Off the top of my head right now I can think of one.
15 titles, 1 grand slam, 1 Masters Cup, 4 Masters series, 9 APT events.
I would say that he is no more than a solid top ten player at present.
I'm sorry, but those results and the fact that he is still consistently reaching finals and winning ATP events means that he is not merely a solid top 10 player. Solid top 10 players are consistent performers, who occasionally reach a final or win an ATP event.
Andy has the potential to be the best in the world, but up until now the level he has found has been a comfortable top 5 player.
All sports are littered with players who do not realise there full potential, be it through attitude, injury, Opponents they face, luck of the draw or external factors that affects their performance.
It may have been more correct to say they are both solid top 5 players but the point Daisy made is correct with his results so far in his career.
So why is her posts stupid or idiotic?
The number of players who win 4 Masters events is tiny, let alone in the space of a year, in Andy's case. Safin only won 5 Masters titles in his entire career. How many other top 10 players have won 4 Masters events in the past year? Nadal is the only other player who has achieved that. Since Cinci last year, Murray has won 9 tournaments. Again, Nadal is the only one who has won so many tournaments in that space of time. That, I believe, is more than the 6-10 group of players combined.
Outside of Murray, Nadal, and Federer, the rest of the top 10 have won exactly 2 Masters events between them. That means that Murray has doubled the number of Masters titles everyone else on tour has won in the past year, with the exception of Federer and Nadal.
So yes, her post was idiotic. Loving your attempted rescue act, though, AL.