RG, beating Nole and Roger. Murray has 1 win vs. Roger at slams, 2 vs. Nole and 2 vs. Rafa. Stan has 1 vs. Roger and Rafa and 3 vs. Nole. I don't know the numbers but I am absolutely sure that Stan has played way less matches at slams vs. those 3 than Murray has.

I get what you're saying about the final with Rafa at AO but at this point you have to accept that Stan likely was not going away. He mentally started to turn a corner in 2013 when he came close vs. Djokovic a couple times and then 2014 was obviously a step up and beating the greatest Aussie Open player ever gave him tons of confidence. From his perspective if he can beat Nole at AO he should have no problems with Rafa and that's how he was playing.

He was a basket case for most of his career but he now becomes incredibly good on the big stage as bizarre as it seems at times. I saw the guy play live vs. Dimitrov in Cincy and he looked like absolute garbage. He barely resembled a top 20 player but then look at him from the QF on here just 2-3 weeks later. That was a pretty tough gauntlet given DP's form.

 

[Moxie]

Yeah but if you're going to use the injury excuse when it came late in a match that Stan had taken control of you have to do the same for saying Nole was probably a little gassed for the 2013 final after a brutal semifinal with DP. Or you could try to take away some of the 2012 win vs. Nole because it was played in insane wind. I personally wouldn't take anything away from either Murray or Stan for any of these matches in question but that seems to be what you are trying to do here.

Also as I pointed out before Stan had major wins before the finals of 2014 AO and 2015 RG, beating Nole and Roger. Murray has 1 win vs. Roger at slams, 2 vs. Nole and 2 vs. Rafa. Stan has 1 vs. Roger and Rafa and 3 vs. Nole. I don't know the numbers but I am absolutely sure that Stan has played way less matches at slams vs. those 3 than Murray has.

I get what you're saying about the final with Rafa at AO but at this point you have to accept that Stan likely was not going away. He mentally started to turn a corner in 2013 when he came close vs. Djokovic a couple times and then 2014 was obviously a step up and beating the greatest Aussie Open player ever gave him tons of confidence. From his perspective if he can beat Nole at AO he should have no problems with Rafa and that's how he was playing.

He was a basket case for most of his career but he now becomes incredibly good on the big stage as bizarre as it seems at times. I saw the guy play live vs. Dimitrov in Cincy and he looked like absolute garbage. He barely resembled a top 20 player but then look at him from the QF on here just 2-3 weeks later. That was a pretty tough gauntlet given DP's form.

I don't think Novak potentially gassed at wimby or the wind at the USO 2012 is anything close to the same thing. The first is an excuse which doesn't match Novak's fitness. The second is about playing the circumstances, which is rather closer. In the AO final v. Nadal, you say I have to accept that Stan wasn't going away. Possibly. Even though he still lost the 3rd against a hobbled Nadal, out of sheer befuddledness. Eve you say he was a basket case most of his career. Against Rafa, without a bad back, there's a very decent chance that Stan, in his first major final, wouldn't have found his nerve. I'm not saying that Nadal would have won that match, but it's not right to be sure that he couldn't have. As an Irish friend of ours likes to point out: Roger was down a set and a break to Bagdahtis at the AO in 2006 final. But that match wasn't over. All I'm saying is, without a bad back, that match wasn't over. It was way too early to decide how that would otherwise have gone.

 

[DarthFed]

Yes the final with Rafa wasn't over, not by a long shot. But when everything was even it was Stan beating the crap out of Nadal. We were shocked by it then but at this point we can look back and say that this is just who Stan is now. He plays like a man possessed on the biggest stages of the sport. In that respect we can say with certainty that Stan is not Baghs, not by a long shot. For the other 95% of the season Stan is just another good player. Also the 2006 Roger at AO was a much tougher ask for Baghs to beat than the 2014 Rafa was for Stan.

I don't see much of a difference between what you're saying today (Djokovic isn't 100% and lost because of an injury) vs. the possibility he was not 100% recovered from a brutal semifinal vs. DP. It seems fairly similar to me. Injuries are an excuse just like fatigue from a previous match. How is it different?

 

[Moxie]

What you say about Nadal and Stan is all in retrospect. Nadal's travails were in front of him, and Stan's triumphs, as well. Stan was the untested. He'd never even won a set off of Rafa, much less a match, in 11 tries. There was a solid chance that Stan would not outlast a healthy Nadal in 5. Let's be serious about that.

I'm offering the injury excuse to the Djokovic fans. Clearly something is off. But it is very different, IMO, to losing to Murray in 2012 due to long match with Delpo in the SF. Novak was only 25, and he'd recently done a long match v. Murray in the AO SF, and a 5+ hour win v. Nadal in the final. I don't think anyone believes he was just "tired" in that final. I think he was mostly out-played in that match. Folks have suggested mental issues with Nole, right now, but also that he's got shoulder, wrist, etc. He's 29 now. Come on...your man Roger wasn't the same at 25 as 29, which you've argued time and again to prove. I'm saying it's different because of age, I guess. I don't believe that Novak lost that 2012 final at Wimbledon because he was tired. Today, I think he lost because Stan was better, and because he's been having physical niggles for some time, and personal issues that have been hinted at. In whatever combination, that has to do with being 29, not 25. And I don't care that Stan is 31. Stan has figured out whatever combination of things for himself, late-career. But he doesn't have the same pressures nor the same mileage as Novak.

 

[Federberg]

^We're veering dangerously into woulda coulda territory here

I don't think Novak's Wimbledon loss in 2013 (must have been 13 right? Murray lost in 12 to Roger then won the gold), was down to tiredness. He flat out choked in front of a pro-Murray crowd. This was when Novak still lacked the mental fortitude to handle a hostile crowd.

I think we have to give the edge (actually it's not even close) to Murray right now. But if Stan ends up with a couple more slams than Murray then there has to be a discussion. I would probably still go with Murray because to me the whole body of work is important too. I can't bring myself to factor in Olympics, I simply don't care about that, and while having all the slams is impressive, I've always had a problem with devaluing a players achievements if he doesn't have all of them. After all it takes as much to win any one of them as the other, so why is it necessarily a better achievement? Yes we can have a nuanced discussion about which player is more rounded, but to be honest, that sort of thing only becomes relevant when you're talking about the best players.. i.e., Sampras vs Nadal discusssions for example

 

[DarthFed]

^We're veering dangerously into woulda coulda territory here

I don't think Novak's Wimbledon loss in 2013 (must have been 13 right? Murray lost in 12 to Roger then won the gold), was down to tiredness. He flat out choked in front of a pro-Murray crowd. This was when Novak still lacked the mental fortitude to handle a hostile crowd.

I think we have to give the edge (actually it's not even close) to Murray right now. But if Stan ends up with a couple more slams than Murray then there has to be a discussion. I would probably still go with Murray because to me the whole body of work is important too. I can't bring myself to factor in Olympics, I simply don't care about that, and while having all the slams is impressive, I've always had a problem with devaluing a players achievements if he doesn't have all of them. After all it takes as much to win any one of them as the other, so why is it necessarily a better achievement? Yes we can have a nuanced discussion about which player is more rounded, but to be honest, that sort of thing only becomes relevant when you're talking about the best players.. i.e., Sampras vs Nadal discusssions for example

All this is "woulda coulda" that's exactly my point. I just think that the injury and fatigue excuses are always pretty similar. It's tough to say how much any injury affected Novak yesterday aside from what appeared to be very brief issues at the start of the 4th set. Did Nole play any worse yesterday than he did in the 2015 RG final when he definitely had no physical issues? I don't think there was a huge difference, he served poorly in both and Stan just ended up overpowering him from the baseline which appears to be something only he is capable of. I actually think Djokovic was hitting cleaner yesterday, in the 2015 final his forehand was harmless.

I do disagree that winning a career slam is not a big deal. Being able to get it done on the big stage on all the surfaces has to count for something IMO. And even though it pains me that's why I'd have Nadal ahead of Sampras despite being a way less dominant #1 (which I think is the 2nd biggest thing in tennis next to slams).

 

[mrzz]

I am being repetitive about the "peak Wawrinka > peak Murray", but after yesterday I think I can correct it to:

peak Wawrinka >> peak Murray

 

[DarthFed]

What you say about Nadal and Stan is all in retrospect. Nadal's travails were in front of him, and Stan's triumphs, as well. Stan was the untested. He'd never even won a set off of Rafa, much less a match, in 11 tries. There was a solid chance that Stan would not outlast a healthy Nadal in 5. Let's be serious about that.

I'm offering the injury excuse to the Djokovic fans. Clearly something is off. But it is very different, IMO, to losing to Murray in 2012 due to long match with Delpo in the SF. Novak was only 25, and he'd recently done a long match v. Murray in the AO SF, and a 5+ hour win v. Nadal in the final. I don't think anyone believes he was just "tired" in that final. I think he was mostly out-played in that match. Folks have suggested mental issues with Nole, right now, but also that he's got shoulder, wrist, etc. He's 29 now. Come on...your man Roger wasn't the same at 25 as 29, which you've argued time and again to prove. I'm saying it's different because of age, I guess. I don't believe that Novak lost that 2012 final at Wimbledon because he was tired. Today, I think he lost because Stan was better, and because he's been having physical niggles for some time, and personal issues that have been hinted at. In whatever combination, that has to do with being 29, not 25. And I don't care that Stan is 31. Stan has figured out whatever combination of things for himself, late-career. But he doesn't have the same pressures nor the same mileage as Novak.

Yes but since it is all about coulda woulda I think it's fair to use Stan's track record in finals to say that chances are pretty damn good that he wasn't going to flinch hard. Immediately after the match Nadal nuts were screaming bloody murder to anyone saying Stan may have won anyways. They pointed out he had done nothing up until that point and was a known choker. Well given that he beat the 3-time defending AO champion in a 5 set thriller and has now gone onto show that he plays like a superhuman on the big stage, it's fair to say in retrospect that he was probably not going to choke it away. If Rafa was going to win he probably would've had to earn it in a huge way. A solid chance that Rafa would've come back from a set and break down? I'd say well under 50%.

Novak has aged extremely well, so yes the tennis he is playing now isn't really any worse than it was in 2012 or 2013, years in which he only won 1 slam and lost #1 to 31 year old Federer for a couple months and then Nadal for the year in 2013. I don't think Nole lost to Murray in 2013 because he was tired either just to make that clear, but I find the argument that Stan won because Nole is injured to be equally as weak.

And the 2012 AO is actually not an example that works in your favor here, he clearly was flat vs. Nadal for much of that final but pulled it out anyways. I felt the same way about the 2009 final with Roger losing to Rafa. At various points in that match it was clear Rafa was struggling with the effects of the brawl with Verdasco. In 2012 it was similar for Nole after the Murray brawl. Those losses were pretty damning to the loser because of that. Fatigue is real, these guys are human, but here's the problem...it's still just an excuse and you can't truly estimate the total impact it has on a player in a given match, just like injuries.