- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Tennis: Why was Murray once considered part of the Big 4, but not Wawrinka?
Posted on 1/27/20 at 8:17 am
Posted on 1/27/20 at 8:17 am
They both have 3 Major wins. Wawrinka has won three different majors, while Murray has only won two.
This post was edited on 1/27/20 at 8:37 am
9
Posted on 1/27/20 at 8:18 am to Tpayne99
quote:
Wawrinka has won three different majors, while Murray has only won two.
England.
Posted on 1/27/20 at 8:20 am to Tpayne99
Stan went on insane runs when he got hot at a tournament, but he was not consistently a top level player. I'm too lazy to check the numbers, but I bet Murray has way more tournament wins. I know he has a ton of slam finals appearances. He reached number one. And he won two singles gold medals. Peak Stan is one of the best players ever, but Murray was more consistently good/great.
This post was edited on 1/27/20 at 8:22 am
Posted on 1/27/20 at 8:20 am to Tpayne99
I never considered Murray anywhere in the same league as Nadal, Joker, and Federer.
It’s a big 3 not a big 4.
It’s a big 3 not a big 4.
Posted on 1/27/20 at 8:22 am to Bunk Moreland
quote:
Stan went on insane runs when he got hot at a tournament,
yeah. stan would go super saiyan here or there but was never as consistent of semis as Murray was
also, the whole UK thing
Posted on 1/27/20 at 8:22 am to Bunk Moreland
Wawrinka's highest ever ranking is 3
Murray 1
Warinka has 16 wins
Murray has 46 (and 2 Olympic Golds)
Murray 1
Warinka has 16 wins
Murray has 46 (and 2 Olympic Golds)
This post was edited on 1/27/20 at 8:23 am
Posted on 1/27/20 at 8:24 am to Tpayne99
Stan
Aussie: t8, t4 x2, winner
French: t8 x2, t4, finalist, winner
Wimbledon: t8 x2
US: t8 x3, t4 x2, winner
Murray:
Aussie: t8, t4, finalist x5
French: t8 x2, t4 x4, finalist
Wimbledon: t8 x3, t4 x4, finalist, winner
US: t8 x3, t4, finalist, winner
Top 8s: AM 9, SW 8
Top 4s: AM 10, SW 5
Finalist: AM 8, SW 1
Wins: SW 3, AM 2
I think it's pretty clear by the results why Murray was part of the big 4 and Stan wasn't
Aussie: t8, t4 x2, winner
French: t8 x2, t4, finalist, winner
Wimbledon: t8 x2
US: t8 x3, t4 x2, winner
Murray:
Aussie: t8, t4, finalist x5
French: t8 x2, t4 x4, finalist
Wimbledon: t8 x3, t4 x4, finalist, winner
US: t8 x3, t4, finalist, winner
Top 8s: AM 9, SW 8
Top 4s: AM 10, SW 5
Finalist: AM 8, SW 1
Wins: SW 3, AM 2
I think it's pretty clear by the results why Murray was part of the big 4 and Stan wasn't
This post was edited on 1/27/20 at 8:26 am
Posted on 1/27/20 at 8:26 am to bluebarracuda
Great data
7 finals
7 finals
Posted on 1/27/20 at 8:27 am to bluebarracuda
There’s only a big 3.
Posted on 1/27/20 at 8:29 am to Tpayne99
Murray was closer to those 3 then he was to #5
Posted on 1/27/20 at 8:29 am to Tpayne99
(no message)
This post was edited on 5/7/20 at 9:25 pm
Posted on 1/27/20 at 8:33 am to pelicansfan123
quote:
There's only a Big 3, no matter what the media says.
I agree in hindsight, especially since he's no longer on the singles tour, but during that time period he was definitely considered part of the big 4
Posted on 1/27/20 at 8:36 am to Tpayne99
Because Murray’s consistency was very comparable to the Big Three outside of GS wins. Also, Murray has beaten Federer and Nadal numerous times in big events while Stan is 6-42 against Nadal and Federer.
Posted on 1/27/20 at 8:37 am to Tpayne99
Murray has made way more slam quarters, semis, and finals appearances.
Murray also ascended to #1 in the world. Stan was a bit of a late bloomer, too.
In the end, there's really only a Big Three.
Murray also ascended to #1 in the world. Stan was a bit of a late bloomer, too.
In the end, there's really only a Big Three.
Posted on 1/27/20 at 8:45 am to Eat Your Crow
Murray reminds me of Lleyton Hewitt. Good for only a few months and then went quiet for long stretches of time.
Posted on 1/27/20 at 9:25 am to Tpayne99
Tennis thread. 
Posted on 1/27/20 at 9:29 am to Paul Allen
quote:
Good for only a few months and then went quiet for long stretches of time.
This is false. He was loud from 2008-2017. He basically retired after the 2017 season
Posted on 1/27/20 at 10:02 am to Tpayne99
Murray was dominant for a long time and ascended to #1 during the Novak/Fed/Nadal era. When Novak beat him at Roland Garros to complete the calendar Grand Slam, had Murray won 1 of his 5 Aussie Finals he would’ve been out there competing for the career slam that day. Murray made 11 Grand Slam Finals. He’s incredible and definitely top 10 all time. He just played in an era when 3 of the best 5 to ever pick up a racquet were competing as well.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News