Best player at a specific Slam to never win it

[mike danny]

The story of AO 2013 is actually very simple. It is called Shanghai 2012 final. For me this is the match which tells the story of Murray's career. He was becoming better and better in 2012 and I thought he could really become a member of the big 4. And then everything suddenly changed. I believe if this match didn't happen then Murray would have more confidence in his next matches against Djokovic.

Well, this match didn't seem to affect him in their Wimb final, so it can't be the one.

 

[mike danny]

They went 1-1 in matches.

Neither would have won the title anyway.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Borg pushed McEnroe to 5 sets in the 1980 USO final (4-6 in the 5th set) - or are you conveniently forgetting that? Murray never came so close to winning the AO.

Borg was also hindered by injury in the 1978 final as is well known.

He also has a higher win %age that Murray at the respective slams.

I've nothing against Murray, but Borg is greater at the USO than he is at the AO. One extra final for Murray does nothing to convince me - he could have reached 100 finals vs. Novak Djokovic and would have lost every time. He simply wasn't good enough.

But forcing one fifth set and some oh so damn unlucky injury is enough to convince you that Borg would have done great if given more opportunities or under some different circumstances?

Oh what a surprise. Another Novak Djokovic fan pumping up his opposition.

Novak Djokovic wouldn't be the AO GOAT if Murray had beaten him a few times there. There's no way I can be convinced that Murray at AO is greater than Borg at USO.

A player wouldn't be the tournament GOAT if he lost a few times instead of winning. What a revelation.

 

[NoleFam]

The story of AO 2013 is actually very simple. It is called Shanghai 2012 final. For me this is the match which tells the story of Murray's career. He was becoming better and better in 2012 and I thought he could really become a member of the big 4. And then everything suddenly changed. I believe if this match didn't happen then Murray would have more confidence in his next matches against Djokovic.

I don't think that match changed the landscape of their rivalry. He came close to beating Djokovic at WTF that fall and beat him at Wimbledon the next year. It was after his surgery that things changed. Novak took his game to another level in late 2014 when Murray still wasn't back to his best after surgery and the gap was too big for Murray to catch up to. Plus Djokovic got more and more confident the more he beat him, beaming with confidence when he played Murray while Murray was losing confidence in all those losses.

 

[Sabrina]

Neither would have won the title anyway.

I don't think Nadal prevent Murray from winning many GS. Maybe W 2010?

 

[mike danny]

I don't think Nadal prevent Murray from winning many GS. Maybe W 2010?

That's pretty much about it.

Berdych isn't beating Murray there.

 

[StrongRule]

Well, this match didn't seem to affect him in their Wimb final, so it can't be the one.

That was a low quality match though, for whatever reason. Well, Murray still gave Djokovic a decent fight in their late 2012 and 2013 matches (the real disaster was in 2014-2016, these eventual collapses in every match...) but I still think that Shanghai 2012 final kinda ruined all the improvements Murray was making at that time.

By the way, Murray almost lost the last game of Wimbledon 2013 final from a triple matchpoint on serve.

 

[StrongRule]

That's pretty much about it.

Berdych isn't beating Murray there.

Really not sure about that.

 

[StrongRule]

I don't think that match changed the landscape of their rivalry. He came close to beating Djokovic at WTF that fall and beat him at Wimbledon the next year. It was after his surgery that things changed. Novak took his game to another level in late 2014 when Murray still wasn't back to his best after surgery and the gap was too big for Murray to catch up to. Plus Djokovic got more and more confident the more he beat him, beaming with confidence when he played Murray while Murray was losing confidence in all those losses.

Yes, Murray was still giving a decent fight in their next few matches, but IMO something still changed. I couldn't trust Murray mentally anymore. But yes, it became much worse in 2014-2016 when Murray eventually collapsed in almost every big match they had.

 

[NoleFam]

Yes, Murray was still giving a decent fight in their next few matches, but IMO something still changed. I couldn't trust Murray mentally anymore. But yes, it became much worse in 2014-2016 when Murray eventually collapsed in almost every big match they had.

Murray got walloped 1 and 0 by Federer in late 2014. Clearly that was a sign he was struggling to find his best after the surgery. 2015 Djokovic was at the peak of his powers. Even Murray at his best would have had trouble stopping him. Murray ended 2016 number 1 and beat Djokovic in Rome and WTF finals so not a bad year for him, but in Slam matches, Djokovic had him figured out.

 

[StrongRule]

Murray got walloped 1 and 0 by Federer in late 2014. Clearly that was a sign he was struggling to find his best after the surgery. 2015 Djokovic was at the peak of his powers. Even Murray at his best would have had trouble stopping him. Murray ended 2016 number 1 and beat Djokovic in Rome and WTF finals so not a bad year for him, but in Slam matches, Djokovic had him figured out.

Djokovic wasn't GOATing in every match they played in 2015. Some of them were winnable. If anything, AO 2015 was a winnable match for Murray, and maybe 2012-2013 Murray could have won it. There really was no excuse for suddenly losing 12 games out of 13. In RG 2015 and 2016 Djokovic wasn't unbeatable as well, yet Murray looked totally hopeless. (clay is not his favorite surface of course. But after all, he managed to push a much better Djokovic to the limits in Rome 2011. I created a thread with extended highlights of this match yesterday, you should take a look at it)

 

[NoleFam]

Djokovic wasn't GOATing in every match they played in 2015. Some of them were winnable. If anything, AO 2015 was a winnable match for Murray, and maybe 2012-2013 Murray could have won it. There really was no excuse for suddenly losing 12 games out of 13. In RG 2015 and 2016 Djokovic wasn't unbeatable as well, yet Murray looked totally hopeless. (clay is not his favorite surface of course. But after all, he managed to push a much better Djokovic to the limits in Rome 2011. I created a thread with extended highlights of this match yesterday, you should take a look at it)

Djokovic hardly ever loses to top players in AO. In fact, he is on 15-0 streak against the top 5. So saying an AO final is a winnable match against Djokovic for anyone is a shot in the dark because he never lost one. Murray pushed him to 5 in 2015 RG so he definitely wasn't hopeless. 2016 RG, he completely ran out of gas so I will give you that one but on the flip side, Djokovic played exceptional and much better than 2015.

 

[Gazelle]

WHICH ANDY

"From the ones I watched..." would indicate Roddick, because no one watches Murray.

 

[MeatTornado]

Yes, Murray was still giving a decent fight in their next few matches, but IMO something still changed. I couldn't trust Murray mentally anymore. But yes, it became much worse in 2014-2016 when Murray eventually collapsed in almost every big match they had.

You say that like anyone ever trusted Andy mentally lol

 

[StrongRule]

Djokovic hardly ever loses to top players in AO. In fact, he is on 15-0 streak against the top 5. So saying an AO final is a winnable match against Djokovic for anyone is a shot in the dark because he never lost one. Murray pushed him to 5 in 2015 RG so he definitely wasn't hopeless. 2016 RG, he completely ran out of gas so I will give you that one but on the flip side, Djokovic played exceptional and much better than 2015.

This is because Djokovic lost focus in the middle of the match. At the beginning it looked like a routine 6-3 6-3 6-3 win. And even after winning 2 sets Murray still lost the fifth set 6-1 without any fight. There wasn't really doubt about the winner in that one, and it wasn't really a close match, despite being 5 sets.

Djokovic not losing in AO finals doesn't mean he is impossible to beat. For example, Nadal in RG 2014 final looked very beatable and Djokovic definitely missed an opportunity there. Thiem also had chances to beat Djokovic in AO final this year.

 

[StrongRule]

You say that like anyone ever trusted Andy mentally lol

After Olympics and USO 2012 I thought for a moment that he might improve mentally. Then he also beat Federer in Shanghai semifinal and should have beaten Djokovic in the final. And then he blew it, and I realized I was wrong.

 

[Ray Mercer]

A lot of people picking Murray here but the reality is Murray was a punching bag in all of his finals. He always showed up just to take a beating and accept the plate. Roddick at Wimbledon is a great choice

 

[MeatTornado]

After Olympics and USO 2012 I thought for a moment that he might improve mentally. Then he also beat Federer in Shanghai semifinal and should have beaten Djokovic in the final. And then he blew it, and I realized I was wrong.

I thought the same. Definitely had high hopes but I wasn't anywhere close to actual trust yet.

As far as his career goes though, I think the biggest turning point for him was the back surgery at the end of 2013. After all the momentum gained (even with the losses like Shanghai & Australia), he was in great standing by Wimbledon 2013. The rest of the big 4 looked like they were declining while he was rising. Seemed like the tides were officially turning. But then he hurt his back which I think messed with him mentally as much as physically. 2014 was a pretty rough year for him trying to get back to where he was in 13. At the same time Novak had hired Boris and was only getting better.

 

[The Guru]

Shall I remind you that Delpo couldn't even beat hip Hewitt at the 2013 USO, at his best slam?


Again with your pre-prime Murray. 2009 Murray was playing about as well at Wimb as 2010 and 2011 Murray.


2009 Haas had the same credentials on grass as 2015 Murray.


So following this line of thought, who would have been left for Murray if you take out the Big 3?


Why? Among the guys on the list, Roddick actually came the closest to winning.


Why?

So what if he beat Del Potro? No ones claiming Del Po was a world beater at the 13 USO. Hewitt was never himself after 05. Being challenged by Hewitt post 05 is not a good thing.

Murray has played better in 6 Wimbledons after (imo) 09 so I think that level of Murray wasn't overly impressive to defeat. 12 Murray kicks Roddick's butt.

He's Tommy Haas nuff said.

Not much but he was more consistent than Roddick and beat more quality opponents than Roddick in more impressive fashion than Roddick. Roddick beat 1 top 10 player at Wimbledon in his career and it was basically a 50/50 match. If Murray wins a 13 shot rally on SP in the 3rd he goes to the final.

Borg is such an easy answer it's a joke. You literally skipped over all my points for him in your post. There is no reason to look past Borg and even if you do it should clearly be to Murray.

I answered that question in the post. Soderling was relevant on clay in 3 years. He was more or less average in both final runs and wasn't a top 3 contender in 2011. Murray was that for many years. Neither were all that close to winning but at least Murray gave himself more chances.

 

[mike danny]

Murray has played better in 6 Wimbledons after (imo) 09 so I think that level of Murray wasn't overly impressive to defeat. 12 Murray kicks Roddick's butt.

There is no evidence to suggest Murray was better at Wimb in 2010 and 2011 just because he lost to Nadal winning just 1 set in total. If you find that better, then we'll agree to disagree. Being beaten by Nadal both times pretty comfortably doesn't impress me more than him being 50/50 with an in-form Roddick.

He's Tommy Haas nuff said.

That's one shallow way to look at things. I guess Verdasco at the 2009 AO was an easy opponent just because he was Fernando Verdasco.

Not much but he was more consistent than Roddick and beat more quality opponents than Roddick in more impressive fashion than Roddick. Roddick beat 1 top 10 player at Wimbledon in his career and it was basically a 50/50 match. If Murray wins a 13 shot rally on SP in the 3rd he goes to the final.

Like who? Kyrgios? Berdych? Raonic?

Borg is such an easy answer it's a joke. You literally skipped over all my points for him in your post. There is no reason to look past Borg and even if you do it should clearly be to Murray.

I have Roddick on 3rd place. But suggesting it's outrageous to have so many votes is preposterous.

 

[NoleFam]

A lot of people picking Murray here but the reality is Murray was a punching bag in all of his finals. He always showed up just to take a beating and accept the plate. Roddick at Wimbledon is a great choice

I'm sorry but this is so ironic that I couldn't help but chuckle a bit. Lol.

 

[StrongRule]

I thought the same. Definitely had high hopes but I wasn't anywhere close to actual trust yet.

As far as his career goes though, I think the biggest turning point for him was the back surgery at the end of 2013. After all the momentum gained (even with the losses like Shanghai & Australia), he was in great standing by Wimbledon 2013. The rest of the big 4 looked like they were declining while he was rising. Seemed like the tides were officially turning. But then he hurt his back which I think messed with him mentally as much as physically. 2014 was a pretty rough year for him trying to get back to where he was in 13. At the same time Novak had hired Boris and was only getting better.

I agree he declined after the injury. I can definitely give excuses for 2014, but not for the losses in 2015-2016. I mean, it was clear he was healthy if he managed to win so much tournament at the end of 2016, even when most were with a weak competition. So I really can't give any excuses for him totally collapsing in the slam finals against Djokovic in AO and RG. The real bad thing about 2015-2016 were not just the losses, but the fact that most of the time the matches were not even close. And it's not just against Djokovic, he looked hopeless against Federer as well. And even 2015 Nadal destroyed him in WTF.

 

[The Guru]

There is no evidence to suggest Murray was better at Wimb in 2010 and 2011 just because he lost to Nadal winning just 1 set in total. If you find that better, then we'll agree to disagree. Being beaten by Nadal both times pretty comfortably doesn't impress me more than him being 50/50 with an in-form Roddick.


That's one shallow way to look at things. I guess Verdasco at the 2009 AO was an easy opponent just because he was Fernando Verdasco.


Like who? Kyrgios? Berdych? Raonic?


I have Roddick on 3rd place. But suggesting it's outrageous to have so many votes is preposterous.

There's no evidence to suggest Murray's worse in 10/11 either. Nadal is clearly a better player than Roddick so doing worse against him is expected. He displayed better form to my eye in both of the subsequent additions. You may disagree but you have no "evidence" either.

Equating Haas to Verdasco is craziness. Haas did nothing to warrant such a comparison. Beating pre-2011ovic on grass was not much of an accomplishment as he hadn't figured out the surface yet and he played like a clay-courter really. Losses to Safin, Haas, Berdych and the least convincing SF run in the history of man illustrate that well enough.

Agassi is the 3rd best player in AO history and it's preposterous to suggest he's the best. I'd be perfectly reasonable to say voting Agassi is outrageous just as voting Roddick is outrageous. In a poll for AO GOAT I'd expect 70% Djokovic 25% Federer 5% Agassi. Here I expect a similar spread except for Borg, Murray, and Roddick filling those roles.

 

[r2473]

Renshaw - US Open

Guy should have won 5+ times

 

[Ray Mercer]

I'm sorry but this is so ironic that I couldn't help but chuckle a bit. Lol.

How is it ironic when Roddick was inches away from winning in 09 and played a tremendous final match in 04 prior to the rain delay. Try watching tennis before 2010 bud.

 

[mike danny]

There's no evidence to suggest Murray's worse in 10/11 either. Nadal is clearly a better player than Roddick so doing worse against him is expected. He displayed better form to my eye in both of the subsequent additions. You may disagree but you have no "evidence" either.

I didn't say he was worse in 2010/2011, just that he wasn't much better than in 2009. Getting beaten comfortably by Nadal doesn't make one better automatically. You just think it's an insult that he was beaten by Roddick so you have to do whatever you can to diminish Roddick's win.

Equating Haas to Verdasco is craziness. Haas did nothing to warrant such a comparison. Beating pre-2011ovic on grass was not much of an accomplishment as he hadn't figured out the surface yet and he played like a clay-courter really. Losses to Safin, Haas, Berdych and the least convincing SF run in the history of man illustrate that well enough.

Sure, I guess Haas winning a grass court title and reaching the SF of Wimb, like Murray in 2015, means he did nothing to warrant such comparison. If he had lost to that Djokovic, you would have said how Haas was a mug because he lost to pre-prime Djokovic on grass. I mean, Haas had Murray numbers on grass, but that doesn't matter because he is not Murray, right? Wow....

Least convincing SF run in the history of man? Now you're reaching. Assuming you're talking about Djoko's 2007 Wimb run.

Agassi is the 3rd best player in AO history and it's preposterous to suggest he's the best. I'd be perfectly reasonable to say voting Agassi is outrageous just as voting Roddick is outrageous. In a poll for AO GOAT I'd expect 70% Djokovic 25% Federer 5% Agassi. Here I expect a similar spread except for Borg, Murray, and Roddick filling those roles.

So why exactly is it so outrageous that the 3rd on your list, Roddick, has as many votes as he does? He doesn't even have the most votes. Borg and Murray are above him.

 

[NoleFam]

How is it ironic when Roddick was inches away from winning in 09 and played a tremendous final match in 04 prior to the rain delay. Try watching tennis before 2010 bud.

Because the last sentence could read like Roddick is a "great choice" for showing up and taking a plate, and pretty much that's what he did. Lol. I wasn't laughing at your choice so no need to be so sensitive.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

So what if he beat Del Potro? No ones claiming Del Po was a world beater at the 13 USO. Hewitt was never himself after 05. Being challenged by Hewitt post 05 is not a good thing.

Murray has played better in 6 Wimbledons after (imo) 09 so I think that level of Murray wasn't overly impressive to defeat. 12 Murray kicks Roddick's butt.

He's Tommy Haas nuff said.

Not much but he was more consistent than Roddick and beat more quality opponents than Roddick in more impressive fashion than Roddick. Roddick beat 1 top 10 player at Wimbledon in his career and it was basically a 50/50 match. If Murray wins a 13 shot rally on SP in the 3rd he goes to the final.

Borg is such an easy answer it's a joke. You literally skipped over all my points for him in your post. There is no reason to look past Borg and even if you do it should clearly be to Murray.

I answered that question in the post. Soderling was relevant on clay in 3 years. He was more or less average in both final runs and wasn't a top 3 contender in 2011. Murray was that for many years. Neither were all that close to winning but at least Murray gave himself more chances.

I guess Novack was shytе in 2012 Olympics because he struggled to beat Hewitt, yeahlol. Your ramblings don't deserve respect, frankly. Recall mury had a tuff match with Lopez in 2012 USO, so he was shiet too? Or, Lopez infinitely better than hip Hewitt, trololo, amirite?

 

[The Guru]

I didn't say he was worse in 2010/2011, just that he wasn't much better than in 2009. Getting beaten comfortably by Nadal doesn't make one better automatically. You just think it's an insult that he was beaten by Roddick so you have to do whatever you can to diminish Roddick's win.


Sure, I guess Haas winning a grass court title and reaching the SF of Wimb, like Murray in 2015, means he did nothing to warrant such comparison. If he had lost to that Djokovic, you would have said how Haas was a mug because he lost to pre-prime Djokovic on grass. I mean, Haas had Murray numbers on grass, but that doesn't matter because he is not Murray, right? Wow....

Least convincing SF run in the history of man? Now you're reaching. Assuming you're talking about Djoko's 2007 Wimb run.


So why exactly is it so outrageous that the 3rd on your list, Roddick, has as many votes as he does? He doesn't even have the most votes. Borg and Murray are above him.

Now you're adding a modifier that I didn't. Murray wasn't "much" better in 10/11. He was better. He handled two dangerous grass courters in routine fashion in 10 and cruised to the semis and gave Nadal a decent battle in 11. Nothing outstanding but better to my eye and better results. It's not an insult to lose to Roddick. Roddick is a very good grass courter. Not as good as Murray but good. Losing to Roddick in his second best W ever in an even match while in average form is not bad. The issue is when it's used to extrapolate that he's a better or equal grass courter to Murray that I object to. I could be like oh baby teenage Murray beat Murray so 12 Murray would triple bagel him but I recognize it's more complicated than one match's result.

Yes no version of Tommy Haas is as good of a grass courter as prime Andy Murray. I'm pretty comfortable in saying that. Beating a sh*tty Djokovic a couple times doesn't change my mind on that.

I mean I was exaggerating but it's pretty bad. Tight match with Delic (who?) Kiefer in two TBs Hip Hewitt in 3 TBs. Baghdatis in two TBs and 7-5 in the 5th. That's pretty ugly stuff.

Again, I ask you if Agassi was essentially tied with Djokovic for 2nd and Federer was leading a poll on a AO GOAT how would you feel about that. I'd say it's garbage that Djokovic isn't in 1st with a massive percentage of the vote and Federer should have most of the other votes and Agassi should have next to 0 votes. Borg should be leading by a ton Murray should be getting the rest and Roddick should have next to none. There's no reason to vote Roddick other than GOAT party politics. Peak? Borg's better and arguably Murray is too (12 AO>W 04). Prime? Borg and Murray are better. Longevity? Murray, Borg, and Lendl are better. There's not a lot of room for Roddick in this picture. We weren't asked for the top 3 we were asked for the top 1. If Djokovic got 20% and Federer 26% of the vote for the Wimbledon GOAT you'd be pissed but he's probably 3rd (him or Borg).

 

[The Guru]

I guess Novack was shytе in 2012 Olympics because he struggled to beat Hewitt, yeahlol. Your ramblings don't deserve respect, frankly. Recall mury had a tuff match with Lopez in 2012 USO, so he was shiet too? Or, Lopez infinitely better than hip Hewitt, trololo, amirite?

You don't deserve respect, frankly. Anyone who's contending for a slam should not be in a 50/50 match with post 2005 Hewitt. Saving your best form in the early rounds in order to peak in the second week can cause some uncomfortably close matches sometimes. You have to use your eyes to determine whether they're going full blast (like Djokovic was) or still building up form (like Murray was). By the QFs you should pretty much be in 1st gear. Roddick struggled throughout the tournament. 4 sets in each of the 1st three rounds and an extremely close match with Melzer. Notice I did not mention that. He may have been going full blast, honestly I don't remember, he may not have been so I was cautious and gave him a pass. Djokovic lost a set to Trollini on Grass at Olympics 2012 but Peakovic amirite? Also, lol at equating BO3 and BO 5. Hewitt wasn't a scrub but his top level was long long gone by 09 his hip ensured that. That Roddick almost lost to that version of Hewitt in his "2nd best" W run doesn't speak too well of him. Kindly mute me if you don't like what I have to say and crawl back into your echochamber .

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

You don't deserve respect, frankly. Anyone who's contending for a slam should not be in a 50/50 match with post 2005 Hewitt. Saving your best form in the early rounds in order to peak in the second week can cause some uncomfortably close matches sometimes. You have to use your eyes to determine whether they're going full blast (like Djokovic was) or still building up form (like Murray was). By the QFs you should pretty much be in 1st gear. Roddick struggled throughout the tournament. 4 sets in each of the 1st three rounds and an extremely close match with Melzer. Notice I did not mention that. He may have been going full blast, honestly I don't remember, he may not have been so I was cautious and gave him a pass. Djokovic lost a set to Trollini on Grass at Olympics 2012 but Peakovic amirite? Also, lol at equating BO3 and BO 5. Hewitt wasn't a scrub but his top level was long long gone by 09 his hip ensured that. That Roddick almost lost to that version of Hewitt in his "2nd best" W run doesn't speak too well of him. Kindly mute me if you don't like what I have to say and crawl back into your echochamber .

All of this goes out the SHINDOSHS as soon as 2013 Wimbledon is mentioned, rite? Murray ekes out a win over the mighty Grassdasco, takes two and a half sets to start dominating the mighty Janowicz, but he beat Djoko in straight sets so epic win.

Clearly you aren't using your eyes well if they lead you to consider whatever outlandish ideas you've been spouting, hahahoho.

Close match with a dominance ratio of 1.44, sorry fail. TBs aren't close by default especially on botty grass.

That Noel almost lost to the mighty Anderson in his bestest, peakest Wimbledon run doesn't speak well of him, huh? Ah right, fourth round so it's ok to struggle, but QF is not ok, an uncrossable chasm of difference between those two. Bwahaha. But of course, since Novok beat "amazing Federer" in the final, all is fine and dandy out there.

You think you're entitled to spouting half-assed nonsense with no rebuke? Hate to be that guy but nope, reap what you sow.

 

[The Guru]

All of this goes out the SHINDOSHS as soon as 2013 Wimbledon is mentioned, rite? Murray ekes out a win over the mighty Grassdasco, takes two and a half sets to start dominating the mighty Janowicz, but he beat Djoko in straight sets so epic win.

Clearly you aren't using your eyes well if they lead you to consider whatever outlandish ideas you've been spouting, hahahoho.

Close match with a dominance ratio of 1.44, sorry fail. TBs aren't close by default especially on botty grass.

That Noel almost lost to the mighty Anderson in his bestest, peakest Wimbledon run doesn't speak well of him, huh? Ah right, fourth round so it's ok to struggle, but QF is not ok, an uncrossable chasm of difference between those two. Bwahaha. But of course, since Novok beat "amazing Federer" in the final, all is fine and dandy out there.

You think you're entitled to spouting half-assed nonsense with no rebuke? Hate to be that guy but nope, reap what you sow.

LOL. Says Melzer Roddick isn't close and brings up Djokovic Anderson. Two TBs on grass 181-157 TPW 35-27 RPW% but only use arguments when they suit you amirite? You spout half-assed nonsense all the time so clearly you believe in such an entitlement. You have to use eyes, results/stats, and common sense (an area you're severely lacking in) to determine form. The stats/results/common sense line up with what I see with my eyes and they say that 09 Roddick was just alright. Murray's 13 is overrated he was better in 2012 but still good in 2013. Murray dropped 3 sets in 2013. Djokovic dropped 3 sets in 2015. Roddick dropped 9 lol. It's a lot easier to dismiss something as an outlier when it's an isolated incident or in other words an outlier. But by all means keep spouting your obnoxious nonsense.

You drug the discussion down to this. I just want to make sure that's clear. You picked the weapon and I respond in kind. Now kindly buzz off I have no further interest in your dogma.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

LOL. Says Melzer Roddick isn't close and brings up Djokovic Anderson. Two TBs on grass 181-157 TPW 35-27 RPW but only use arguments when they suit you amirite? You spout half-assed nonsense all the time so clearly you believe in such an entitlement. You have to use eyes, results/stats, and common sense (an area you're severely lacking in) to determine form. The stats/results/common sense line up with what I see with my eyes and they say that 09 Roddick was just alright. Murray's 13 is overrated he was better in 2012 but still good in 2013. Murray dropped 3 sets in 2013. Djokovic dropped 3 sets in 2015. Roddick dropped 9 lol. It's a lot easier to dismiss something as an outlier when it's an isolated incident or in other words an outlier. But by all means keep spouting your obnoxious nonsense.

You drug the discussion down to this. I just want to make sure that's clear. You picked the weapon and I respond in kind. Now kindly buzz off I have no further interest in your dogma.

Roddick won the tiebreaks 7-2 (so no chances for Melzer to take either set) and was two sets to love up, lost third, won fourth 6-3 routinely. Djokovic lost his tiebreaks and was two sets to love down, and faced BPs in the fifth, real danger to go down a crucial break on grass in the deciding set.

2012 Wimbray was run close by Fatdatis btw, except Fatcos didn't have Hipwitt's stamina so he went down after three sets.

You're the one who started everything by making bull claims and demanding they be respected. Now you're hiding behind the fact that there's no exact science to it, to avoid facing the **** and bull factor of your stories.

Eyes serve to show 2009 Wimbray > 2015 Wimbray and 2011 too. Rest is debatable (I think only 2012 Wimbray was clearly better). You won't accept that either though.

 

[The Guru]

Roddick won the tiebreaks 7-2 (so no chances for Melzer to take either set) and was two sets to love up, lost third, won fourth 6-3 routinely. Djokovic lost his tiebreaks and was two sets to love down, and faced BPs in the fifth, real danger to go down a crucial break on grass in the deciding set.

2012 Wimbray was run close by Fatdatis btw, except Fatcos didn't have Hipwitt's stamina so he went down after three sets.

You're the one who started everything by making bull claims and demanding they be respected. Now you're hiding behind the fact that there's no exact science to it, to avoid facing the **** and bull factor of your stories.

Eyes serve to show 2009 Wimbray > 2015 Wimbray and 2011 too. Rest is debatable (I think only 2012 Wimbray was clearly better). You won't accept that either though.

Show me where I hid behind the lack of objectivity in the last post. You're one of the most dishonest debaters on the internet and that's a really high bar. You only respond to about half the points I make and also make up **** that I didn't say attribute it to me and then debunk it. YOU LITERALLY JUST SAID THAT TBs DONT MEAN MUCH BECAUSE GRASS IS A SERVEBOT PRONE SURFACE. What do you think Anderson is? A defensive baseliner. Djokovic was the far superior player in the match by the exact same metrics and logic you used to say why Roddick was far superior to Melzer.

I'm sorry if a 4 set win in the 4th round with a breadstick didn't concern me lol.

More dishonesty lol. Demanding they be respected? Point to the time I demanded respect from you. I'm not foolhardy enough to demand from people what they're not capable of giving. I ask that people take me seriously so we can have fun, interesting debates as opposed to this garbage. I share my perceptions. If you can't handle people disagreeing with you then, seriously, buzz off. I'm not interested in this pissing contest.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Show me where I hid behind the lack of objectivity in the last post. You're one of the most dishonest debaters on the internet and that's a really high bar. You only respond to about half the points I make and also make up **** that I didn't say attribute it to me and then debunk it. YOU LITERALLY JUST SAID THAT TBs DONT MEAN MUCH BECAUSE GRASS IS A SERVEBOT PRONE SURFACE. What do you think Anderson is? A defensive baseliner. Djokovic was the far superior player in the match by the exact same metrics and logic you used to say why Roddick was far superior to Melzer.

I'm sorry if a 4 set win in the 4th round with a breadstick didn't concern me lol.

More dishonesty lol. Demanding they be respected? Point to the time I demanded respect from you. I'm not foolhardy enough to demand from people what they're not capable of giving. I ask that people take me seriously so we can have fun, interesting debates as opposed to this garbage. I share my perceptions. If you can't handle people disagreeing with you then, seriously, buzz off. I'm not interested in this pissing contest.

And you literally misrepresented me. I said TBs aren't close by default. A tiebreak set may be close or not, depending on the set specifics/stats. Grass makes for more tiebreaks so there are more non-close tiebreaks (as well as more close tiebreaks). Roddick dominated both tiebreaks and was never in danger of losing to Melzer unless he faced set points I'm not aware of. Djokovic was in danger of losing to Anderson when facing two BPs in the fifth. It was early but falling down a break in the decider against a good server is itself dangerous enough. The manner in which the tiebreaks were lost is important too. DF at 6-6 in the first breaker and wasting a 4-0 lead in the second breaker, bad unclutch stuff.

It's not fun when you act dismissively towards other arguments - something I've just done to you and you didn't like it. Get the hint? But fun is a subjective category and looks like some find it fun indeed, at least enough for you and them to humour each other. I'll let you to your own devices then. Have your fun and don't get sick.

 

[The Guru]

And you literally misrepresented me. I said TBs aren't close by default. A tiebreak set may be close or not, depending on the set specifics/stats. Grass makes for more tiebreaks so there are more non-close tiebreaks (as well as more close tiebreaks). Roddick dominated both tiebreaks and was never in danger of losing to Melzer unless he faced set points I'm not aware of. Djokovic was in danger of losing to Anderson when facing two BPs in the fifth. It was early but falling down a break in the decider against a good server is itself dangerous enough. The manner in which the tiebreaks were lost is important too. DF at 6-6 in the first breaker and wasting a 4-0 lead in the second breaker, bad unclutch stuff.

It's not fun when you act dismissively towards other arguments - something I've just done to you and you didn't like it. Get the hint? But fun is a subjective category and looks like some find it fun indeed, at least enough for you and them to humour each other. I'll let you to your own devices then. Have your fun and don't get sick.

One last response and then we'll go on our merry way.

First, you're saying because Djokovic was about as close as you can get to winning the sets he lost and won the sets he won by a wider margin that somehow makes the match less good by Djokovic? That makes absolutely no sense to me. Roddick losing the set he lost by a break and needing TBs to win two of the sets he won is worse than winning all your sets by breaks and being about as close as you can get to winning the sets he lost. Both men deserved to win and shouldn't receive much criticism for their performance as I previously stated.

Another accusation without proof. I say you skip over multiple arguments that I make and generally act dogmatic (I can provide examples if you wish). You say no you. When exactly did I skip over / not address other's arguments? When was I dismissive to anyone except you? And as I sad before you've earned me dismissing you by generally being a *ouchebag. I started off friendly giving you the benefit of the doubt PMing you saying it's all good we're fine it's not personal and you repeatedly clubbed me saying **** like your opinions aren't worthy of respect or you're a moron or stuff along those lines. You chose the terms of engagement. I would be more than happy to have respectful debates on tennis with you if you weren't such an arse to me so you can't criticize me for being dismissive of you as a reaction to your actions.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

First, you're saying because Djokovic was about as close as you can get to winning the sets he lost and won the sets he won by a wider margin that somehow makes the match less good by Djokovic? That makes absolutely no sense to me. Roddick losing the set he lost by a break and needing TBs to win two of the sets he won is worse than winning all your sets by breaks and being about as close as you can get to winning the sets he lost. Both men deserved to win and shouldn't receive much criticism for their performance as I previously stated.

See, that's the attitude. I've laid down the logic and you just... don't see it. It's not just me, too, I've seen you tell other posters their arguments made no sense to you. It's like we're talking different languages. How much should I explain myself to make you understand my line of thinking and where it's coming from and why it makes sense? It doesn't seem worth the effort. I'm not interested in you saying I'm wrong, like you're not interested in me saying you're wrong, for no great reason other than eye test and circumstantial reasoning. Guess I need to put up more stat comparison threads to show what kind of reasoning I prefer, something with more detail/substance to it.

PS. losing a close set may be worse within the context of a longer match that at least wasn't far from going five sets, or actually did go five sets, because a close set means both players expended energy, but the loser of the set did so in vain (unless the other player lacks stamina, in which case forcing longer play is beneficial), which may weigh one down mentally, whereas losing a quick set can be shrugged off easier and you didn't get tired much. It's a shame Hewitt didn't hold serve to take Fred to five at 2004 WB, that alone would've made it a tougher match than any 3/4-set win despite 6-1 and 6-0 sets, by virtue of going to the deciding fifth set. Djokovic kinda made it work last WB when he basically tanked a full set and half another set but took the close sets.

PPS. in what world is Verdasco greater than Haas overall? Haas is more accomplished in all primary respects.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Me at the AO

 

[The Guru]

See, that's the attitude. I've laid down the logic and you just... don't see it. It's not just me, too, I've seen you tell other posters their arguments made no sense to you. It's like we're talking different languages. How much should I explain myself to make you understand my line of thinking and where it's coming from and why it makes sense? It doesn't seem worth the effort. I'm not interested in you saying I'm wrong, like you're not interested in me saying you're wrong, for no great reason other than eye test and circumstantial reasoning. Guess I need to put up more stat comparison threads to show what kind of reasoning I prefer, something with more detail/substance to it.

PS. losing a close set may be worse within the context of a longer match that at least wasn't far from going five sets, or actually did go five sets, because a close set means both players expended energy, but the loser of the set did so in vain (unless the other player lacks stamina, in which case forcing longer play is beneficial), which may weigh one down mentally, whereas losing a quick set can be shrugged off easier and you didn't get tired much. It's a shame Hewitt didn't hold serve to take Fred to five at 2004 WB, that alone would've made it a tougher match than any 3/4-set win despite 6-1 and 6-0 sets, by virtue of going to the deciding fifth set. Djokovic kinda made it work last WB when he basically tanked a full set and half another set but took the close sets.

PPS. in what world is Verdasco greater than Haas overall? Haas is more accomplished in all primary respects.

Wow that first paragraph is one of the most condescending things I've ever read. I must bow to you in your infinite wisdom and logical superiority. Jesus. What you wrote below you have never said to me before and here you are pretending that I'm some idiot incapable of understanding your arguments. The ego behind that paragraph is mesmerizing. Not trying to be a pompous jerkoff but it's necessary to stop your holier than thou attitude: I was a philosophy major at a top 20 university in the US. If I'm incapable of following your line of logic then almost no one in the world can. You're not Kant you're AnOctorokForDinner on a frickin tennis forum. Get over yourself. Now on to your response:

You have once again shifted the goal posts. Everything you said is obviously true. Not what I was saying. If it was unclear we were talking about level. You display a higher level when you don't get destroyed in sets you lose. While it may be more beneficial from an energy standpoint to win 7-6 7-6 0-6 0-6 7-6 you have displayed a worse level than someone who wins 6-0 6-7 6-0 6-7 6-0 6-7. That is obviously what I was referring to. Now that I explained myself to make you understand my line of thinking and where it's coming from and why it makes sense do you get it? Hopefully it was worth the effort.

Another common thread: you making up claims that I've never made. I never said Haas had a worse career than Verdasco. I did, however, say Verdasco AO 09 and Haas W 09 should not be compared because Verdasco was far better.

Last common thread you backing away from arguments when I refute them and you have nothing to respond with. You pick one thing out of what I say that you can respond to and ignore the rest and then hurl a new accusation. You have made multiple accusations about me in this conversation. I've defended each one. I even gave you the opportunity to add some "detail/substance" to your claims by introducing evidence. You promptly ignored. I have routinely addressed every point you bring up in each post you address half at best and you have the nerve to claim I'm the one incapable of logical discussion.

Edit: I have also said that phrase exactly once before and you're taking it out of context to make a dishonest argument and you know it. I said having Djokovic W 11 and Djokovic AO 08 in Third Serve's top 5 runs makes no sense to me. That was clearly not a phrase of misunderstanding it was a figure of speech to say I disagree with that and I don't think it makes sense for those to be top 5.

 

[Nole_King]

By facing the goat of AO so many times Murygoat had the hardest.

Was he auditioning for dracula movie there?

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Wow that first paragraph is one of the most condescending things I've ever read. I must bow to you in your infinite wisdom and logical superiority. Jesus. What you wrote below you have never said to me before and here you are pretending that I'm some idiot incapable of understanding your arguments. The ego behind that paragraph is mesmerizing. Not trying to be a pompous jerkoff but it's necessary to stop your holier than thou attitude: I was a philosophy major at a top 20 university in the US. If I'm incapable of following your line of logic then almost no one in the world can. You're not Kant you're AnOctorokForDinner on a frickin tennis forum. Get over yourself. Now on to your response:

Well if you keep seeing something else, then something's off. Doesn't seem like a perfectly logical thing, for instance, to assert Murray was better in subsequent Wimbledon editions after 2009, while at the same time baulking at Fedfans' eye test saying fed is boat. If you can assert, why can't I take exception and counterassert while dissing your assertions? And thus began the circle.

You have once again shifted the goal posts. Everything you said is obviously true. Not what I was saying. If it was unclear we were talking about level. You display a higher level when you don't get destroyed in sets you lose. While it may be more beneficial from an energy standpoint to win 7-6 7-6 0-6 0-6 7-6 you have displayed a worse level than someone who wins 6-0 6-7 6-0 6-7 6-0 6-7. That is obviously what I was referring to. Now that I explained myself to make you understand my line of thinking and where it's coming from and why it makes sense do you get it? Hopefully it was worth the effort.

Winning is more important though. Federer led almost all stats last WB except he lost, a fat lot of good it did. Margins are less important since there are diminishing returns regarding dominance. a Dominant 6-2 set is little worse than a dominant 6-0 set, from the perspective of the winning player. A dominant 7-6 set - one where you hold serve easily throughout then dominate the tiebreak - isn't much worse, either. Counting all points the same would lead to the conclusion that there's little difference between winning a close tiebreak and losing a close tiebreak, which is of course completely false. Many sets are close in tennis, especially on grass. The ability to win close sets is hugely significant, and peak Grassovic dropping half the close sets he contested isn't great at all. If you count points/level without accounting for in-match context, it's better to win 6-7 6-7 6-1 6-1 6-1 than 7-6 7-6 7-6, which again is obviously false.

Another common thread: you making up claims that I've never made. I never said Haas had a worse career than Verdasco. I did, however, say Verdasco AO 09 and Haas W 09 should not be compared because Verdasco was far better.

Peak Federer at Wimbledon and any Djokovic at Wimbledon shouldn't be compared because Federer was far better, yet you're unwilling to accept that.

Edit: I have also said that phrase exactly once before and you're taking it out of context to make a dishonest argument and you know it. I said having Djokovic W 11 and Djokovic AO 08 in Third Serve's top 5 runs makes no sense to me. That was clearly not a phrase of misunderstanding it was a figure of speech to say I disagree with that and I don't think it makes sense for those to be top 5.

Saying a logical point doesn't make sense is stronger than saying you disagree with it (but presumably see where it's coming from).

You say you've backed up everything you said - I'm waiting for you to back up that Wimbledon 2009 Murray played worse than any of his 2010-16 versions (barring 2014 obviously) if that's what you think.

 

[RS]

[

Well if you keep seeing something else, then something's off. Doesn't seem like a perfectly logical thing, for instance, to assert Murray was better in subsequent Wimbledon editions after 2009, while at the same time baulking at Fedfans' eye test saying fed is boat. If you can assert, why can't I take exception and counterassert while dissing your assertions? And thus began the circle.



Winning is more important though. Federer led almost all stats last WB except he lost, a fat lot of good it did. Margins are less important since there are diminishing returns regarding dominance. a Dominant 6-2 set is little worse than a dominant 6-0 set, from the perspective of the winning player. A dominant 7-6 set - one where you hold serve easily throughout then dominate the tiebreak - isn't much worse, either. Counting all points the same would lead to the conclusion that there's little difference between winning a close tiebreak and losing a close tiebreak, which is of course completely false. Many sets are close in tennis, especially on grass. The ability to win close sets is hugely significant, and peak Grassovic dropping half the close sets he contested isn't great at all. If you count points/level without accounting for in-match context, it's better to win 6-7 6-7 6-1 6-1 6-1 than 7-6 7-6 7-6, which again is obviously false.




Peak Federer at Wimbledon and any Djokovic at Wimbledon shouldn't be compared because Federer was far better, yet you're unwilling to accept that.




Saying a logical point doesn't make sense is stronger than saying you disagree with it (but presumably see where it's coming from).

You say you've backed up everything you said - I'm waiting for you to back up that Wimbledon 2009 Murray played worse than any of his 2010-16 versions (barring 2014 obviously) if that's what you think.

Do you think W12 Murray would have beaten W09 Roddick?

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

[

Do you think W12 Murray would have beaten W09 Roddick.

Murray matches up well with Roddick so he's the favourite, and he was the favourite in 2009 too but lost. Advantage Murray but Roddick has a realistic chance, something like 25-30% I'd imagine.

 

[RS]

Murray matches up well with Roddick so he's the favourite, and he was the favourite in 2009 too but lost. Advantage Murray but Roddick has a realistic chance, something like 25-30% I'd imagine.

Weird because Roddick got further than Murray did in with Federer shows how matchups work. I thought you would choose Roddick TBH.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Weird because Roddick got further than Murray did in with Federer shows how matchups work. I thought you would choose Roddick TBH.

Murray clearly matched up well with Roddick, who didn't like the craftiness of low slices and uncomfortable balls (Fedr used them plenty to subdue Roddick as well, besides the more straightforward powerhitting). Roddick obviously didn't like having his serve returned frequently and Murray was goatish at that too. His tricks didn't trouble a dialed-in Federer (i.e. Slamerer/YECerer) too much though. Strong offence was required (goes without saying Djokodal showed plenty of it even if they are not as attacking as Federer himself), which Murray lacked. Roddick, despite being the worse player overall, could always hope to have a great serving day, risk big hits than come what may - he was good enough to back up his serve at the top level if it wasn't returned strongly, unlike serious bots such as Isner, Anderson etc.

 

[RaulRamirez]

On the other hand, Murray is a big reason why Novak is the AO GOAT. He had his chance to stop him.

I'd say Novak is 100% the reason.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Before seeing the choices, I thought it was between AO - Murray and USO - Borg. (Rosewall and Pancho bring in other elements.). I'll give a slight nod to Borg here, but both answers are quite valid.

 

[mike danny]

Now you're adding a modifier that I didn't. Murray wasn't "much" better in 10/11. He was better. He handled two dangerous grass courters in routine fashion in 10 and cruised to the semis and gave Nadal a decent battle in 11. Nothing outstanding but better to my eye and better results.

Yeah, because I'm sure Querrey, Lopez and Tsonga would be impossible obstacles for 2009 Murray to overcome. In 2011 he also struggled with Ljubicic, but sure, in 2011 he was much better.

Of course it's better to your eye, since he lost to Nadal and not to Roddick. I guess losing in comfortable straights in 2010 and then collapsing after the first set in 2011 means he is much better. You just don't want to accept that a well-playing Murray lost to Roddick at Wimb and are now bending over backwards to try to explain he is better in 2010-2011, when in reality 2009 and 2010-2011 are very much equal and only since 2012 did he improve significantly.

It's not an insult to lose to Roddick.

Apparently it is, since even losing comfortably to Nadal on grass makes Murray better.

Roddick is a very good grass courter. Not as good as Murray but good.

I'd argue their peak levels are similar on grass. Murray is more accomplished, but that's because he didn't have to deal with peak Fed.

Losing to Roddick in his second best W ever in an even match while in average form is not bad.

Meanwhile, getting comfortably beaten by Nadal on grass definitely proves Murray is in much better form despite the fact that in 2010 Nadal had to play 2 five setters against journeymen and in 2011 Delpo was a tougher test for Nadal than Murray. But he lost to Nadal and not Roddick, therefore Murray was in better form. I like this beding over backwards that you do.

Yes no version of Tommy Haas is as good of a grass courter as prime Andy Murray. I'm pretty comfortable in saying that. Beating a sh*tty Djokovic a couple times doesn't change my mind on that.

What a silly thing to say. I guess prime Djokovic is always better than Roddick at Wimb, then. *cough* 2013 *cough*.

If prime Murray was so much better, he wouldn't have been straight setted by an old Fed, but who cares about the details, right? 2015 Fed peak, am I right?

I mean I was exaggerating but it's pretty bad. Tight match with Delic (who?) Kiefer in two TBs Hip Hewitt in 3 TBs. Baghdatis in two TBs and 7-5 in the 5th. That's pretty ugly stuff.

Better than losing to over-the-hill Safin who was never even good on grass. Beating over the hill Hewitt is still better than losing to over the hill Safin.

Borg should be leading by a ton Murray should be getting the rest and Roddick should have next to none.

Sure, let's ignore the fact that Roddick actually came the closest to winning Wimb than the others came to winning their slams. He should get no votes for that, sure....

There's no reason to vote Roddick other than GOAT party politics.

Yeah, who cares that he came close to winning? Bending over in every final like Murray is the way to go.

Peak? Borg's better and arguably Murray is too (12 AO>W 04).

Roddick has 2009 and 2004, Murray only 2012. So much for peak being in Murray's favor. Especially since he never played a final like 2012 at all.

If Djokovic got 20% and Federer 26% of the vote for the Wimbledon GOAT you'd be pissed but he's probably 3rd (him or Borg).

Except that this has nothing to do with GOAT. We're discussing who is the best player to never win a specific slam. I don't see why Roddick doesn't deserve to be there who actually put up 2 very good final performances, as opposed to Murray who really didn't. Yes, Murray has 2 more finals, but does that really matter when those 2 are 2011 and 2016, when he bent over for the winner?

Why do you bring up guys who actually won multiple titles at those particular slams?

 

[mike danny]

Anyone who's contending for a slam should not be in a 50/50 match with post 2005 Hewitt.

Dude, just stop. Murray had to play 5 sets to beat Stepanek at RG 2016. Surely that didn't make you think any less of him.

Things like this happen.

 

[mike danny]

Another common thread: you making up claims that I've never made. I never said Haas had a worse career than Verdasco. I did, however, say Verdasco AO 09 and Haas W 09 should not be compared because Verdasco was far better.

It was an analogy, I didn't directly compare Verdasco to Haas. Going by your logic, Nadal is always better than Verdasco at the AO and yet that's not true. 2009 Verdasco > 2019 Nadal by a landslide.

Same thing with Murray and Haas. I don't see anything to suggest 2015 Murray on grass was better than 2009 Haas on grass. They both lost in straights to Fed, so where exactly do you draw the line on who is better? Beating 2009-ovic on grass is still better than anyone Murray defeated in 2015 on grass. So again, where do you draw the line? Murray is Murray, ergo he will always be better? Faulty logic here, my friend.