Stan vs. Murray-Who is greater

[Riotbeard]

As Stan has a decent chance of tying Murray in the slam count again, I wonder who is better. Murray is the more consistent player with a better overall resume by far, but Stan's peak level is better. His record finals is just insane, he has won ten in a row at this point, what do people think?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Their resume might be the same. But, Stan is an overachiever and Andy is an underachiever. I arrest my case. Nothing further need to be said.

 

[Carol]

If Stan wins the USO title he will tie the same GS like Muzz but to me Muzz is greater

 

[the AntiPusher]

If Stan wins the USO title he will tie the same GS like Muzz but to me Muzz is greater

Agreed...Andy's career overshadowed Stan's by a country mile but Stan is a legitimate legendary player

 

[AnonymousFan]

For me, comparing Stan and Murray is like comparing Kvitova/Li Na and Azarenka/Kerber

 

[El Dude]

You said it, Riotbeard: Andy is more consistent with the (far) superior career accomplishments, but Stan is able to reach a higher level.

 

[Carol]

If Stan wins the USO title he will tie the same GS like Muzz but to me Muzz is greater

Agreed...Andy's career overshadowed Stan's by a county mile but Stan is a legitimate legendary player

I think Stan has more 'guts' :dalek:

 

[isabelle]

Andy by far....if you compare the titles they won....Andy won much more than Stan even if he lost more GS's finals than the Swiss wonder

 

[Front242]

Sure, Andy has won more premier titles BUT, if Stan were to win here, his span of slam titles would surpass Andy's as he'd then be missing just Wimbledon to complete his career slam, having won 3 of the 4 slams (AO, FO and USO if he wins) whereas Andy has won 1 USO and 2 Wimbledons and still needs to win 1 FO and 1 AO to complete his career slam.

So, their masters wins are obviously very much in Andy's favour, but if Stan wins the USO then his slam collection is more impressive imo.

 

[Rational National]

Its interesting and worthy of debate, but i think the house view is Andys career is better and thus would be deemes greater. But in no way is that denegrate what Stan has done over the past 3-4 years especially. He is a legitiamately top top player and when on song is a real danger in most slams

 

[Kieran]

Andy is greater. Stan is more like a sniper, he sneaks in unexpected, but Andy lives with the weight of expectation all the time, and does well out of it, generally...

 

[mrzz]

As of now, unfortunately, Murray's resume is so much better that this is not even a discussion. Even if Wawrinka wins on sunday, Murray's resume would be still be quite better. However, as I said in some other thread, if when everything is said and done Wawrinka leads the slam count 5 -3, for example, then I would love to rejoin the debate.

Even if I have to agree that (argh) Murray is "greater", I cannot lose the opportunity to state that:

Peak Wawrinka > Peak Murray

And I completely disagree with GSM. Murray is an overachiever and Stan is an underachiever (in one particular sense: it took him ages to click).

 

[herios]

3 years ago, nobody would have thought to compare them, how things can change...

 

[Riotbeard]

You said it, Riotbeard: Andy is more consistent with the (far) superior career accomplishments, but Stan is able to reach a higher level.

I think what's impressive about Stan is he has gotten his majors by stepping up when he gets there. In contrast, Andy gotten his slams by giving himself tons of chances, and that's what's interesting. Novak said Stan is a big match player, but I would not say the same of Murray. Murray is consistently the better player, but hasn't won his slams by titanic matches against the best. I find that to be a really interesting contrast.

 

[the AntiPusher]

If Stan wins the USO title he will tie the same GS like Muzz but to me Muzz is greater

Agreed...Andy's career overshadowed Stan's by a country mile but Stan is a legitimate legendary player

I think Stan has more 'guts' :dalek:

Stan is more mature on the tennis court than a former man child like Andy who at times behaves like a petulant child.

 

[delPoFearhand]

I almost always root for guys with a one-hand backhand. It's just such a pretty shot, and justifies me stubbornly sticking with my own terrible version of it.

 

[sid]

Andy constantly goes deeper than Stan in Slams,Saying this,Stan does get hot from time to time.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Andy's first Wimbledon was aided by premature upsets of both Roger and Rafa (both of whom were in his half). Andy's second Wimbledon he did not have to play Roger, Rafa or Novak. Andy's USO was aided by wind.

But, Stan fully deserved each one of his wins. Look at this USO, He beat three quality players in Del Potro, Kei Nishikori and Novak in the business end. In AO 2014, even though Rafa might have had some back issues, one should remember that it was Stan who took out #1 seed Novak. Similarly, in RG 2015 Stan defeated a hands down favorite in Nole.

While I do agree that Andy is more consistent in going deep, there is no question who is the big match player.

 

[Front242]

Obviously the facts speak for themselves, Murray has won way more Masters events. But when it comes to slams, they may have 3 a piece now, but Murray has won 2 Wimbledons and 1 US Open while Stan has 1 AO, 1 FO and 1 USO. That is clearly better as he's now just 1 slam (Wimbledon) away from winning all 4 slams, whereas to do that, Murray needs to win the AO and FO. So, Murray has the better overall number of titles but in terms of simply slams, Stan is ahead.

 

[rafanoy1992]

Andy's first Wimbledon was aided by premature upsets of both Roger and Rafa (both of whom were in his half). Andy's second Wimbledon he did not have to play Roger, Rafa or Novak. Andy's USO was aided by wind.

But, Stan fully deserved each one of his wins. Look at this USO, He beat three quality players in Del Potro, Kei Nishikori and Novak in the business end. In AO 2014, even though Rafa might have had some back issues, one should remember that it was Stan who took out #1 seed Novak. Similarly, in RG 2015 Stan defeated a hands down favorite in Nole.

While I do agree that Andy is more consistent in going deep, there is no question who is the big match player.

I agree with your last sentence about Andy and Stan's careers.

However, I disagreed with your first two paragraphs. I'm not saying which titles are more impressive than other but what I am saying is that all of Murray's and Wawrinka's slam titles are all equally important. Winning a major is tough so you can't really say which title was more impressive.

If we go by that criteria on the opponent the champions faced during the tournament, then I think Djokovic has the most impressive resume even though he has 5 less slams than Federer.