[BLOG] Andy Murray - Legacy

[sid]

I guess you could call it an opinion! :cover Roddick did become #1 for about a minute with that 1 major win! Murray's been nowhere close even with 2! Murray has the wins, Roddick has the notoriety! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

Murray's way better than Roddick's game, Murray's not just a big serve. There is more to his game. :huh: :huh:

True enough, but if Murray doesn't do anything else, guess who has the bigger accomplishment at 1st glance? :nono

Murray Olympic gold:snicker

 

[Front242]

Fed/Nole/Nadal/Murray all get the serve back 90% of the time,once that happens Roddick was beat.Fed is still ranked 3 btw.

Not for long since his knee surgery and recurrent back problems. He reached 2 slam finals last year so the reason he's still number 3 is 'cos the Wimbledon and USO points still haven't fallen off. He's not fit enough to reach the finals or even the 2nd week of either right now and will plummet shortly.

 

[Front242]

Murray's way better than Roddick's game, Murray's not just a big serve. There is more to his game. :huh: :huh:

True enough, but if Murray doesn't do anything else, guess who has the bigger accomplishment at 1st glance? :nono

Murray Olympic gold:snicker

Longest Olympic match ever between Federer and Del Potro. 19-17 in the 3rd set. But that had nothing to do with Federer not even winning a set

 

[sid]

Fed/Nole/Nadal/Murray all get the serve back 90% of the time,once that happens Roddick was beat.Fed is still ranked 3 btw.

Not for long since his knee surgery and recurrent back problems. He reached 2 slam finals last year so the reason he's still number 3 is 'cos the Wimbledon and USO points still haven't fallen off. He's not fit enough to reach the finals or even the 2nd week of either right now and will plummet shortly.

If you think about Andy Murray he did have back surgery,his CV is very good when you think of that.Fed over the years has had very few problems,up until this year he could still beat all players,maybe he will come back? who knows.

 

[Fiero425]

Fed/Nole/Nadal/Murray all get the serve back 90% of the time,once that happens Roddick was beat.Fed is still ranked 3 btw.

Never been a fan of Roddick's because he was "all serve" and little else, but he did make his mark in the country and the world; though briefly! I can do without seeing either play again; Roddick or Murray! :cover :nono :ras:

 

[Front242]

Fed/Nole/Nadal/Murray all get the serve back 90% of the time,once that happens Roddick was beat.Fed is still ranked 3 btw.

Not for long since his knee surgery and recurrent back problems. He reached 2 slam finals last year so the reason he's still number 3 is 'cos the Wimbledon and USO points still haven't fallen off. He's not fit enough to reach the finals or even the 2nd week of either right now and will plummet shortly.

If you think about Andy Murray he did have back surgery,his CV is very good when you think of that.Fed over the years has had very few problems,up until this year he could still beat all players,maybe he will come back? who knows.

I'm sure he'll improve alright but he's 35 in August and hasn't got a lot of time left. A lot of us would like him to play a lot longer but realistically I'd say 2018 is the absolute last year on tour for him and who knows maybe it'll be next year. If it wasn't for this recent knee surgery and recurrent back issue, he'd still be very much in the mix and could realistically play for quite a bit longer at the top. The good thing is the surgeries Murray and Federer had were both minor but at almost 35 it's much harder for Roger's recovery than it was for Andy.

 

[El Dude]

How did this turn into another "Federer is old, nowhere near his prime" thread?

Seriously though, I don't think the point was that Murray and Roddick are equals, but that Murray's career has been capped by Djokovic's (and Nadal's, don't forget) in a similar way that Roddick's was capped by Federer's.

One thing they have in common: There's a good argument to be made that Murray is the best two-Slam winner of the Open Era, and Roddick the best one-Slam winner. This means both are (or were) better players than their Slam count entails, which goes back to the OP.

 

[Busted]

Come off it on Murray being the same as Roddick Murray still playing & won more than Roddick todate.I think people post without thinking or looking into what's been won.


Roddick 5 Masters

Murray 12 Masters

that's just 4 starters,come on guy's

I did not say that Andy Roddick = Andy Murray in terms of success. My point was that Murray hasn't won more Slams because of Djokovic. He's lost what 6 Slam finals to Nole?. Roddick didn't win more Slams because of Federer - and that whole one-dimensional game thing didn't help. Roddick lost 4 Slam finals to Federer. Ergo Djokovic is to Murray what Federer was to Roddick - the guy who denied him greater Slam success. I think it's a fair assessment just as saying Federer didn't win more Slams because of Nadal. Had Nadal not been around - how many more French Open titles would Federer have one? He lost to Nadal in 4 FO finals, so do that would have been 4 more French titles. Plus the 2009 Aussie Open and 2008 Wimbledon. That's 6 more Slam titles that Federer would have one and would have put him at 23 Slams - and basically been as untouchable a number as Margaret Court's 24 has been on the women's tour.

I also stand by my comment that Djokovic has no competition. If he wins the Grand Slam this year - will Sports Illustrated even bother to give him the cover and name him Sportsman of the Year like they did with Serena even though she didn't win the Slam? It could possibly be the least exciting Grand Slam achievement in the history of tennis. Nobody but hardcore tennis fans will care. I'm bored - and I've been following tennis for over 30 years...and I actually like Nole.:devil

 

[Fiero425]

Come off it on Murray being the same as Roddick Murray still playing & won more than Roddick todate.I think people post without thinking or looking into what's been won.


Roddick 5 Masters

Murray 12 Masters

that's just 4 starters,come on guy's

I did not say that Andy Roddick = Andy Murray in terms of success. My point was that Murray hasn't won more Slams because of Djokovic. He's lost what 6 Slam finals to Nole?. Roddick didn't win more Slams because of Federer - and that whole one-dimensional game thing didn't help. Roddick lost 4 Slam finals to Federer. Ergo Djokovic is to Murray what Federer was to Roddick - the guy who denied him greater Slam success. I think it's a fair assessment just as saying Federer didn't win more Slams because of Nadal. Had Nadal not been around - how many more French Open titles would Federer have one? He lost to Nadal in 4 FO finals, so do that would have been 4 more French titles. Plus the 2009 Aussie Open and 2008 Wimbledon. That's 6 more Slam titles that Federer would have one and would have put him at 23 Slams - and basically been as untouchable a number as Margaret Court's 24 has been on the women's tour.

I also stand by my comment that Djokovic has no competition. If he wins the Grand Slam this year - will Sports Illustrated even bother to give him the cover and name him Sportsman of the Year like they did with Serena even though she didn't win the Slam? It could possibly be the least exciting Grand Slam achievement in the history of tennis. Nobody but hardcore tennis fans will care. I'm bored - and I've been following tennis for over 30 years...and I actually like Nole.:devil

...and you should know better; been a tennis devotee for over 40 years here! No one's going to care about the level of competition10-30 years down the line; Roddick still was briefly #1 while Murray hasn't had a sniff of it even with a fairly good stretch of winning OG, the USO, and Wimbledon in succession in less than a year! Murray's a lot better, but his competition was "the best" with 3 GOAT's! Nothing he could do about that! I know Riddick didn't have much in his way with Sampras leaving, Agassi up and down, and Hewitt spent after his run at #1! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

 

[nehmeth]

True enough, but if Murray doesn't do anything else, guess who has the bigger accomplishment at 1st glance? :nono

Murray Olympic gold:snicker

Longest Olympic match ever between Federer and Del Potro. 19-17 in the 3rd set. But that had nothing to do with Federer not even winning a set

Old DelPo did the same thing the following year in the Wimbo semi. Fought Djokovic for every point in that match. Without Juan in the mix, Murray would be a silver medalist without a Wimbledon trophy! :snicker

 

[sid]

Murray Olympic gold:snicker

Longest Olympic match ever between Federer and Del Potro. 19-17 in the 3rd set. But that had nothing to do with Federer not even winning a set

Old DelPo did the same thing the following year in the Wimbo semi. Fought Djokovic for every point in that match. Without Juan in the mix, Murray would be a silver medalist without a Wimbledon trophy! :snicker

Murray's still in @ Wimbledon guess who's not:snicker

 

[Busted]

Come off it on Murray being the same as Roddick Murray still playing & won more than Roddick todate.I think people post without thinking or looking into what's been won.


Roddick 5 Masters

Murray 12 Masters

that's just 4 starters,come on guy's

I did not say that Andy Roddick = Andy Murray in terms of success. My point was that Murray hasn't won more Slams because of Djokovic. He's lost what 6 Slam finals to Nole?. Roddick didn't win more Slams because of Federer - and that whole one-dimensional game thing didn't help. Roddick lost 4 Slam finals to Federer. Ergo Djokovic is to Murray what Federer was to Roddick - the guy who denied him greater Slam success. I think it's a fair assessment just as saying Federer didn't win more Slams because of Nadal. Had Nadal not been around - how many more French Open titles would Federer have one? He lost to Nadal in 4 FO finals, so do that would have been 4 more French titles. Plus the 2009 Aussie Open and 2008 Wimbledon. That's 6 more Slam titles that Federer would have one and would have put him at 23 Slams - and basically been as untouchable a number as Margaret Court's 24 has been on the women's tour.

I also stand by my comment that Djokovic has no competition. If he wins the Grand Slam this year - will Sports Illustrated even bother to give him the cover and name him Sportsman of the Year like they did with Serena even though she didn't win the Slam? It could possibly be the least exciting Grand Slam achievement in the history of tennis. Nobody but hardcore tennis fans will care. I'm bored - and I've been following tennis for over 30 years...and I actually like Nole.:devil

...and you should know better; been a tennis devotee for over 40 years here! No one's going to care about the level of competition10-30 years down the line; Roddick still was briefly #1 while Murray hasn't had a sniff of it even with a fairly good stretch of winning OG, the USO, and Wimbledon in succession in less than a year! Murray's a lot better, but his competition was "the best" with 3 GOAT's! Nothing he could do about that! I know Riddick didn't have much in his way with Sampras leaving, Agassi up and down, and Hewitt spent after his run at #1! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

You mean no one but people who like tennis, right? Because tennis fans, former players, analysts, experts etc. will always bring up the competition of the day to make their case. It's like when I see Navratilova forever spitting in Steffi Graf's eye because Graf didn't go become Seles' BFF after that maniac stabbed Seles - as if that negates Graf's on-court achievements. It's always going to be about what someone perceives as context. My context for Murray is - he hasn't won more more Slams because of Djokovic. He's 2-5 against Djokovic in Slam finals. Roddick was 0-4 in Slam Finals against Federer. Ergo, I stand by my "context" - Djokovic is to Murray what Federer was to Roddick - a PITA who kept him from winning more Slams . We'll just have agree to disagree.

 

[Fiero425]

I did not say that Andy Roddick = Andy Murray in terms of success. My point was that Murray hasn't won more Slams because of Djokovic. He's lost what 6 Slam finals to Nole?. Roddick didn't win more Slams because of Federer - and that whole one-dimensional game thing didn't help. Roddick lost 4 Slam finals to Federer. Ergo Djokovic is to Murray what Federer was to Roddick - the guy who denied him greater Slam success. I think it's a fair assessment just as saying Federer didn't win more Slams because of Nadal. Had Nadal not been around - how many more French Open titles would Federer have one? He lost to Nadal in 4 FO finals, so do that would have been 4 more French titles. Plus the 2009 Aussie Open and 2008 Wimbledon. That's 6 more Slam titles that Federer would have one and would have put him at 23 Slams - and basically been as untouchable a number as Margaret Court's 24 has been on the women's tour.

I also stand by my comment that Djokovic has no competition. If he wins the Grand Slam this year - will Sports Illustrated even bother to give him the cover and name him Sportsman of the Year like they did with Serena even though she didn't win the Slam? It could possibly be the least exciting Grand Slam achievement in the history of tennis. Nobody but hardcore tennis fans will care. I'm bored - and I've been following tennis for over 30 years...and I actually like Nole.:devil

...and you should know better; been a tennis devotee for over 40 years here! No one's going to care about the level of competition10-30 years down the line; Roddick still was briefly #1 while Murray hasn't had a sniff of it even with a fairly good stretch of winning OG, the USO, and Wimbledon in succession in less than a year! Murray's a lot better, but his competition was "the best" with 3 GOAT's! Nothing he could do about that! I know Riddick didn't have much in his way with Sampras leaving, Agassi up and down, and Hewitt spent after his run at #1! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

You mean no one but people who like tennis, right? Because tennis fans, former players, analysts, experts etc. will always bring up the competition of the day to make their case. It's like when I see Navratilova forever spitting in Steffi Graf's eye because Graf didn't go become Seles' BFF after that maniac stabbed Seles - as if that negates Graf's on-court achievements. It's always going to be about what someone perceives as context. My context for Murray is - he hasn't won more Slams because of Djokovic. He's 2-5 against Djokovic in Slam finals. Roddick was 0-4 in Slam Finals against Federer. Ergo, I stand by my "context" - Djokovic is to Murray what Federer was to Roddick - a PITA who kept him from winning more Slams . We'll just have agree to disagree.

Not to be an egomaniac about it, but obviously I'm being a lot more honest about the times giving Murray more credit for being better even though Roddick actually was #1 for about 5 minutes! Outside of "us" historians, the cold hard numbers will take precedent unless there's an old fogy from our era to give texture concerning conditions, technological breakthroughs, and the level of competition! :clap :angel: :dodgy:

 

[sid]

I did not say that Andy Roddick = Andy Murray in terms of success. My point was that Murray hasn't won more Slams because of Djokovic. He's lost what 6 Slam finals to Nole?. Roddick didn't win more Slams because of Federer - and that whole one-dimensional game thing didn't help. Roddick lost 4 Slam finals to Federer. Ergo Djokovic is to Murray what Federer was to Roddick - the guy who denied him greater Slam success. I think it's a fair assessment just as saying Federer didn't win more Slams because of Nadal. Had Nadal not been around - how many more French Open titles would Federer have one? He lost to Nadal in 4 FO finals, so do that would have been 4 more French titles. Plus the 2009 Aussie Open and 2008 Wimbledon. That's 6 more Slam titles that Federer would have one and would have put him at 23 Slams - and basically been as untouchable a number as Margaret Court's 24 has been on the women's tour.

I also stand by my comment that Djokovic has no competition. If he wins the Grand Slam this year - will Sports Illustrated even bother to give him the cover and name him Sportsman of the Year like they did with Serena even though she didn't win the Slam? It could possibly be the least exciting Grand Slam achievement in the history of tennis. Nobody but hardcore tennis fans will care. I'm bored - and I've been following tennis for over 30 years...and I actually like Nole.:devil

...and you should know better; been a tennis devotee for over 40 years here! No one's going to care about the level of competition10-30 years down the line; Roddick still was briefly #1 while Murray hasn't had a sniff of it even with a fairly good stretch of winning OG, the USO, and Wimbledon in succession in less than a year! Murray's a lot better, but his competition was "the best" with 3 GOAT's! Nothing he could do about that! I know Riddick didn't have much in his way with Sampras leaving, Agassi up and down, and Hewitt spent after his run at #1! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

You mean no one but people who like tennis, right? Because tennis fans, former players, analysts, experts etc. will always bring up the competition of the day to make their case. It's like when I see Navratilova forever spitting in Steffi Graf's eye because Graf didn't go become Seles' BFF after that maniac stabbed Seles - as if that negates Graf's on-court achievements. It's always going to be about what someone perceives as context. My context for Murray is - he hasn't won more more Slams because of Djokovic. He's 2-5 against Djokovic in Slam finals. Roddick was 0-4 in Slam Finals against Federer. Ergo, I stand by my "context" - Djokovic is to Murray what Federer was to Roddick - a PITA who kept him from winning more Slams . We'll just have agree to disagree.

h2h Djokovic & Murray 2 Roger & Roddick are way different:cover

ps Murray has beat Nole twice in Slams,Roddick never beat Roger in Slams & only beat him 3 times.

 

[Garro]

^ Well I was basically going to post the exact same thing.
The 24 to 10 H2H is certainly not good by any means, but it's a far cry from 21 to 3.
Also you have to factor in that when Murray was at his peak, he was able to beat Djokovic in slams where Roddick only came close one time.

The Djokovic/Murray rivalry is more similar to Nadal/Federer than Federer/Roddick because both rivalries were initially close at one time (Nadal and Fed were 8-6 at the end of 07, Murray and Djokovic were 8-7), but over time one player began to dominate over the other.

 

[Rational National]

Might also be worth noting that this Sunday Murray and roddick may both have exactly the same major final records with Roger. Though I hope not, it's more than possible.

 

[Fiero425]

Might also be worth noting that this Sunday Murray and Roddick may both have exactly the same major final records with Roger. Though I hope not, it's more than possible.

If Murray blows this, I'll begin referring to him as "king of the chokers!" He has tons of support; on and off the court with possibly the biggest pigeon of the "Big 4" going against him today! :cover :nono :angel:

 

[Rational National]

Might also be worth noting that this Sunday Murray and Roddick may both have exactly the same major final records with Roger. Though I hope not, it's more than possible.

If Murray blows this, I'll begin referring to him as "king of the chokers!" He has tons of support; on and off the court with possibly the biggest pigeon of the "Big 4" going against him today! :cover :nono :angel:

Its a good note by way of setting our expectations - i.e. that 'If' he wins - you will be throwing no love his way

 

[Fiero425]

Might also be worth noting that this Sunday Murray and Roddick may both have exactly the same major final records with Roger. Though I hope not, it's more than possible.

If Murray blows this, I'll begin referring to him as "king of the chokers!" He has tons of support; on and off the court with possibly the biggest pigeon of the "Big 4" going against him today! :cover :nono :angel:

Its a good note by way of setting our expectations - i.e. that 'If' he wins - you will be throwing no love his way

None! If I hate your game and "act" on court; there's just not a lot a player can do to change it! :nono :deadhorse

 

[sid]

Come off it on Murray being the same as Roddick Murray still playing & won more than Roddick todate.I think people post without thinking or looking into what's been won.


Roddick 5 Masters

Murray 12 Masters

that's just 4 starters,come on guy's

I did not say that Andy Roddick = Andy Murray in terms of success. My point was that Murray hasn't won more Slams because of Djokovic. He's lost what 6 Slam finals to Nole?. Roddick didn't win more Slams because of Federer - and that whole one-dimensional game thing didn't help. Roddick lost 4 Slam finals to Federer. Ergo Djokovic is to Murray what Federer was to Roddick - the guy who denied him greater Slam success. I think it's a fair assessment just as saying Federer didn't win more Slams because of Nadal. Had Nadal not been around - how many more French Open titles would Federer have one? He lost to Nadal in 4 FO finals, so do that would have been 4 more French titles. Plus the 2009 Aussie Open and 2008 Wimbledon. That's 6 more Slam titles that Federer would have one and would have put him at 23 Slams - and basically been as untouchable a number as Margaret Court's 24 has been on the women's tour.

I also stand by my comment that Djokovic has no competition. If he wins the Grand Slam this year - will Sports Illustrated even bother to give him the cover and name him Sportsman of the Year like they did with Serena even though she didn't win the Slam? It could possibly be the least exciting Grand Slam achievement in the history of tennis. Nobody but hardcore tennis fans will care. I'm bored - and I've been following tennis for over 30 years...and I actually like Nole.:devil

Another Slam won by Murray & been in 3 Slam finals this year,i'd say that's very good.