Murray v. Wawrinka - As it stands

[DarthFed]

He hasn't had the #1 for as long as Roger and Novak for the reasons that you and I both explain, including injury lay-offs that took his #1 away and gifted it back to Roger. "Not anywhere near the player Roger was until 2008?" That's debatable. He was perfectly near from 2005, as he was the #2 almost all that time, and he was just 19-22 yrs old in that period. And he began owning the h2h against everyone he played. He was dominating a great deal of the field. He just hadn't gotten his whole game together, while Roger had #1 to himself. You can't really say that Nadal wasn't making an effort. And he actually was "near" the player Nole was since 2011, since he topped him in several Major finals and SFs. It's not easy to "dominate" when you have other all-time greats in your time. But Roger had a time to himself before Rafa came up, and Novak is having a time on his own as they decline. Rafa, with that crucible, and the injury lay-offs, has dominated both in many aspects. I think there are other ways of defining dominance. But I know you'd rather chew glass than give Nadal his due.

Yes and we will never agree as to why the guy is always injured. I'm shocked he held up as long as he has with that game of his. Injuries are part of the game especially when we are talking someone whose entire game was based on faster, stronger, longer. From 2005 - 2007 Roger won 8 slams to Rafa's 3. So no he wasn't anywhere near the player Roger was but he was improving and obviously took a big leap forward in 2008. And since 2011 it is 11 to 5 for Nole in slams compared to Rafa. Again, nowhere near regardless of H2H which has been majorly in Djokovic's favor to boot.

 

[DarthFed]

You've already read Broken's post above and conceded to it, for the most part. A minority opinion isn't always wrong.

Nah, but sometimes it is minority for a damn good reason B-)

 

[Moxie]

Yes and we will never agree as to why the guy is always injured. I'm shocked he held up as long as he has with that game of his. Injuries are part of the game especially when we are talking someone whose entire game was based on faster, stronger, longer. From 2005 - 2007 Roger won 8 slams to Rafa's 3. So no he wasn't anywhere near the player Roger was but he was improving and obviously took a big leap forward in 2008. And since 2011 it is 11 to 5 for Nole in slams compared to Rafa. Again, nowhere near regardless of H2H which has been majorly in Djokovic's favor to boot.

I didn't know we were debating why Rafa is often injured. It's a thing, not a debate topic.

I still think you're hitting "nowhere near" (as good) really hard in these sentences when, in fact, he was rather very near. You're carefully choosing when you break the counts, and somehow you left out 2009-2010. 5 Majors to Rafa, 1 to Roger, 0 to Djokovic. Which still leaves one that Rafa got, so you're doing a bit of a shell game. The h2h v. Djokovic has only been in Novak's favor in the last few months, and yes, over the last couple of years, but don't act like that's always been the case. You really shouldn't say "Again, nowhere near regardless of H2H which has been majorly in Djokovic's favor to boot." It took Djokovic 10 years just to level that head to head. Even when Djokovic upped his game 5+ years ago, and even with Nadal's significant slide in the last 2-3. And Nadal still has the edge in significant matches at Majors. Just because you say something, doesn't make it true. You're blowing smoke that other people might buy, but I'll hold your feet to the fire on this one. You're mis-measuring what Nadal has done, and trying to make less of it. I don't think that's fair to what he has accomplished. He was the first major competitor to come up against Roger in any significant way, and that at a very young age. He made mincemeat, mostly, of Djokovic until 2011, and sometimes after that. He's the greatest clay courter of all-time, and he has 14 Major titles. He had more MS titles than anyone until recently ago. He has a better winning percentage in Major finals than either Fed or Djoker, or in Majors, overall. It's hard to make the case, actually, that he hasn't been a dominant force in tennis since 2005, until the last 2 years. I said before, it's how you define "dominance," but it's better if you also define terms fairly.

 

[DarthFed]

I didn't know we were debating why Rafa is often injured. It's a thing, not a debate topic.

I still think you're hitting "nowhere near" (as good) really hard in these sentences when, in fact, he was rather very near. You're carefully choosing when you break the counts, and somehow you left out 2009-2010. 5 Majors to Rafa, 1 to Roger, 0 to Djokovic. Which still leaves one that Rafa got, so you're doing a bit of a shell game. The h2h v. Djokovic has only been in Novak's favor in the last few months, and yes, over the last couple of years, but don't act like that's always been the case. You really shouldn't say "Again, nowhere near regardless of H2H which has been majorly in Djokovic's favor to boot." It took Djokovic 10 years just to level that head to head. Even when Djokovic upped his game 5+ years ago, and even with Nadal's significant slide in the last 2-3. And Nadal still has the edge in significant matches at Majors. Just because you say something, doesn't make it true. You're blowing smoke that other people might buy, but I'll hold your feet to the fire on this one. You're mis-measuring what Nadal has done, and trying to make less of it. I don't think that's fair to what he has accomplished. He was the first major competitor to come up against Roger in any significant way, and that at a very young age. He made mincemeat, mostly, of Djokovic until 2011, and sometimes after that. He's the greatest clay courter of all-time, and he has 14 Major titles. He had more MS titles than anyone until recently ago. He has a better winning percentage in Major finals than either Fed or Djoker, or in Majors, overall. It's hard to make the case, actually, that he hasn't been a dominant force in tennis since 2005, until the last 2 years. I said before, it's how you define "dominance," but it's better if you also define terms fairly.

How the hell was he near Roger's level in 2005-2007? He was only great on clay and he won 3 slams vs. 8. He was never close to being #1 at year end. I hope your argument isn't that he was #2 which is close to #1? Because then we can talk Roddick and Hewitt in 2004 as being close to Roger as well. And I didn't leave out 2009 and 2010 where the count was 4 for Rafa, and 3 for Roger.

We've been through the Rafa-Djoker H2H before. Djoker became a small force in 2006 and broke out a bit in 2007. So Rafa had 5+ seasons to beat up on Nole before 2011 and he did to the tune of 16-7. Since 2011 it is 19-7 and it is actually 4-4 at slams with Nole getting the edge there with winning a match at every single event while Rafa has only beaten Djokovic at 2 of them.

 

[Federberg]

I know a lot of you guys value dominance, but, if you remember back, Rafa was the alpha dog in many ways, and for a lot of years. It's a question if you value it only by weeks at #1. And not for nothing, he was #1 for over 2 years (141 weeks) and is still #7 on the list. But I think you should factor in other criteria, and also just remember the vibe, at the time. Even when Roger was #1, Nadal had his number, and that of most of the field. He was the cock of the walk in many ways. Being younger, it took him time to make up ground on Roger, but he became #1 at 22. No one has ever had to win 5 Slams before becoming #1, which speaks to Roger's dominance, but it also tells us what the younger Nadal was up against. He won a Major in each of 10 consecutive years. No one has done that, not even non-consecutive, if I'm not wrong. He dealt with Roger, and everyone else for a lot of years. And just when it looked like he'd have the field to himself, and a breath, Novak found the magic bullet to his game.
I don't think it's fair to say that Nadal was never dominant. Firstly, he was for 141 weeks. Secondly, he was dominating the field, and his strongest rival, in Roger. Thirdly, Fed did have a bit of time without strong opponents, and Djokovic has had a period with a waning Roger and Rafa. Nice gig, if you can get it. Nadal, however, had really only 2010 to himself. He didn't dominate enough for you? He's dominated Federer, and he had the H2H against Djoker until just a few months ago. I think you people grade on a single-minded and not completely interesting curve. One single stat can reduce us to the simplest answer, but it doesn't always reveal the truth.

You can spin it how you want to Moxie, but he simply wasn't a dominant number one in the way the players I mentioned were (pls exclude Edberg from that ). And I'm a bit amused by the "he had to play against Roger, but who did Roger have to compete against" argument. I know you're not trying to pull down Roger in saying that, but it's always amused me as an argument to show how good player A is versus player B, by using the fact that player B is very good. You might not like the fact that it's so, but trying to diminish dominance as a component of greatness might be the most amusing thing of all. It doesn't mean Rafa isn't a great, heck an all time great and in the conversation, he's just weaker in one aspect than some other players, so what?

 

[Carol]

2005-2007 and blah blah blah ..........since when a player at 19 to 21 years old is on his pic?

 

[brokenshoelace]

We've been through the Rafa-Djoker H2H before. Djoker became a small force in 2006 and broke out a bit in 2007. So Rafa had 5+ seasons to beat up on Nole before 2011 and he did to the tune of 16-7. Since 2011 it is 19-7 and it is actually 4-4 at slams with Nole getting the edge there with winning a match at every single event while Rafa has only beaten Djokovic at 2 of them.

Wait, why did Nadal "have 5 seasons to beat up on Novak"? Novak won his first major at the AO in 2008 and beat Nadal his fair share of times that year. This is revisionist history, because for the first 4 months of 2008, people were talking like Novak was about to overtake him (Nadal had only won 3 slams at that point, to Novak's 1). Nadal didn't get "5 seasons" to beat up on Novak, he gave himself 5 seasons to beat up on Novak by being a flat out better player at that time. They're virtually the same age and it's not like Novak was a late bloomer. Or is it Nadal's fault it took Novak years to play at a consistent enough level?

Since the 2014 FO, where Nadal practically became a washed-up part timer (exaggeration I know), Novak has beaten him 6 times. You don't think that massively inflates the h2h? It's literally the only reason he's up in the h2h, something he had never been able to do before.

 

[DarthFed]

Novak took awhile to hit his prime. He became a very good player at a young age but not a truly great one until 2011. He had the blistering 6 months in 2008 but he couldn't maintain that level and in 2009-2010 he was pretty far off of it if we are being fair. Nole came close to taking over the #2 spot before RG that year but not a single person on Earth would have given him or anyone else a chance at RG that year. Rafa was still rightly seen as the much better player, a nice 6 months didn't change that.

Just as you have to credit Nadal for being a great, great player from the time he was basically 19, (much earlier than it took Fed and Novak) you have to credit Nole for being way better in his late 20's than Rafa is. As you said they are only a year apart and look at Nole at age 28-29 vs. Rafa at age 28-30. Basically you can't punish Nole for not being a prodigy and then give Rafa a pass for becoming a scrub at age 28.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Novak took awhile to hit his prime. He became a very good player at a young age but not a truly great one until 2011. He had the blistering 6 months in 2008 but he couldn't maintain that level and in 2009-2010 he was pretty far off of it if we are being fair. Nole came close to taking over the #2 spot before RG that year but not a single person on Earth would have given him or anyone else a chance at RG that year. Rafa was still rightly seen as the much better player, a nice 6 months didn't change that.

Just as you have to credit Nadal for being a great, great player from the time he was basically 19, (much earlier than it took Fed and Novak) you have to credit Nole for being way better in his late 20's than Rafa is. As you said they are only a year apart and look at Nole at age 28-29 vs. Rafa at age 28-30. Basically you can't punish Nole for not being a prodigy and then give Rafa a pass for becoming a scrub at age 28.

No I agree, but there's a vast difference between beating a slam winner who wasn't quite as dominant as he later would become, and beating a washed up broken down injury-prone has been. If we're comparing their careers, then surely you have to commend Novak on his longer longevity (yes, I said longer longevity), but if we're talking about the h2h, and you're really putting stock in the last 6 matches they played, then that's being disingenuous a tad, no?

 

[DarthFed]

If you are saying that Novak of 2007-2010 is better than the Rafa of 2014-2016 that I definitely agree with. We know you can't just arbitrarily throw away matches because Nadal and Novak simply did not peak at the same time. The only time you could say they were both in prime form was the 2011-2013 period. But you can't throw away matches before 2011 and after 2013.

 

[Moxie]

Well, it seems we've come to a meeting of the minds. I don't think anyone wants to throw away any matches. Just to put them in context. Djokovic had a big run against a very prime Rafa in 2011-12 AO. Before that, he hadn't been able to get over on Rafa, most of the time. In that run, he had Nadal's head spinning, and Nadal needed time to regroup and make a new plan against him. Which he did. And he still got Djokovic in a lot of key moments, before Rafa ran out of gas. All matches count, but, as Broken said, it's rather puny to make a lot out of Nole finally making a hash out of Rafa, when everyone was doing it, as well. It took a spindly, lesser Rafa by far for Novak to beat him at RG, and Novak had a lot of tries. Oh, and that win at the USO in the 2013 final. Nole was well into his 2.0 persona, and still Nadal got him in a HC Major final. As you said, Novak, in his earlier iteration, was certainly better than Nadal in the the last 2.5 years. Novak could have been better younger, but he wasn't. But Nadal was better than Novak most of their careers and has taken more big scalps off of Nole, than Djokovic has taken off of him. I don't know how else you want to parse it out.

 

[DarthFed]

^ Nadal could have been better older, but he hasn't been. And I disagree that Nadal has been better than Novak for most of their careers. Djokovic wasn't really relevant until 2007 and even if you count 2006 in there it is Nadal > Novak from 2006 - 2010 and Novak > Nadal 2011 - 2016. As for Nadal beating Djoker in the USO final well if you haven't noticed just about everyone beats him there. 2-5 in the finals is hideous.

 

[Moxie]

You disagree that Nadal has been better than Novak for most of their careers? By what standard? And you, who prize Majors, where Rafa actually has been better than Novak. You shouldn't make less of Rafa's wins over Novak's at the USO, just because you think he should have done better. Rafa did win, and both were on form. You can call Novak's results "hideous" if you like, but he's considered a great HC player, and he's had his chances at the USO. Also consider this: Djokovic, who is considered to be the 2nd best on clay, since about 2011, took 6 tries to beat Rafa there, and then when he was a make-weight. Novak, however, is in contention for the best HC-er ever, and Nadal beat him twice at the USO in finals. I think Nadal has been the better, over most of their careers, particularly in the big moments.

 

[Billie]

This is about Murray vs Stanimal, I think.

 

[DarthFed]

You disagree that Nadal has been better than Novak for most of their careers? By what standard? And you, who prize Majors, where Rafa actually has been better than Novak. You shouldn't make less of Rafa's wins over Novak's at the USO, just because you think he should have done better. Rafa did win, and both were on form. You can call Novak's results "hideous" if you like, but he's considered a great HC player, and he's had his chances at the USO. Also consider this: Djokovic, who is considered to be the 2nd best on clay, since about 2011, took 6 tries to beat Rafa there, and then when he was a make-weight. Novak, however, is in contention for the best HC-er ever, and Nadal beat him twice at the USO in finals. I think Nadal has been the better, over most of their careers, particularly in the big moments.

By the standard of the amount of time that they've been superior to one another. At best Rafa has had a slightly better career and it's very debatable. I'd imagine Nole will put it to rest soon. As for the USO Nole is not one of the best players there if we are talking history. Overall on HC he is probably already the 2nd best ever but it is slow hards where he is best. On fast hards Roger, Sampras, and many others have been better than Nole.

 

[Moxie]

By the standard of the amount of time that they've been superior to one another. At best Rafa has had a slightly better career and it's very debatable. I'd imagine Nole will put it to rest soon. As for the USO Nole is not one of the best players there if we are talking history. Overall on HC he is probably already the 2nd best ever but it is slow hards where he is best. On fast hards Roger, Sampras, and many others have been better than Nole.

Glad we agree on Nadal over Djokovic, h2h. But why is Novak worse on fast HC, when he's so good indoors, and Nadal has done better in Cincy and at the USO? Nadal got him in so many venues because he was the better player. He just ran out of game before Novak did. And now Novak has been sort of playing to an empty house.

 

[DarthFed]

^ I don't think we do agree really. Nadal has the edge at slams which is big but let's not ignore the fact that 7 of those meetings have taken place at RG and only 1 at AO. If that was switched you'd have the opposite but Nadal isn't good enough at AO to go deep consistently.

Novak is worse on fast hard courts because it doesn't suit his game as well. Roger is worse on slow hard courts because it doesn't suit his game as well, Nadal is worse on grass because it doesn't suit his game as well. The indoor courts have been slowed down greatly, they are considered medium-paced at most right now. And I'm not sure I'd say Nadal has the better resume at the USO, it is tied 2-2 there.

As for who has "gotten who" at most venues it is Nole by far. Nole has beaten Nadal at pretty much every big tournament on tour.

 

[masterclass]

Stan has defeated the #1 in each of his 3 major wins, and also the #2 players in the world in his first two major wins.

2014 AO Stan d. #2Novak , Stan d. #1 Nadal
2015 RG Stan d. #2Federer, Stan d. #1 Djokovic
2016 USO Stan d. #6 Nishikori, Stan d. #1 Djokovic

That is most impressive. I don't know if it has ever been done before.
Too bad Nishikori ruined Stan's chance at a 3-peat of wins over the top 2.

For comparison's sake, Murray d. #2 Djokovic at USO2012, #1 Djokovic at W2013 , #6 Raonic at W2016. and had no wins against anyone else higher ranked than #6 during those runs (2012 #6 Berdych, 2013 #20 Youzhny, 2016 #10 Berdych).
Nowhere near as impressive as Stan, but Andy could only play the hand dealt to him.

Stan is undefeated in his last 11 finals since the start of 2014 including 3 major finals against the world's top ranked players.
Everything before Magnus Norman is mostly irrelevant.
It was merely a warm up for what was to come once the Norman key unlocked the Stanimal game.
In my estimation, Stan went up at least 3 levels with Norman.

Murray was certainly relevant before hiring Lendl with all of his non-major titles and good performances in majors, but he didn't win a major without Lendl.
In my estimation Lendl raised Murray about one level.

Coach Norman > Coach Lendl

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[Backhand_DTL]

Glad we agree on Nadal over Djokovic, h2h. But why is Novak worse on fast HC, when he's so good indoors, and Nadal has done better in Cincy and at the USO? Nadal got him in so many venues because he was the better player. He just ran out of game before Novak did. And now Novak has been sort of playing to an empty house.

Saying Rafa has done better at Cincy (other from the one time he won I don't think he ever went deep there) and the US Open is definitely a stretch. There top level on those surfaces, though I would still give Novak an edge, is certainly similar but regarding the average level Novak is clearly better. And I think Novak has beaten Rafa at any event of Masters 1000 level and higher apart from Shanghai where they haven't met yet while there are some tournaments where Rafa always lost to Novak.

The reason Novak is not that great at Cincy and the US Open is that a fast, rather high bouncing surface hurts his defensive game so there are more players who can hit through him without playing out of their mind and doesn't help him enough on the offensive side to compensate for that. Also conditions regularly being hot, humid or windy isn't in his favour. Paris Bercy and London on the contrary are medium speed with a rather low bounce which basically is the perfect combination for Novak and the true bounce of indoor HCs usually helps him in doing even more damage on the return than outdoors. His dominance on the indoor and slow to medium paced outdoor HCs since 2011 is actually not even that far away from Rafa's on clay during his prime.

Their H2H reflecting somewhat unfairly on Rafa because of his faster decline is also something I would object to. As they are of a similar age it's not Novak's fault that Rafa's level significantly went down since 2014 the same way it's not Rafa's fault that Novak took until 2011 to really come into his own. Also the H2H is still rather clay heavy. They played 22 matches on clay and 24 matches on hard despite having at best 4 chances to play each other on clay per season but usually around 10 on hard. That shows Novak was much more often there to meet Rafa in his favourite tournaments than the other way around, so that's something that enabled Rafa to stay in the lead until this year in the first place.

Further I don't think it's debatable that Rafa was the better player until 2011 but since then apart from the clay court season in 2012 and the spring and summer in 2013 Novak always has been comfortably ahead. Another matter is that until after Roland Garros this year Rafa definitely was the greater player but now there are reasonable cases for both as it depends on if you rate 2 additional majors and an Olympic Gold higher than 5 titles at the WTF, a few more masters, more weeks at No. 1 and year end No. 1s, more deep runs at the Slams and the achievement of winning 4 slams in a row.

 

[britbox]

Stan has defeated the #1 in each of his 3 major wins, and also the #2 players in the world in his first two major wins.

2014 AO Stan d. #2Novak , Stan d. #1 Nadal
2015 RG Stan d. #2Federer, Stan d. #1 Djokovic
2016 USO Stan d. #6 Nishikori, Stan d. #1 Djokovic

That is most impressive. I don't know if it has ever been done before.
Too bad Nishikori ruined Stan's chance at a 3-peat of wins over the top 2.

For comparison's sake, Murray d. #2 Djokovic at USO2012, #1 Djokovic at W2013 , #6 Raonic at W2016. and had no wins against anyone else higher ranked than #6 during those runs (2012 #6 Berdych, 2013 #20 Youzhny, 2016 #10 Berdych).
Nowhere near as impressive as Stan, but Andy could only play the hand dealt to him.

Stan is undefeated in his last 11 finals since the start of 2014 including 3 major finals against the world's top ranked players.
Everything before Magnus Norman is mostly irrelevant.
It was merely a warm up for what was to come once the Norman key unlocked the Stanimal game.
In my estimation, Stan went up at least 3 levels with Norman.

Murray was certainly relevant before hiring Lendl with all of his non-major titles and good performances in majors, but he didn't win a major without Lendl.
In my estimation Lendl raised Murray about one level.

Coach Norman > Coach Lendl

Respectfully,
masterclass

No Fluke either. Norman did a great job with Soderling and Stan's finals record is pretty incredible. Lendl's presence has been great for Murray though...