Title leaders

[sid]

Just saying IF Murray won AO & RG in 2017 where would that rank him?If Andy could pull that off he's held all the Slams.

 

[mrzz]

ATP #1 Players that Andy Murray is Better than: Ilie Nastase, Patrick Rafter, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Marcelo Rios, Thomas Muster, Juan Carlos Ferrero, Andy Roddick, Lleyton Hewitt, Marat Safin, Gustavo Kuerten, Jim Courier.

Depends on what you call "better". He has better numbers than all of them, sure. And, coming from you I am sure that by "better" you mean "statically better". But this word has a wider meaning, a lot of people will read it as "with more talent". At least half this list is head and shoulders above him in that department.

And if you think of pure competition, more than half of them would wipe the floor with him in a Slam Final.

 

[sid]

ATP #1 Players that Andy Murray is Better than: Ilie Nastase, Patrick Rafter, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Marcelo Rios, Thomas Muster, Juan Carlos Ferrero, Andy Roddick, Lleyton Hewitt, Marat Safin, Gustavo Kuerten, Jim Courier.

Depends on what you call "better". He has better numbers than all of them, sure. And, coming from you I am sure that by "better" you mean "statically better". But this word has a wider meaning, a lot of people will read it as "with more talent". At least half this list is head and shoulders above him in that department.

And if you think of pure competition, more than half of them would wipe the floor with him in a Slam Final.

Ho come on more than half of them would wipe the floor with him.
Who is better than Murray?

Ilie Nastase, Patrick Rafter, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Marcelo Rios, Thomas Muster, Juan Carlos Ferrero, Andy Roddick, Lleyton Hewitt, Marat Safin, Gustavo Kuerten, Jim Courier.

Lleyton Hewitt who lost to the Kid Murray IE @ San Jose 2006/7 :snicker please think before you post.

 

[mrzz]

ATP #1 Players that Andy Murray is Better than: Ilie Nastase, Patrick Rafter, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Marcelo Rios, Thomas Muster, Juan Carlos Ferrero, Andy Roddick, Lleyton Hewitt, Marat Safin, Gustavo Kuerten, Jim Courier.

Depends on what you call "better". He has better numbers than all of them, sure. And, coming from you I am sure that by "better" you mean "statically better". But this word has a wider meaning, a lot of people will read it as "with more talent". At least half this list is head and shoulders above him in that department.

And if you think of pure competition, more than half of them would wipe the floor with him in a Slam Final.

Ho come on more than half of them would wipe the floor with him.
Who is better than Murray?

Ilie Nastase, Patrick Rafter, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Marcelo Rios, Thomas Muster, Juan Carlos Ferrero, Andy Roddick, Lleyton Hewitt, Marat Safin, Gustavo Kuerten, Jim Courier.

Lleyton Hewitt who lost to the Kid Murray IE @ San Jose 2006/7 :snicker please think before you post.

Ok, game on. Of course I wasn't "thinking"... I saw those guys play (well, Nastase I did not), and I saw Murray play. It is gut reaction. Unfortunately, your argument about Hewitt wasn't exactly the result of a lot of thinking too. The guy in 2007 wasn't a top player anymore. Everyone knows the guy had a sharp fall. So saying that Murray beat him in 2007 has zero meaning. Everyone else understood I am referring to Hewitt while he was on top form. He would outgrind Murray, and wouldn't colapse or grab body parts faking that he is limping. He would go out, play and beat him. By the way, I do not even like the guy.

Safin would murder Murray, Roddick would serve him out of the court (an almost retiring Roddick could beat Murray in Wimbledon 2009). Courier was able to compete and beat guys of superior caliber than him, something Murray only did when his better contemporaries were either half-dead or looking elsewhere. Kuerten and Muster unfortunately had career ending injuries, but even if "clay specialists" (and thus would trash him on this surface), if they had the luck of staying injury free, for different reasons (Kuerten on pure talent, Muster on his sheer will) could well have beaten him on other surfaces.

Of course all this is subjective. Fact is that is hardly a soul that might look to Murray and think that he is that kind of player that can´t be beaten. Most of those guys above, even if for short time spans, or sometimes surface specific, had that kind of aura. That´s why I choke when I see that "Murray is better than them".

I started the post by saying that Murray's results are better than those guys. That part I got. I explicitly stated that I was referring to "a slam final". To put it simply: gun to the head, Safin and Murray in a slam final, who would you chose to play for your life?

 

[El Dude]

mrzz, I hear your point, but in the end, I believe a player is only as great as what they accomplished. Tennis is loaded with super talented guys who, if everything aligned perfectly, could play at a super high level. We have the infamous David Nalbandian as the prime recent example, a player that "should have" won multiple Slams but ended up winning none. But greatness is defined not only by highest level of play, but also consistency and the ability to actualize that talent, day in and day out.

Safin is a good example. He could play at a very high level, but how often? He only made four Slam finals, winning two of them--beating a declining Sampras in 2000 and a declining Hewitt in 2005--and losing two, one to Roger in his prime and one to a quintessential one-Slam wonder, Thomas Johansson. Safin only had three years in which he finished in the year-end top 5; actually, only those three in the top 10.

Andy played in 11 Slam finals - almost three times as many as Safin - and he'll probably play in several more. He has been consistent year after year, with nine straight years ranked #6 or better. He is, overall, in a completely different category than Safin.

Courier is another interesting case because, as you say, he was able to beat more talented players on a regular basis, at least for his short peak of a few years. In other words, he was greater than his talent level.

If we go back several decades we come to the name Lew Hoad, who was talented as a player ever was. Numerous great players said that, on a good day, he would beat anyone: Pancho Gonzales, Ken Rosewall, Rod Laver. But the problem for Hoad was consistency and focus (and later, injury). In the end, Gonzales, Rosewall, and Laver were all "better than" Hoad because they were able to bring it more consistently, and over many years.

So when I say "better than" I mean overall greatness. A player's greatness is not just talent, it is how well a player actualized their talent to the extent that it showed upon in the statistical record. By my accounting, Andy is "better than" all but about 15 players in the Open Era.

Now we could talk about absolute talent level - that is, how good a player could play at their very best. But that is a very different question and certainly not what I mean when I say "greatness" or "better than." It also becomes far more subjective.

 

[sid]

This is funny 8-3 H2H for Murray,in the 3 Roddick wins a W/O & 5-3 Ret,ho btw on Roddick won 5 Masters i think Murray on 14 atm.Mrzz your funny please tell us some more as we might as well say Roddick won once v Murray.


Roddick would serve him out of the court (an almost retiring Roddick could beat Murray in Wimbledon 2009).

 

[mrzz]

Courier is another interesting case because, as you say, he was able to beat more talented players on a regular basis, at least for his short peak of a few years.

I actually stole that argument from your Generations blog series... (lucky you to have agreed with it).

So when I say "better than" I mean overall greatness. A player's greatness is not just talent, it is how well a player actualized their talent to the extent that it showed upon in the statistical record. By my accounting, Andy is "better than" all but about 15 players in the Open Era.

Yep, I agree (as I in general agree with all your post), as long as you define what you mean by "better than" (and you did just that). That´s why I explicitly pointed out in my post that I was referring to "talent" and "in a slam final" (with both players obviously in their peak forms).

 

[mrzz]

This is funny 8-3 H2H for Murray,in the 3 Roddick wins a W/O & 5-3 Ret,ho btw on Roddick won 5 Masters i think Murray on 14 atm.Mrzz your funny please tell us some more as we might as well say Roddick won once v Murray.

Hey, Sid, don´t get so angry to the point of being almost impossible to understand. It is not that I am calling Murray bad names, or saying that his mother has a mustache...

You know that Roddick and Murray belong to different generations, right? And that Roddick´s peak was about 2005, right?

 

[El Dude]

OK cool, mrzz. I think they really are two separate conversations:

1) Who is greater overall, in terms of career accomplishments and statistical record.

2) Who was more talented, with the higher peak level in a given match.

Both conversations are interesting, in my opinion. The first is easier, but still includes a lot of debate because there are levels of nuance and subtlety when looking at statistical records (for instance, the old question of how to weight Slam titles with other things; a simplistic view would see Gaston Gaudio as a greater player than David Ferrer, which we all know is ludicrous). The second is harder on one hand because it is subjective, but in a way also easier because everyone's opinion has validity.

To me the first is the way to go in all-time great lists, because it takes into account ALL aspects of a player's career. Otherwise Stan Wawrinka is a greater player than Andy Murray, and perhaps close to par with Djokovic because, as we know, Stan is one of the few players who could beat peak Novak on the biggest stage.

One final, but most important note: Many mothers have moustaches, especially after menopause. Tis the way of things.

 

[sid]

This is funny 8-3 H2H for Murray,in the 3 Roddick wins a W/O & 5-3 Ret,ho btw on Roddick won 5 Masters i think Murray on 14 atm.Mrzz your funny please tell us some more as we might as well say Roddick won once v Murray.

Hey, Sid, don´t get so angry to the point of being almost impossible to understand. It is not that I am calling Murray bad names, or saying that his mother has a mustache...

You know that Roddick and Murray belong to different generations, right? And that Roddick´s peak was about 2005, right?

Mrzz i'm not angry & i'm sorry if I came across that way.

Murray could beat Roddick on court as he had a great serve return-come on you must admit that.
Those who got his service back could beat him Nadal Roger Nole & Murray,generations don't come into this Murray was a class above Roddick.

 

[mrzz]

Ok, cool Sid.

Yes, I know Murray is very good returner. I know he is a very good player. Ok, I used terms which were strong given the fact I don´t like to see him play.

Day in, day out, Murray would have a great shot against all those guys in the list. That´s why I qualified my statements.

Roddick´s case is a perfect example. When he was on his peak, he was extremely efficient. That rush while serving, one bomb after another, it took an absurd amount of talent or mental resolve to be able to break that guy. I think it takes a really great player to be able to beat a peak Roddick in a slam final. Ok, I am "suspect" given that I am a Federer fan, but I am sure you get the point.

And, no, Murray´s mother does not have a moustache, besides what El Dude is saying. The guy is just a hater.

 

[Front242]

I don't care how good Murray's return is, fact is Roddick's serve in his peak years was harder to return than Raonic's (unless we're talking Federer who had an uncanny read on Roddick's serve) and he would definitely win more often than not on grass against Murray. Generations most certainly DO come into the equation btw as Roddick's forehand declined massively after his peak years. He used to have a beast of a forehand, hitting it much flatter in his heyday but later on it became such a tame shot by comparison as he began hitting it with way more net clearance and without anywhere near the power and bite it had in his peak years.

All things being equal, if they were both in their peak, I'd take Roddick at Wimbledon and the US Open over Murray any day, without even thinking twice. With the surface we have at the AO these days I'd give the edge to Murray (not pre 2007 AO though when it would have favoured Roddick with the better bounce and faster surface) and same goes for clay as it just wasn't a good surface for Roddick ever.

 

[the AntiPusher]

I don't care how good Murray's return is, fact is Roddick's serve in his peak years was harder to return than Raonic's (unless we're talking Federer who had an uncanny read on Roddick's serve) and he would definitely win more often than not on grass against Murray. Generations most certainly DO come into the equation btw as Roddick's forehand declined massively after his peak years. He used to have a beast of a forehand, hitting it much flatter in his heyday but later on it became such a tame shot by comparison as he began hitting it with way more net clearance and without anywhere near the power and bite it had in his peak years.

All things being equal, if they were both in their peak, I'd take Roddick at Wimbledon and the US Open over Murray any day, without even thinking twice. With the surface we have at the AO these days I'd give the edge to Murray (not pre 2007 AO though when it would have favoured Roddick with the better bounce and faster surface) and same goes for clay as it just wasn't a good surface for Roddick ever.

Front, have you begun celebrating for 2017! Murray's only big loss to at a grand slam was at Wimbledon 2009 when Roddick was at the pure zenith of his grass court game. I don't think Roddick could win a set from present day form Murray. Dude, it ain't even close.

 

[Front242]

We'll never know, AP. Murray was still extremely good on grass and other surfaces in 2009 but Roddick was near retirement and beat him. We've never seen them both at their peaks against each other and never will sadly but I'd still take Roddick on grass and the USO personally. Slower surfaces, Murray has the edge definitely.

 

[El Dude]

Roddick is somewhat underrated these days. As I've said before, he's a player whose career was completely diminished by one player: Roger Federer. I did a research study, trying to estimate how many Slams Roddick would have won if Roger hadn't played tennis. If you replace Roger with the opponents he defeated before facing Roddick, then weighed Roddick against that player and other players he would have faced, using their h2h, he comes up with six Slam titles!

Now I'm not saying that Roddick was as good as Edberg or Becker, both of whom won their six Slams in a harder context than the 00s. But I do think Roddick was a much better player than his single Slam title accounts form, maybe more in the 3-4 Slam range.

That said, Murray is a better player than Roddick. It isn't a huge gap, but Murray would have beaten him consistently on slower courts, certainly on clay, and been competitive on grass and fast hards. My guess is that, overall, Murray would have beaten Roddick 60% of the time.

 

[Fiero425]

Roddick is somewhat underrated these days. As I've said before, he's a player whose career was completely diminished by one player: Roger Federer. I did a research study, trying to estimate how many Slams Roddick would have won if Roger hadn't played tennis. If you replace Roger with the opponents he defeated before facing Roddick, then weighed Roddick against that player and other players he would have faced, using their h2h, he comes up with six Slam titles!

Now I'm not saying that Roddick was as good as Edberg or Becker, both of whom won their six Slams in a harder context than the 00s. But I do think Roddick was a much better player than his single Slam title accounts form, maybe more in the 3-4 Slam range.

That said, Murray is a better player than Roddick. It isn't a huge gap, but Murray would have beaten him consistently on slower courts, certainly on clay, and been competitive on grass and fast hards. My guess is that, overall, Murray would have beaten Roddick 60% of the time.

Many players' destinies were changed just because of 1 or 2 players! Lendl should have more majors but for the psychological advantages had by McEnroe and Connors before he came of age at '84 FO! We all know Federer should be well over 20 but for Nadal owning him "lock, stock, & barrel!" It's a little late, but Stan has personally stopped Nole from winning 3 or 4 when Djokovic was on his way to breaking record of Roger's major count! :nono :angel: :dodgy: :cover

 

[the AntiPusher]

Roddick is somewhat underrated these days. As I've said before, he's a player whose career was completely diminished by one player: Roger Federer. I did a research study, trying to estimate how many Slams Roddick would have won if Roger hadn't played tennis. If you replace Roger with the opponents he defeated before facing Roddick, then weighed Roddick against that player and other players he would have faced, using their h2h, he comes up with six Slam titles!

Now I'm not saying that Roddick was as good as Edberg or Becker, both of whom won their six Slams in a harder context than the 00s. But I do think Roddick was a much better player than his single Slam title accounts form, maybe more in the 3-4 Slam range.

That said, Murray is a better player than Roddick. It isn't a huge gap, but Murray would have beaten him consistently on slower courts, certainly on clay, and been competitive on grass and fast hards. My guess is that, overall, Murray would have beaten Roddick 60% of the time.

No..Andy was half as you give him credit for..Really he is the real "Andy" that Front and others are very dismissive about his accomplishments. Roddick was a good player but he was no Safin or even Hewitt. If someone would ask Roger honestly about if Andy was in the top ten of tennis talents he faced , he would most likely very quickly say no.

I have spoken to quite a few of his USTA ex hitting partners who stated that Roddick ability to strike a tennis ball was at the level of a very good college level player. Numbers don't lie, Andy Roddick achieved in Grand Slam titles what his level of talent was able to garner. Question, if Andy would have faced Roger(before he became the maestro Federer) instead of Juan Carlos Ferreo , would he had won the 2003 US open title? Hell No. It's just the God honest truth.

 

[Front242]

Which explains why Federer only scraped past him 16-14 in the 5th at Wimbledon 2009 after Roddick had just beaten Murray. Okaaaaaaay. Clearly Roddick was a pushover there.

 

[sid]

I don't care how good Murray's return is, fact is Roddick's serve in his peak years was harder to return than Raonic's (unless we're talking Federer who had an uncanny read on Roddick's serve) and he would definitely win more often than not on grass against Murray. Generations most certainly DO come into the equation btw as Roddick's forehand declined massively after his peak years. He used to have a beast of a forehand, hitting it much flatter in his heyday but later on it became such a tame shot by comparison as he began hitting it with way more net clearance and without anywhere near the power and bite it had in his peak years.

All things being equal, if they were both in their peak, I'd take Roddick at Wimbledon and the US Open over Murray any day, without even thinking twice. With the surface we have at the AO these days I'd give the edge to Murray (not pre 2007 AO though when it would have favoured Roddick with the better bounce and faster surface) and same goes for clay as it just wasn't a good surface for Roddick ever.

:snicker I'd take Roddick at Wimbledon and the US Open over Murray any day.That's why he won Wimbledon my bad he did not:laydownlaughing

 

[El Dude]

Many players' destinies were changed just because of 1 or 2 players! Lendl should have more majors but for the psychological advantages had by McEnroe and Connors before he came of age at '84 FO! We all know Federer should be well over 20 but for Nadal owning him "lock, stock, & barrel!" It's a little late, but Stan has personally stopped Nole from winning 3 or 4 when Djokovic was on his way to breaking record of Roger's major count! :nono :angel: :dodgy: :cover

I would argue that Andy Roddick was more negatively impacted by a single player, Roger Federer, than in any other case in the Open Era--or at least recent years, as I'd have to investigate Gerulaitis and Borg, etc.

No..Andy was half as you give him credit for..Really he is the real "Andy" that Front and others are very dismissive about his accomplishments. Roddick was a good player but he was no Safin or even Hewitt. If someone would ask Roger honestly about if Andy was in the top ten of tennis talents he faced , he would most likely very quickly say no.

I have spoken to quite a few of his USTA ex hitting partners who stated that Roddick ability to strike a tennis ball was at the level of a very good college level player. Numbers don't lie, Andy Roddick achieved in Grand Slam titles what his level of talent was able to garner. Question, if Andy would have faced Roger(before he became the maestro Federer) instead of Juan Carlos Ferreo , would he had won the 2003 US open title? Hell No. It's just the God honest truth.

I agree, but again, he did pretty well against everyone else. Also, he had a 4-3 record against Safin and 7-7 vs. Hewitt. Now to be fair to Lleyton, much of that is after his prime (through 2005); in fact, Hewitt was up 6-2 through 2005, 1-5 after. But Safin and Roddick were pretty even, even during their respective primes.