Who had a BETTER career Sir Andy or Stan da freakin Man

[the AntiPusher]

Question @El Dude or whoever wants to reply..who had a BETTER career Sir Andy or Stan da freakin Man. .this might be a good poll selection thread

 

[Kieran]

Question @El Dude or whoever wants to reply..who had a BETTER career Sir Andy or Stan da freakin Man. .this might be a good poll selection thread

Andy. 3 slams each but Andy was in more finals. Made the final of all four slams. Former world number 1. I’d say he had more of everything else too..

 

[Fiero425]

Question @El Dude or whoever wants to reply..who had a BETTER career Sir Andy or Stan da freakin Man. .this might be a good poll selection thread

OCO; this is a joke right? W/O a doubt Murray had the better career & overall results! Sir Murray not only matches Wawrinka's 3 majors, Stan only has 1 Masters event on his resume while Murray has around 14! Murray's success wasn't as fleeting either; having several victories over Fedovic while Stan barely has a handful of victories over the Big 3 overall! Murray got to #1 for a minute and Wawrinka never got to #2 in the world! Even though I don't think they should count as an accomplishment in the GOAT race, Murray also has 2 OGM! Historians may have them level, but looking at the details, Sir Andy overcomes any shortcomings if comparing him to Stan alone!

 

[Fiero425]

This wasn't deserving of their own thread! It was in the ATP General News thread which seemed appropriate & made sense! THIS DOESN'T!

 

[don_fabio]

Question @El Dude or whoever wants to reply..who had a BETTER career Sir Andy or Stan da freakin Man. .this might be a good poll selection thread

If we talk about numbers and achievements then Murray, but there is something more in tennis. It's not all about the numbers, when Stan's game is clicking it's a pure joy to witness it. Personally, I'd rather watch Stan lose than Murray win.

 

[El Dude]

Based purely on statistics, it is Andy by a good (huge) margin. As Fiero said, it isn't just the 3 Slams but the YE #1, Tour Finals win, two Olympics, 14 Masters, and even his non-title results at Slams, consistently reaching Slam SFs and Finals for a decade (his 21 Slam SF+ is 8th best in the Open Era - more than Mac, Edberg, Becker, Borg, Wilander, etc...and more than twice as many as Stan's 9). If we were to imagine a "context neutral" Slam count, Andy would probably be at 5-6. He was that good, but had the misfortune of peaking alongside Novak, Rafa and, to a lesser extent, Roger. I really think he belongs more in the Edberg/Becker/Wilander group than the Courier/Vilas/Ashe/Nastase group...or at least closer to the former than the latter.

But Stan is a lot of fun, and a rather unique player. As some have mentioned, he played at a ferociously high level...well, in three Slams. Actually, Ultimate Tennis Statistics has a "Relative Difficulty" score for tournaments, and his 2014 AO and 2015 RG titles were the hardest in the Open Era history. He also has such a weird, unique arc: basically a top 20 guy until age 28, then elite for a few years.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Stan is 2-0 in slam finals against Djokovic. When Stan was playing his best no amount of pushing could stand up to him.

 

[tented]

This wasn't deserving of their own thread! It was in the ATP General News thread which seemed appropriate & made sense! THIS DOESN'T!

It’s not “news”; it’s a separate discussion and poll about two players.

 

[Fiero425]

It’s not “news”; it’s a separate discussion and poll about two players.

True enough, but it's only gonna take up 1 page! It w/b forgotten, but as a thread, it's out there for all time w/ its own MB designated spot!

 

[the AntiPusher]

Based purely on statistics, it is Andy by a good (huge) margin. As Fiero said, it isn't just the 3 Slams but the YE #1, Tour Finals win, two Olympics, 14 Masters, and even his non-title results at Slams, consistently reaching Slam SFs and Finals for a decade (his 21 Slam SF+ is 8th best in the Open Era - more than Mac, Edberg, Becker, Borg, Wilander, etc...and more than twice as many as Stan's 9). If we were to imagine a "context neutral" Slam count, Andy would probably be at 5-6. He was that good, but had the misfortune of peaking alongside Novak, Rafa and, to a lesser extent, Roger. I really think he belongs more in the Edberg/Becker/Wilander group than the Courier/Vilas/Ashe/Nastase group...or at least closer to the former than the latter.

But Stan is a lot of fun, and a rather unique player. As some have mentioned, he played at a ferociously high level...well, in three Slams. Actually, Ultimate Tennis Statistics has a "Relative Difficulty" score for tournaments, and his 2014 AO and 2015 RG titles were the hardest in the Open Era history. He also has such a weird, unique arc: basically a top 20 guy until age 28, then elite for a few years.

Good post El Dude. I think the 14 MS titles is the huge difference between these two.

 

[El Dude]

Good post El Dude. I think the 14 MS titles is the huge difference between these two.

Yeah. I also think it is easy to under-appreciate what Andy did in 2016 to reach #1. While some might contend that a guy that won two Slams in a year shouldn't be ranked lower than a guy who won just one, Andy really earned it - that last couple months was incredible--winning his last five titles, including two Masters and the Tour Finals, beating Novak in the latter. Of course #1 ranking was also helped by Novak sputtering at the end. Anyhow, unfortunately Andy's heroic push may have also led to his premature decline.

 

[Federberg]

It's Murray. It's not close. Been in more slam finals. Won way more titles including Masters 1000s. And was challenging far more consistently at the top. It's fair to say that Stan at his very best was probably a bit better, but Murray's average level was far higher. Is this really a debate?

 

[Moxie]

Anyhow, unfortunately Andy's heroic push may have also led to his premature decline.

I always object to this theory. @Fiero pushes it all the time. What happened to Murray's hips, IMO, was a function of years of wear, not a few months of a big push to #1. It wasn't even his hips in early 2017...it was his elbow, IIRC.

 

[Moxie]

But Stan is a lot of fun, and a rather unique player. As some have mentioned, he played at a ferociously high level...well, in three Slams. Actually, Ultimate Tennis Statistics has a "Relative Difficulty" score for tournaments, and his 2014 AO and 2015 RG titles were the hardest in the Open Era history. He also has such a weird, unique arc: basically a top 20 guy until age 28, then elite for a few years.

I know how to extend this thread beyond one page. Everyone says that Stan has had "such a weird, unique arc." Or that he is/was an "outlier." Late-career peak, for a short amount of time. In sports, there is a suspicion that falls on this. There have been folks around here who have loved throwing juicing shade, but never on Wawrinka. Why not? Because it's not interesting enough. I'm not saying that Stan's late surge was due to anything untoward, I'm just kind of laughing at the naïveté and double-standards. I know Darth is gone, but where was @Front242 ever on this? I know no one on this thread is a doping-hound, but this is sports. Late-career surges come under scrutiny.

Personally, I think Stan had a lot of tools, and he needed a good coach, which he got in Magnus Norman. Likewise, Marat Safin had Peter Lundgren to quiet his head just long enough to win the AO in 2005. It just surprises me that everyone just shrugs their shoulders in amazement at how unique and strange Stan's career has been, without question. Especially you, Dude. You see the numbers. And, you're a baseball guy.

There. That should give us another page.

 

[rafanoy1992]

I always object to this theory. @Fiero pushes it all the time. What happened to Murray's hips, IMO, was a function of years of wear, not a few months of a big push to #1. It wasn't even his hips in early 2017...it was his elbow, IIRC.

Also, if you are Murray, who has been in the shadow of the Big Three throughout his career, why not go for something that he has not done in his career up to that point?

He wanted to become the world number 1 and he knew that the only way to achieve that is to go on a winning streak at the end of 2016. He did it and achieve something he can tell his 4 kids in the future.

 

[Moxie]

Also, if you are Murray, who has been in the shadow of the Big Three throughout his career, why not go for something that he has not done in his career up to that point?

He wanted to become the world number 1 and he knew that the only way to achieve that is to go on a winning streak at the end of 2016. He did it and achieve something he can tell his 4 kids in the future.

Also, if you look at his 2016, particularly the late matches, it wasn't as if they were mostly 3- or 5-setters. He made the push that made sense, when he was on a roll.

Andy Murray | Player Activity | ATP Tour | Tennis

Official tennis match records of Andy Murray including results, opponents, match stats. Filter by year and tournament.

www.atptour.com

 

[El Dude]

I know how to extend this thread beyond one page. Everyone says that Stan has had "such a weird, unique arc." Or that he is/was an "outlier." Late-career peak, for a short amount of time. In sports, there is a suspicion that falls on this. There have been folks around here who have loved throwing juicing shade, but never on Wawrinka. Why not? Because it's not interesting enough. I'm not saying that Stan's late surge was due to anything untoward, I'm just kind of laughing at the naïveté and double-standards. I know Darth is gone, but where was @Front242 ever on this? I know no one on this thread is a doping-hound, but this is sports. Late-career surges come under scrutiny.

Personally, I think Stan had a lot of tools, and he needed a good coach, which he got in Magnus Norman. Likewise, Marat Safin had Peter Lundgren to quiet his head just long enough to win the AO in 2005. It just surprises me that everyone just shrugs their shoulders in amazement at how unique and strange Stan's career has been, without question. Especially you, Dude. You see the numbers. And, you're a baseball guy.

There. That should give us another page.

And I have no idea and never speculate on whether or not a player has juiced - whether it is Stan or anyone else. Unless there's some actual weight to the idea, it just feels cheap and unwarranted.

 

[Moxie]

And I have no idea and never speculate on whether or not a player has juiced - whether it is Stan or anyone else. Unless there's some actual weight to the idea, it just feels cheap and unwarranted.

Oh, it often has been. Just selective, from those who trade in such things.

 

[El Dude]

I always object to this theory. @Fiero pushes it all the time. What happened to Murray's hips, IMO, was a function of years of wear, not a few months of a big push to #1. It wasn't even his hips in early 2017...it was his elbow, IIRC.

Sure, you might be right. Maybe his 2016 push sped up the process, though. Anyhow, it is a fun narrative: Andy blows out his body to get to the top.

 

[El Dude]

Oh, it often has been. Just selective, from those who trade in such things.

Are you asking me to be a surrogate for Darth or Front? I don't know if I have it in me, to be honest.