Who's CAREER would you rather have? Wawrinka, Berdych or Tsonga?

First topic message reminder :

Stan has become one of the best players in the world, he has always had incredible potential and is finally starting to realise it. He almost had a career year, winning a Slam, a Masters and the Davis Cup to go a long with his Olympic Gold in doubles.

However, Berdych and Tsonga must look on with slight jealously after being the ones pushing the big 4 the closest for so long. They have been competing at a high level for several years now, my question is...when the three plays hang up their rackets, who's CAREER would you most liked to have?

Has Stan's AO win forever given him the edge over Tomas and Jo or do you think they are more proud of their longevity in the game and wouldn't swap careers with the Swiss?

Stan Wawrinka:

Age: 29
Turned pro: 2002
Career high ranking: 3
Career won/loss: 351/216
Masters: 1 Win 2 Finals
Slam record: 7 QFs 3 SFs 1 W
Prize money $15,4 million
Olympic gold in doubles
Davis Cup

Jo-Wilfried Tsonga:

Age:29
Turned pro: 2004
Career high ranking: 5
Career won/loss: 319\147
Masters: 2 Wins 1 Finals
Slam record: 9 QFs 4 SFs 1 F
World Tour Finals Finalist 2011
Prize money: $14.5 million

Tomas Berdych:

Age:29
Turned Pro: 2002
Career high ranking: 5
Career won/loss: 498/264
Grand Slams: 0
Masters: 1 Win 2 Finals
Slam record: 12 QFs 4 SFs 1 F
Davis Cup
Prize money: $20.9 million

Indeed it does, though I thought LF made a great point seeing similarities between Stan and Safin in consistency.

Stan has the world at his feet. Just gotta keep moving onwards and upwards.

Stan is a bit old to have the world at his feet. Murray beats Stan by miles, not really a debate until Stan wins another slam.

Bit tough to ignore Masters when Murray has 10 and Wawrinka 1 (and titles in total it's 33 to 10)!

Slam-wise, it's equal for wins as BB says, but is it better to be 2/2 or 2/8 - that's a lot of tough final losses but then again it's a lot of being on the biggest stages against the best.

Olympic gold in singles v gold in doubles - got to give that to Murray.
Wawrinka has a Davis Cup - meh!
Career high of 2 v 3 - not much different.

I still think, like it or not, the Big 4 was thing - a period in the game when four players took up pretty much every slam final slot, most of the slam semis and locked out all the Masters. Murray was the junior part of the bunch, trailing the other 3 but still part of it. On that basis, I definitely would take Murray's career - but Wawrinka certainly could change that from now on.

My view is that one slam to nil trumps a lot of masters and other things because the difference between 1 or more slams and slam-less is quite large. However I'm less convinced that one more slam beats a bunch of other things. In other words, even if Stan has 3 slams to Murray's 2, Murray still has the better career.

A big win for Stan, this. The first slam has a slight asterisk due to injury in the final. also, there is an argument that AO is marginally the 4th slam. If you only win at 1 event, it's slightly better if it's one of the other three (some disagree).

Yeah, Murray by miles. It's just interesting to think about things from another angle.

A 3rd for Stan would make it an argument. If course, a Wimbledon in 4 weeks and Stan heads to New York looking for a career Slam!!!!

I thought Wawrinka's record was rubbish on grass so just looked it up. 21 wins. If he wins Wimbledon that really would be freaky! At least, he wouldn't do it wearing those shorts anyway - the AELTC have standards!

YvonneT wrote:I thought Wawrinka's record was rubbish on grass so just looked it up. 21 wins. If he wins Wimbledon that really would be freaky! At least, he wouldn't do it wearing those shorts anyway - the AELTC have standards!

He put those shorts up on dais at his press conference and said he liked them.

http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/video/2015-06-07/rb4prbsfjjx4lb8f3_fj1nxm5m9qho9w.html

If a career comparison is on slam wins alone then Murray and Stan are neck and neck, else Murray shades it.

If they fuse together and become Stanimuzz, they have the career grand slam! And matching gold medals.

Silver wrote:If they fuse together and become Stanimuzz, they have the career grand slam! And matching gold medals.

Hadn't thought of that mate The Murrinka fusion is a force of nature

I would take Stan's career over Andy's because of the pride he must feel in that win today. Definitely one of the greatest displays of sustained brilliance in a GS final, against a brick wall of an opponent.

To be honest GG, I think Murray has produced two better displays in winning his slams than Stan, Wawrinka will never experience the burden of playing at a home slam.

People can have different opinions about the performance, but I certainly doubt that Murray feels less proud of his wins than Wawrinka does. All 4 of their slam final wins were tough in different ways, but they both managed to meet the challenge.

I'd take Andys. The pride he must have winning his home slam given the history is a greater moment than anyone could dream that of

temporary21 wrote:I'd take Andys. The pride he must have winning his home slam given the history is a greater moment than anyone could dream that of

Why would it matter for Murray; remember he supported independence?

Every slam is unique, and even winning the same one more than once is unique. Relative valuation because 20 years some players did not go to slam x or something else should be not a valuation.

Every slam win deserves the player to be proud of it. It is hard work. Relative valuation based on location, opposition, etc., just takes away from the win.

There is no home slam for many, a slam win is still a slam win.

Career wise, you have to go with Murray. Even though it must have hurt to lose so many finals, I think he'll look back with pride at how often he got himself in a position to win slams.

I also agree with the assertion that when the equation is "just one more" slam, it isn't as impacting as "The one" slam. As such, where as Stan's sole slam meant that it didn't really matter what else Berdych did, Stan would still have the green on him - with Wawrinka Murray, it probably doesn't break the status if Wawrinka wins Wimbledon. Or does it? If Wawrinka wins THIS Wimbledon, I'd be a little tempted to have him above Murray. He'd only be the fourth player in the last 40 odd years to win the RG-Wimbledon double, and he'd have a slam on every surface. The Olympic gold is interesting, because for me, while I'm sure everyone in the top ten would love the singles title, realistically, after the 12-month bump in your ranking points, the medal, whether Singles or Doubles, is exactly the same. The value the medal had on your country's Olympic standing is exactly the same... and what's more, the prize money for winning either is exactly the same.

That said, shows how big a leap one slam is when the Wawrinka/Tsonga/Berdych comparison becomes Wawrinka/Murray.

I go with Stan; the burden of history, becoming the first Swiss to win a Slam in 3 years. Immense.

Don't think either will be disappointed with their career and achievements. However I would imagine there will be some regrets for both. Murray who has been much more consistent and reached so many more QF's, SF's and Finals but has come up short too many times when coming up against Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. Does he show them too much respect ? Wawrinka has shown that when he actually gets to the sharp end of the slams that he has the game and power to take the top players out. However why did it take him so long in his career to realise this and why has he not been more consistent ?

Calder106 - Re Stan the Man's late flowering. Stan would invariably come up against Rog in the big tourneys or lose out, agonisingly, to someone in five.
Beating Nole at the AO last year gave him the confidence to win that tourney and since then he's had a couple of big wins over Rog as well.
Now Stan joins Hewitt as the only current player outside the Big Four to have two Slams.

why would Australian open be the weakest slam? It is the same strength of field as all the other slams. How does that possibly make it less important or less difficult to win?

sirfredperry wrote:Calder106 - Re Stan the Man's late flowering. Stan would invariably come up against Rog in the big tourneys or lose out, agonisingly, to someone in five.
  Beating Nole at the AO last year gave him the confidence to win that tourney and since then he's had a couple of big wins over Rog as well.
  Now Stan joins Hewitt as the only current player outside the Big Four to have two Slams.

He must have some regrets though that he didn't show that confidence earlier in his career. When he plays like he did yesterday he would blow anyone off the court.

I don't see Wawrinka vs Murray career stats as cut and dry as many are making out.

Yes Murray has many more titles and made more Major finals, but Murray has lost 75% of the Major finals he has reached.

Whilst it's obvious that Murray carried a lot of expectation as Britain's last star was many moons ago(Perry).

But Wawrinka had the added pressure that whatever he achieved, he was always in Federer's shadow. Wawrinka in his early days was more so less a high end journeyman. His fitness was poor. He lacked belief. But after a few better years he actually felt he belonged, he stepped out of Federer's shadow.

Well, the career stats are cut & dried - there's no debate about number of wins/losses/titles/finals etc. How we chose to value different elements of those to pick one career over another is just an opinion - so indeed not cut & dried. Some choose to add an emotional element to that, again quite subjective.

Both Murray and Wawrinka have had their own personal obstacles to overcome. I agree with you on Wawrinka - even the first question in his press conference after his SF win was about Federer, and his answer indicated he was pretty irritated by it. He also had several agonising fifth set defeats to Djokovic but kept going. Murray on the other hand seemingly spent 8 years in the shadow of Fred Perry and had the pressure of the final losses stacking up. Plenty to admire in both I think.

Jermaine2015 wrote:I don't see Wawrinka vs Murray career stats as cut and dry as many are making out.

Yes Murray has many more titles and made more Major finals, but Murray has lost 75% of the Major finals he has reached.

Whilst it's obvious that Murray carried a lot of expectation as Britain's last star was many moons ago(Perry).

But Wawrinka had the added pressure that whatever he achieved, he was always in Federer's shadow. Wawrinka in his early days was more so less a high end journeyman. His fitness was poor. He lacked belief. But after a few better years he actually felt he belonged, he stepped out of Federer's shadow.

You can only lose them if you're in them.

slashermcguirk wrote:why would Australian open be the weakest slam? It is the same strength of field as all the other slams. How does that possibly make it less important or less difficult to win?

The masters have the same strength of fields, don't they? So, aren't they just as difficult to win as a slam? So, aren't they equally important. Well, no.

It is about the history and prestige. Imagine a player had 8 Australian Opens, but no other vs a player that had 8 Wimbledons, but no other.

It is only a slight difference, but it does exist. It does exist because some people will argue that Wimbledon > Australian Open, while others will argue that Wimbledon = Australian Open, but no-one ever argues that Australian Open > Wimbledon, not in prestige and value to win.

The Masters are one week, five matches, three sets, and carry a quarter of the prize money compared to a slam. The concept is very different.

If Wawrinka has separated himself off from Berdych, Tsonga and Ferrer, what about Cilic then? Would you take his career over theirs?

His stats:

Age: 26
Turned pro: 2005
Career high ranking: 8
Career won/loss: 314/174
Masters: 7 QFs (no finals or titles)
Slam record: 3 QFs 1 SF 1 W
Prize money $11.7 million

Does the slam override everything else? Does having the drug suspension on the record offset some of the achievements?

Cilic is much younger than those three, so he may outperform them by the time he reaches their age.

Right now I don't think he has a better career than those three, they're having more wins, more titles, better W/L%, more prize money, and better ranking highs. However Cilic may have a better career when they all are retired, unless they too win a slam.

I don't buy that at all. Australian open is just as important as the others. Fair point that Wimbledon is really famous and all that, I don't see how an Aus open is less valuable than a French Open or US open?? that to me makes no sense at all.

If it was so much easier to win, why has nadal only won it once, murray has never won it and the list goes on! For me all the slams are equally valuable but I would agree that Wimbledon does have that extra prestige and history.

slashermcguirk wrote:I don't buy that at all. Australian open is just as important as the others. Fair point that Wimbledon is really famous and all that, I don't see how an Aus open is less valuable than a French Open or US open?? that to me makes no sense at all.

If it was so much easier to win, why has nadal only won it once, murray has never won it and the list goes on! For me all the slams are equally valuable but I would agree that Wimbledon does have that extra prestige and history.

So case in point you are putting a slight premium on Wimbledon.

The point HB made is that until recent time most top players skipped the Australian Open. It was only in the 80's that it became quite relevent. Borg, Mcenroe and Connors hardly played there. Jimmy played there twice in his career.

It would be interesting to ask pro's what they would want to win at the start of every season. I doubt many non-nationalists of the Slams would place the AO above Wimbledon.

I imagine Wimbledon is still #1 and AO is still a bit behind RG and the USO. The differences are not as stark as they used to be, but they are still there.

If nothing else, it is pretty clear that AO gets far less media exposure here in the US than the other three. To a devoted tennis fan, they may all be very visible, but to a more general population - even sports fans but not necessarily tennis fans - AO is far less visible.