Title leaders

[Fiero425]

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.

The Gerulaitis situation is probably the most tragic; true friends he would always have trouble winning against! Never beat Borg, but also had to deal with McEnroe and Connors! It had to hurt his ability to finish off these guys; but of course they were merciless, not throwing him a bone or 2! His only gift was none went "down under" allowing him one major title with a draw a little below today's 250/500! :nono :cover

 

[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.

: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

Yeah, he should be so embarrassed for not being able to beat Federer on grass in a Wimbledon final. Sorry, almost forgot Murray couldn't do it either but, guess what, he didn't get anywhere near as close as Roddick did and this was also when Roddick was well past his prime and yet pushed Federer way further than Murray did. Murray beat a subpar Djokovic drained from his semi against Del Potro and Raonic to win his titles. Yes, the mighty Raonic who could only barely beat Federer when he had a bad knee at 34 years of age. Try laughing at that instead.

 

[the AntiPusher]

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.

Interesting stats El Dude..I didn't realize Roddick was that competitive vs Safin & Hewitt..thanks El Dude

 

[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

Yeah, he should be so embarrassed for not being able to beat Federer on grass in a Wimbledon final. Sorry, almost forgot Murray couldn't do it either but, guess what, he didn't get anywhere near as close as Roddick did and this was also when Roddick was well past his prime and yet pushed Federer way further than Murray did. Murray beat a subpar Djokovic drained from his semi against Del Potro and Raonic to win his titles. Yes, the mighty Raonic who could only barely beat Federer when he had a bad knee at 34 years of age. Try laughing at that instead.

Olympic Final was 5 sets @ Wimbledon that Murray won btw Murray did not need 5 sets

 

[Front242]

So predictable. I was waiting for that. You seem to have conveniently forgotten Federer played the longest ever Olympic semi final winning 19-17 in the third and was therefore completely and utterly physically and mentally exhausted in the final. Besides, he showed up properly for the real deal at Wimbledon. Sucks huh?

 

[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.

ATP #1 Players that were better than Andy Murray: John Newcombe, Jimmy Connors, Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl, Mats Wilander, Stefan Edberg, Boris Becker, Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal.

So Andy is better than 11, worse than 13 - so pretty much in the middle of the pack. How is that not legitimate?

I also think that, before he's through, he's got a good chance of having an overall greater career than Wilander and Newcombe, maybe even Becker and Edberg.

None of this BS is legitimate! No matter what you think he's accomplished, Murray hasn't achieved much in comparison to these greats; sorry! He's woefully underachieved as far as I'm concerned and will probably only hold onto #1 ranking until the summer because Nole has so many tournament points to defend! Get over it! He's nowhere in the league of Edberg, Wilander, or even Becker! He doesn't have time to even get close! He just acquired the #1 ranking! Did you forget how old he is? He has to do a little bit more for me to accept him being anywhere near the names mentioned above! I know you said some were better, but why even invoke their names? To even mention him in the same breath with Connors offends me and I never could stand him and the way he played! :eyepop :cover

@ least Murray done this clean you can not take that away from him.

(Murray hasn't achieved much in comparison to these greats; sorry! He's woefully underachieved as far as I'm concerned and will probably only hold onto #1 ranking until the summer because Nole has so many tournament points to defend)

 

[Fiero425]

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.

ATP #1 Players that were better than Andy Murray: John Newcombe, Jimmy Connors, Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl, Mats Wilander, Stefan Edberg, Boris Becker, Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal.

So Andy is better than 11, worse than 13 - so pretty much in the middle of the pack. How is that not legitimate?

I also think that, before he's through, he's got a good chance of having an overall greater career than Wilander and Newcombe, maybe even Becker and Edberg.

None of this BS is legitimate! No matter what you think he's accomplished, Murray hasn't achieved much in comparison to these greats; sorry! He's woefully underachieved as far as I'm concerned and will probably only hold onto #1 ranking until the summer because Nole has so many tournament points to defend! Get over it! He's nowhere in the league of Edberg, Wilander, or even Becker! He doesn't have time to even get close! He just acquired the #1 ranking! Did you forget how old he is? He has to do a little bit more for me to accept him being anywhere near the names mentioned above! I know you said some were better, but why even invoke their names? To even mention him in the same breath with Connors offends me and I never could stand him and the way he played! :eyepop :cover

@ least Murray done this clean you can not take that away from him.

Really? Where's your proof? uzzled :nono :angel: :cover