Were Sir Andy Murray and Mr Stanimal lucky to born in Djokovic's generation instead of 1980-81 with Peak Federer?

[ChrisRF]

Andre Agassi was the greatest returner on earth before Djokovic and Safin was a brute force baseliner in those years, I dont see Murray beating them. You Sampras argument is valid, Murray could neutralize him maybe but the other baseliners he cannot beat, no chance.

Mental scars to Federer? R u joking? Federer would bury him in straight sets, only scars that Fed got were give by a leftie clay GOAT with a lot of RPMS on his forehand, Murray is trash, he has nothing to give scars Those cincinatti and other 3 sets were useless when he faced Fed at the USO 08, remember? It was a straight sets drubbing.... BO3s have no value. Whatever edge Murray might have in 00-02 over Federer would be no different from what Hewitt or Safin or Nalby had over Fed, scars and such words are laughable .,..... Murray is such a weakling that even Stan has a 5-4 H2H in slams over Murray.... A guy who was Stan's inferior in slams giving scars to the GOAT ??? You must be delusional .... Murray wins nothing more than 1 or 2 slams, thats the same which Hewitt won!

With the Federer and best of 5 stuff you could be right. Maybe it would have been similar to Federer’s early H2H troubles with Nalbandian which were over in Federer’s peak.

I don’t talk about consistently beating those baseliners you mentioned or definitely leading the H2H against them, but SOMETIMES beat them to take some chances. Remember we are talking about only 3 Slams for the real Murray. And he could beat all of the Big 3 at Slams, so surely there would be days on which he beats Agassi, Safin etc. Especially because they could lose to ANYONE on a bad day.

But all in all, Murray is exactly the same age as GOAT candidate Djokovic who is the same caliber as Federer, and got denied by this Djokovic in 5 Slam finals, so I don’t get the logic why he would have been lucky. And the Slam H2H to Stan is no negative factor here as well, or otherwise you must also say how could Djokovic be so good if he loses to Stan at Slams that often.

 

[NoleIsBoat]

Safin takes at least 4-5, remember he has a 2-0 H2H vs Novak, expect him to win all the slams of Wawrinka and also those 2 slams won by Cilic and Potro .... total of 5 minimum

This is the same Safin who lost an Australian open final to Johansson, then was washed up age 26

He could maybe bag a USO title but 4-5 titles is stretching it.

 

[Sunny014]

"Peak Federer" lost 6 of the first 7 matches against Nadal and 6 of the first 8 matches against Murray, but for some reason his fans think he would win every hypothetical match against ATGs...

He was good at beating Roddick and Baghdatis. That's it.

How many of these matches on Best of 5?

 

[Sunny014]

With the Federer and best of 5 stuff you could be right. Maybe it would have been similar to Federer’s early H2H troubles with Nalbandian which were over in Federer’s peak.

I don’t talk about consistently beating those baseliners you mentioned or definitely leading the H2H against them, but SOMETIMES beat them to take some chances. Remember we are talking about only 3 Slams for the real Murray. And he could beat all of the Big 3 at Slams, so surely there would be days on which he beats Agassi, Safin etc. Especially because they could lose to ANYONE on a bad day.

But all in all, Murray is exactly the same age as GOAT candidate Djokovic who is the same caliber as Federer, and got denied by this Djokovic in 5 Slam finals, so I don’t get the logic why he would have been lucky. And the Slam H2H to Stan is no negative factor here as well, or otherwise you must also say how could Djokovic be so good if he loses to Stan at Slams that often.

False.
Murray has never beaten Federer or Nadal at their peaks, he only beat Djokovic and my whole argument shows that Murray's failures vs Fedal would reflect bigtime in 00s if he was there, he has already been extra lucky.

Djokovic in my opinion is not as good as Federer or Nadal is finishing matches quickly against these inferiors, he lets these guys steal wins, Federer at his peak had no room for such guys, he was a savage against mediocrity (like murray-hewitt types).

Fed and NOvak operate differently you know.

 

[Sunny014]

This is the same Safin who lost an Australian open final to Johansson, then was washed up age 26

He could maybe bag a USO title but 4-5 titles is stretching it.

He would be a legit threat at both AO and USO vs Djokovic as his H2H 2-0 suggests and maybe he does well at the french as well in this homogenous era....This era would benefit him more than the volatile early 00s....

 

[OldBalls]

I see theres been another escape from the mental asylum....

 

[ChrisRF]

False.
Murray has never beaten Federer or Nadal at their peaks, he only beat Djokovic and my whole argument shows that Murray's failures vs Fedal would reflect bigtime in 00s if he was there, he has already been extra lucky.

Djokovic in my opinion is not as good as Federer or Nadal is finishing matches quickly against these inferiors, he lets these guys steal wins, Federer at his peak had no room for such guys, he was a savage against mediocrity (like murray-hewitt types).

Fed and NOvak operate differently you know.

Nobody plays "peak level“ in every match. Again, nobody says Murray would dominate in this or that era. But you said he wouldn’t be able to win 3 Slams. He’s good enough that things will go right for him in 3 of 40 or more opportunities.

And let’s be honest, Federer could also have his problems with good returners/retrievers like Davydenko for example, even though he never lost a Slam match to him. I would say 2004-07 Federer would lose ONE Slam match against peak Murray, maybe in similar dramatic fashion than the 2005 Safin loss.

 

[Omega_7000]

I see theres been another escape from the mental asylum....

Yes. It's you that has escaped

 

[Omega_7000]

Guys saying Murray and Wawrinka would have a glimmer of hope against peak Fed are smoking some strong stuff or descendents of Srdjan

 

[Sunny014]

Nobody plays "peak level“ in every match. Again, nobody says Murray would dominate in this or that era. But you said he wouldn’t be able to win 3 Slams. He’s good enough that things will go right for him in 3 of 40 or more opportunities.

And let’s be honest, Federer could also have his problems with good returners/retrievers like Davydenko for example, even though he never lost a Slam match to him. I would say 2004-07 Federer would lose ONE Slam match against peak Murray, maybe in similar dramatic fashion than the 2005 Safin loss.

Federer beat Murray in straights at 2010 AO, then Murray took 1 set at 2012W, then in Fed's bad year when he was like in his 30s having backpain and all Murray took a win over him in 5 laborious sets at the AO and then next year Fed came back and thrashed him in 4, then in straights at grass in 2015. ...... all this is PEAK MURRAT vs a Fed 28+ ......

Imagine what a peak Fed would do this clown .... ?

Safin could take a win off Fed because Safin has a very high peak level which is level with Novak and Rafa, thats why he beat Sampras.

Murray's peak level is far below the big 3 or Safin's .... thats why Murray despite being consistently at a high level as per his standards was always short of old Fed's ....He is even below Safin in peak so he won't be taking any win.

For beating Fed at Fed's peak one needs to actually play at a very high ATG level .... or else it aint happening

 

[OldBalls]

Yes. It's you that has escaped

3-0, bud.

 

[Sunny014]

Guys saying Murray and Wawrinka would have a glimmer of hope against peak Fed are smoking some strong stuff or descendents of Srdjan

True man.
Novak fans have gone crazy in their lust to glorify Murray just because their man happens to have lost some big matches at slams to Murray and Stan and these 2 guys are owned by Fedal

 

[Aabye5]

Stan, maybe. Murray? I don't think so.

 

[ChrisRF]

Safin could take a win off Fed because Safin has a very high peak level which is level with Novak and Rafa, thats why he beat Sampras.

Not even close. Safin beat Sampras and Federer on a day when he was at his best and the others had an off-day or made tactical errors. Well, at least Federer, because Sampras was very beatable by that kind of play when serve and volley became more and more obsolete.

I don’t see why a loss to Safin should be different than any other random loss to a 2-Slam-winner. Peak Safin is a myth. If it was real, there is no reason why it didn’t happen more often.

And all of the Big 3 have peak matches in which they would have thrashed any version of “peak Safin”. Let’s say Federer US Open final 2004, Nadal RG final 2008 and Djokovic AO SF 2016. That’s the performances we must put against 2005 Safin if we accept that Safin played the match of his life that day.

Murray's peak level is far below the big 3 or Safin's

Absolutely no way. I mean, Big 3 of course, but to put Safin in the same sentence is absurd.

 

[Sunny014]

Not even close. Safin beat Sampras and Federer on a day when he was at his best and the others had an off-day or made tactical errors. Well, at least Federer, because Sampras was very beatable by that kind of play when serve and volley became more and more obsolete.

I don’t see why a loss to Safin should be different than any other random loss to a 2-Slam-winner. Peak Safin is a myth. If it was real, there is no reason why it didn’t happen more often.

And all of the Big 3 have peak matches in which they would have thrashed any version of “peak Safin”. Let’s say Federer US Open final 2004, Nadal RG final 2008 and Djokovic AO SF 2016. That’s the performances we must put against 2005 Safin if we accept that Safin played the match of his life that day.


Absolutely no way. I mean, Big 3 of course, but to put Safin in the same sentence is absurd.

After the Big 3 peakwise Safin is the next top dog in the last 30 years of debut for any tennis player.

Pete, Agassi, Fed, Nadal, Djokovic and then I would put Safin as the 6th candidate, had he been disciplined, focused on his matches then he could have won many slams.

Safin's feats :

01. Took down Sampras in Slams (twice), including a US Open final in 2000.
02. Beat Agassi in Slams (twice), including a huge win in 2004.
03. Beat Kuerten at the FO when Guga was in his prime. And again at the AO the next year (the only time that Kuerten lost before the QF in a Slam that year).
04. Beat Djokovic in Slams (twice)
05. Took care of Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian (twice) in the Slams. Beat Ferrero at the French.
06, Beat peak Federer in a non-clay Slam - the only time that Fed lost in a non-clay Slam in 2004-2007.
07, Has 74% win record in the 5th set of a slam which is only below Djokovic, Nishikori and Sampras, in terms of mental toughness when Safin was on then he was on. He is better than Fedal in 5th set performance statistically.

 

[ChrisRF]

After the Big 3 peakwise Safin is the next top dog in the last 30 years of debut for any tennis player.

Pete, Agassi, Fed, Nadal, Djokovic and then I would put Safin as the 6th candidate, had he been disciplined, focused on his matches then he could have won many slams.

Safin's feats :

01. Took down Sampras in Slams (twice), including a US Open final in 2000.
02. Beat Agassi in Slams (twice), including a huge win in 2004.
03. Beat Kuerten at the FO when Guga was in his prime. And again at the AO the next year (the only time that Kuerten lost before the QF in a Slam that year).
04. Beat Djokovic in Slams (twice)
05. Took care of Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian (twice) in the Slams. Beat Ferrero at the French.
06, Beat peak Federer in a non-clay Slam - the only time that Fed lost in a non-clay Slam in 2004-2007.
07, Has 74% win record in the 5th set of a slam which is only below Djokovic, Nishikori and Sampras, in terms of mental toughness when Safin was on then he was on. He is better than Fedal in 5th set performance statistically.

I see that list and don’t see how Murray should be inferior to that with all his wins over the Big 3 and with all his Slam finals and Masters titles and his Year-End #1 in the Big 3 era. For me he is in a totally different league than Safin, but in the other direction than you may think. But we have to agree to disagree then, no Problem.

 

[Sunny014]

I see that list and don’t see how Murray should be inferior to that with all his wins over the Big 3 and with all his Slam finals and Masters titles and his Year-End #1 in the Big 3 era. For me he is in a totally different league than Safin, but in the other direction than you may think. But we have to agree to disagree then, no Problem.

This is Murray's league .... He has lost more than he has won vs Big 3 + Stan

An elite Loser

Worst part of this defeats is that he has never beaten Peak Fedal in slams and this shows that he would win 0 slams in 00s because Federer+Nadal were raging hot in 00s, especially Federer.

 

[Sunny014]

Murray is 8-24 vs The Big 4 (Big 3+Wawrinka) in Slams

Thats a 75% loss record and you think he would be winning slams in other eras ?

 

[ChrisRF]

Murray is 8-24 vs The Big 4 (Big 3+Wawrinka) in Slams

Thats a 75% loss record and you think he would be winning slams in other eras ?

Considering he actually won Slams in the same era with likely the 3 best players ever, yes, he would win plenty of them.

And don’t start again with “vulturing when they weren’t at their best” etc. Well, even if so, then other greats of other eras wouldn’t have been at their best way more often, especially considering the consistency of the Big 3.

But this is my final word in this discussion now.

 

[abmk]

"Peak Federer" lost 6 of the first 7 matches against Nadal and 6 of the first 8 matches against Murray, but for some reason his fans think he would win every hypothetical match against ATGs...

He was good at beating Roddick and Baghdatis. That's it.

Majority of those 7 matches were on clay. peak Fed also beat Nadal 5 times out of 7 in their next matches, you muppet of an idiotroll.

past his prime Fed went 3-1 vs Stan in slams in 2014-2017. your boy Djoko went 1-3 in the same time period.

As far as Murray is concerned, Fed's always dominated him at slams.

 

[Spencer Gore]

If Federer is born five years later alongside Nadal and Djokovic and doesn't gain the confidence and massive self-belief from all those easy wins in the weakest era in tennis history there is a very real chance HE wins zero slams.

 

[Sunny014]

If Federer is born five years later alongside Nadal and Djokovic and doesn't gain the confidence and massive self-belief from all those easy wins in the weakest era in tennis history there is a very real chance HE wins zero slams.

If he is born 5-6 years later then Nadal wins 0 slams outside clay after Fed reaches his peak and Novak retires with 7-8 slams because outside of Plexi he isn't winning anything and Fed would take many of those plexi slams too ....

There, thats your answer,

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Stan the late bloomer would probably have no slams, caught hard by Fedal. Mury may grab 1-2 slams along the way by longevity, hardly 3 though.

 

[Sunny014]

Considering he actually won Slams in the same era with likely the 3 best players ever, yes, he would win plenty of them.

And don’t start agains with “vulturing when they weren’t at their best” etc. Well, even if so, then other greats of other eras wouldn’t have been at their best way more often, especially considering the consistency of the Big 3.

But this is my final word in this discussion now.

He was gifted slams by Novak, but that doesn't mean he won them vs Fedal.... all 3 slams were gifted by Novak itself..... not Fedal, when they were at their peak they made him their pigeon.

 

[abmk]

Both of them would've had lesser slam counts.

 

[OldBalls]

If Federer is born five years later alongside Nadal and Djokovic and doesn't gain the confidence and massive self-belief from all those easy wins in the weakest era in tennis history there is a very real chance HE wins zero slams.

Yep. He wouldve been demoralised early on in his career by the 2 GOATS and retired by age 30, slamless.

 

[Spencer Gore]

If he is born 5-6 years later then Nadal wins 0 slams outside clay after Fed reaches his peak and Novak retires with 7-8 slams because outside of Plexi he isn't winning anything and Fed would take many of those plexi slams too ....

There, thats your answer,

Federer struggled to beat the players in tennis's wilderness years until 2003! Born 5 years later that puts his first slam winning attempt in 2008, right as Nadal reaches his peak and Djokovic first comes to slam winning form. Roger wins ZERO in 2008. And without those first slam wins -and the aura of invincibility that gave him easy victories over players before they stepped onto the court -he most probably fails to win any majors, retires in his early thirties and, thanks to his low earnings and lack of sponsorship and endorsements, is now struggling to make a living as a tennis coach at a Swiss club for junior players, while Nadal and Djokovic head to the US Open to see who can be the first to win 25 slams.

Roger should get down on his knees every night and thank the lord he was born when he was. That weak era head start at the beginning of the poly era saved his skin.

 

[OldBalls]

Has there been a luckier player than 40-15erer? Seriously. Collected his slams in the weakest era of mens tennis. Baghdatis, philippousis, gonzales lol. What a joke.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Delete the thread Ban the idiot.

Reported the idiot.

 

[6august]

Despair )))

 

[T007]

@TMF @T007 @Nole Slam @D.Nalby12 @abmk @MichaelNadal @Third Serve @duaneeo @BeatlesFan @mike danny

For this we have to look at both of their H2H with Fed.

Murray intially led H2H with Fed but he was got outplayed by Federer in slams. Fed dominated him in slam finals/semis with a 5-1 record.

Stan has never been able to beat outside clay and his record is 21-3 VS Fed something similar to roddick. Even in his peak He got outclassed by Federer in 2015 USO SF which everyone expected to be tougher.

Now assuming both of them would have played Fed from 2003-10 Finals I think Federer would have won 90% of their encounters. Murray may sneak a slam here n there but I don't think stan would have been able to beat Fed even on clay.

 

[T007]

Has there been a luckier player than 40-15erer? Seriously. Collected his slams in the weakest era of mens tennis. Baghdatis, philippousis, gonzales lol. What a joke.

Dumb Bagdhatis has a better BH than Bereetini and young baghdatis was a good mover too.

 

[T007]

"Peak Federer" lost 6 of the first 7 matches against Nadal and 6 of the first 8 matches against Murray, but for some reason his fans think he would win every hypothetical match against ATGs...

He was good at beating Roddick and Baghdatis. That's it.

Winning on tour and in slams is different. Thats why murray lost all of his first 5 slam matches Vs Fed.

Infact younger version of murray was a much better on faster courts than the old one

 

[T007]

Murray may only be in the last place of the Big 4, but his record is clearly telling us Federer is by far the weakest of the Big 3

Murray against Nadal H2H: 7-17
Murray against Djokervic: 11-25
Murray against Federer: 11-14

In other words, Federer is closer to Murray than the BIG TWO. Murray<Federer <<<<<<<<<< Nadal=Djokervic

Your stupidity cannot be cured., troll.

Stupidity at its best.

Ferrer against Nadal: 6-26
Ferrer against Djokovic:5-16
Ferrer against Federer:0-17

So Djoker is more closer Ferrer than big two

So Ferrer<Djokovic<<<<<Nadal<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<FEDERER

 

[pj80]

Well Fed in 2004-2013 was a worse player than Fed of 2014-onwards
His record vs murray 2004-2013 was 9-11
His record vs murray 2014-2015 is 5-0 (only 1 tiebreak lost)
Considering the fact that Fed improved his game in 2014, Murray would be better served vs the weaker and less experienced Fed of 2004 especially since there was no Djoker or Nadal to worry about...only other good players were Roddick and Srichaphan which peak Murray would feast on

 

[SonnyT]

I was watching the '15 Wim SF between Federer and Murray. OMG, both were playing great, and it was a great 3 set match.

I kind of forgot how good Murray was back then. Murray had 2 main drawbacks. First, he had the worst 2nd serve of any great player, ever. Second, he didn't have any unique weapon; the way Federer had the serve, Nadal the topspin FH, and Djokovic the return.

 

[Nole_King]

If Federer is born five years later alongside Nadal and Djokovic and doesn't gain the confidence and massive self-belief from all those easy wins in the weakest era in tennis history there is a very real chance HE wins zero slams.

You are wrong. If at 35+ Federer can acknowledge the scars he had from Nadal because of his earlier defeats and clay (check his AO 2017 SF post match interview) and go on to win 5 of the next 6 matches of their rivalry, nothing suggests he cannot if he was of younger age (born later along side Nadal and Novak).

 

[Nole_King]

I don't know if Murray would have won more or less ... Difficult to say but for sure he has very less chance against peak Federer in slams. Even when he was winning against Federer in Bo3 he was coming up really short against him in slams. He has won only one match in slam against him and that too in Federer's worst year and in best of 5.

 

[Nole_King]

Murray may only be in the last place of the Big 4, but his record is clearly telling us Federer is by far the weakest of the Big 3

Murray against Nadal H2H: 7-17
Murray against Djokervic: 11-25
Murray against Federer: 11-14

In other words, Federer is closer to Murray than the BIG TWO. Murray<Federer <<<<<<<<<< Nadal=Djokervic

Your stupidity cannot be cured., troll.

Probably true but you are trying to cure it with even more stupidity. You just put a man with 20 slams closer to a man with 3 slams.

 

[Sunny014]

Reported the idiot.

You and this @daphne should look in the mirror, you will find idiots whose IQ is below 50.

 

[Sunny014]

Looks like Murray Fans don't mind this post but this post for some reasons has not gone down well with Fed haters and Djokovic fans because it exposes their weak era logic to be flawed and also exposes how Djokovic in weakness between 12-15 lost to Stan and Murray in ways that he should not have ..... lol .... Stan even spoiled Djokovic's 2015 FO win that was supposed to be his glory moment ... haha

By putting Murray and Stan in Fed's gen their slam counts are going down and Fed haters are offended

 

[daphne]

You and this @daphne should look in the mirror, you will find idiots whose IQ is below 50.

You know that the Chandala are not permitted to talk about tennis.

 

[Sunny014]

You know that the Chandala are not permitted to talk about tennis.

I am serious bro, your IQ is quite low, lets appear for Mensa tests or some other tests on IQ level that give scores, I bet your score won't be even 20% of mine, your analytical thinking ability is non existent.

 

[Sunny014]

Anyway, this is how Murray at age 28 played at his peak vs a almost 34 year old Federer on Murray's fav surface.

Straight setted by the old man, some of the experts expect this 28 year old murray to beat Federer in 20s who was literally 77-1 on grass from 2003 till his loss in 2010 ..... wow ..... their understanding capability must be very low indeed if such logics can be given

 

[Deleted member 771911]

No idea. Everything would have been different for them. However Murray is a tremendous athlete and Wawrinka strong as an ox and I think they’d have still gotten their three slams.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Awful discussion going on here again but to answer the initial question from OP: both would have less. Stan for the simple fact that Djokovic is by far his best match up out of big three (no way he ever wins 4 slam matches out of 8 against either Nadal or Federer) and as for Murray it is correct that Djokovic somehow gifted him the slams.

While Novak is unbelievably consistent against the other two big three members since having reached his peak, he also has the weird tendency to be the most vulnerable against subpar opposition. I simply cannot see Murray winning two slam finals against peak Federer or younger Nadal. He would need the luck that both would loose earlier which simply will not happen given their consistency.

 

[Sunny014]

No idea. Everything would have been different for them. However Murray is a tremendous athlete and Wawrinka strong as an ox and I think they’d have still gotten their three slams.

But where are those slams that they can get?

Take Stan for example, he is 0-20 outside clay vs Federer, this is a mind boggling number, he is totally clueless on what to vs Federer who is 4 years older, so if they were aged same things would only look equally bad, so being strong as an OX worked in his favor in Djokovic's peak but in Federer's period all that would be pointless.....Federer in his peak was much faster, would read Stan even quicker and hurry him even more and never allow him to settle even for a second..... things would be lot worse?

Nd Andy Murray himself despite a 6 years age advantage has always failed, even this year Fed progressed ahead of him farther into wimbledon at 40 years of age, it is futile, if they were aged same then after Fed reached his level at TMC 03 there would be no room for Murray to do anything ..... So what do these guys do ? There is hardly any room .... How much they can win from 00 till 03 is the debate, Is Safin, Hewitt and the 90s ATGs Peter+Andre gonna allow a young Murray to win 3 slams? Was Murray's game so advanced at age 20-22 to do that?

 

[Sunny014]

Awful discussion going on here again but to answer the initial question from OP: both would have less. Stan for the simple fact that Djokovic is by far his best match up out of big three (no way he ever wins 4 slam matches out of 8 against either Nadal or Federer) and as for Murray it is correct that Djokovic somehow gifted him the slams.

While Novak is unbelievably consistent against the other two big three members since having reached his peak, he also has the weird tendency to be the most vulnerable against subpar opposition. I simply cannot see Murray winning two slam finals against peak Federer or younger Nadal. He would need the luck that both would loose earlier which simply will not happen given their consistency.

Exactly.
Federer after TMC 03 was scary consistent, it is as if his average level was GOAT level, you need to put up GOAT level performance to beat him, something which Safin did and was rewarded with 2005 Aus Open.
Nadal himself was scary on clay that his game in 2005 when he was a teenager was already GOAT level and Nadal was rising fast on Grass, by 07 his level was also ATG level....

Sir Andy would have no room to win slams and Stan would be toast

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Murray may only be in the last place of the Big 4, but his record is clearly telling us Federer is by far the weakest of the Big 3

Murray against Nadal H2H: 7-17
Murray against Djokervic: 11-25
Murray against Federer: 11-14

In other words, Federer is closer to Murray than the BIG TWO. Murray<Federer <<<<<<<<<< Nadal=Djokervic

Your stupidity cannot be cured., troll.

Big three are all very close to each other no matter how we see it and of course every single one of them is light years above someone like Murray. Only because Fed has the worst H2H against Murray out of three players who all dominated him does not make him close to Murray in terms of greatness, this is beyond ridiculous.

 

[Deleted member 771911]

No

But where are those slams that they can get?

Take Stan for example, he is 0-20 outside clay vs Federer, this is a mind boggling number, he is totally clueless on what to vs Federer who is 4 years older, so if they were aged same things would only look equally bad, so being strong as an OX worked in his favor in Djokovic's peak but in Federer's period all that would be pointless.....Federer in his peak was much faster, would read Stan even quicker and hurry him even more and never allow him to settle even for a second..... things would be lot worse?

Nd Andy Murray himself despite a 6 years age advantage has always failed, even this year Fed progressed ahead of him farther into wimbledon at 40 years of age, it is futile, if they were aged same then after Fed reached his level at TMC 03 there would be no room for Murray to do anything ..... So what do these guys do ? There is hardly any room .... How much they can win from 00 till 03 is the debate, Is Safin, Hewitt and the 90s ATGs Peter+Andre gonna allow a young Murray to win 3 slams? Was Murray's game so advanced at age 20-22 to do that?

No idea