Best player at a specific Slam to never win it

[mike danny]

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.

I can answer this one easily.

In 2010-2011 he was better because he lost comfortably to Nadal.

 

[The Guru]

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.

I think you're struggling to comprehend the fact that people can have different opinions based on eye test. I disagree with Fedfans when they say he is BOAT based on eye test based on my eye test. You can assert and we can disagree. How is that confusing to you? I have also answered why I think Murray was better in subsequent Wimbledons multiple times now with multiple different kinds of reasoning I'm not particularly interested in doing it again.

Ok again I agree but when we're talking about level in a vacuum it's always better to win more points than lose them. If 19 W Fed got straight setted by that Novak we'd have to think a lot worse of his level. Or if he was beat in a comfortable 5 like say 2015 RG SF then we'd have to think less of his level. I think you don't actually disagree you're just disagreeing for the sake of it.

I once again never said that. Peak Fed on grass is better than Peak Djokovic on grass..

It's called hyperbole. It's a rhetorical device. I did not literally mean I'm incapable of understanding your thought process. That should be pretty obvious.

 

[mike danny]

[

Do you think W12 Murray would have beaten W09 Roddick?

Murray would be the favorite, but Roddick would have his chances.

The idea was that 2010-2011 Murray on grass wasn't better than 2009 Murray on grass. 2012 and beyond was.

 

[Bender]

Murray has more finals, but Roddick was far closer to winning at Wimbledon, so I voted Roddick.

 

[mike danny]

I have also answered why I think Murray was better in subsequent Wimbledons multiple times now with multiple different kinds of reasoning I'm not particularly interested in doing it again.

Except you didn't. All you said was that he beat some grass courters routinely (because we all know how much 2009 Murray would struggle with Querrey, Tsonga and Lopez, absolute grass giants) and that he lost to Nadal, who is better on grass than Roddick.

That still doesn't prove how he was better.

Shall I remind you that he lost in straights to a Nadal who had to play back to back 5 setters with journeymen and completely collapsed after a set against 2011 Nadal, who was pushed more by Delpo before that?

 

[mike danny]

Murray has more finals, but Roddick was far closer to winning at Wimbledon, so I voted Roddick.

Murray deserves to be the top choice or top 2 choice, but saying Roddick deserves little to no votes is absurd. I can't take anyone who says that seriously.

 

[Sabrina]

Murray deserves to be the top choice or top 2 choice, but saying Roddick deserves little to no votes is absurd. I can't take anyone who says that seriously.

Many of them never see a well-playing Roddick at Wimbledon, except maybe his final match against Ferrer in 2012, but that's about it. Roddick was 32-3 on grass in 2003-2005 with all of 3 losses to peak Federer.

As I said above I still vote for Murray, but Roddick definitely deserves a mention here, a 3rd place at worst.

 

[The Guru]

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.

Why do you keep doing this? I never said any of these things. Also stop saying I said it was "much" better. It's better. I never said Murray wasn't playing well. It's just not his top level. If you're saying their equal then you must admit that saying Murray was better is not the big of a change from your view and yet you're still so hostile to it.

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

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.

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.

Again I'll repeat Nadal is a better player who also matches well with Murray so it's expected for him to do worse vs Nadal. I'll take 11 Murray over 11 Del Po regardless of how much each challenged Nadal. Again our views are not so different but you're acting like they are for no apparent reason.

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 setter by an old Fed, but who cares about the details, right? 2015 Fed peak, am I right?

Ugh. I made a specific statement and you made it general. If you're taking 09 Haas over 15 Murray I seriously question that. That's a pretty outlandish statement imo.

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

I mean yeah. When exactly did I disagree to that.

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....


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


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.

Ugh. That's why he's 3rd. He did good stuff. We agree again but you're once again making it seem like I'm off my rocker. I think you're misunderstanding my analogy and I'll clarify in my next blurb.

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.

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

I'm making a comparison. I said that the person who we agree is 3rd getting a ton of votes for 1st is bs and a result of GOAT jockeying. You say that as the 3rd place person he's earned those votes. I say if I made a poll on who is the greatest player in Wimbledon history and Djokovic got 21% of the vote you would not be pleased and rightfully so. Fed/Sampras should make up basically all of the votes. Likewise with the AO. If Agassi got a ton of votes for best player in AO history (when he's 3rd) I'd be like wtf. That's what I'm saying

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.

I don't think 2016 RG Murray was amazing and as I said before there's a difference between 1st round and a QF. A lot of players round into form during the first week so I'm more forgiving of early hiccups. Notice I didn't mention that Roddick dropped a set in each of his first 3 rounds in 09.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I think you're struggling to comprehend the fact that people can have different opinions based on eye test. I disagree with Fedfans when they say he is BOAT based on eye test based on my eye test. You can assert and we can disagree. How is that confusing to you? I have also answered why I think Murray was better in subsequent Wimbledons multiple times now with multiple different kinds of reasoning I'm not particularly interested in doing it again.

Ok again I agree but when we're talking about level in a vacuum it's always better to win more points than lose them. If 19 W Fed got straight setted by that Novak we'd have to think a lot worse of his level. Or if he was beat in a comfortable 5 like say 2015 RG SF then we'd have to think less of his level. I think you don't actually disagree you're just disagreeing for the sake of it.

I once again never said that. Peak Fed on grass is better than Peak Djokovic on grass..

It's called hyperbole. It's a rhetorical device. I did not literally mean I'm incapable of understanding your thought process. That should be pretty obvious.

Djokovic was absolutely kraptastic in set 2 and pretty poor in set 4. Federer would have to be godawful himself to lose *those* sets lol. It's still telling than when Djokovic played at least half-decent Federer lost nearly all clutch points and didn't win a set. I don't think too well of Federer being so helpless.

Alright, I need to stop engaging for my own sake and the sake of fun discussions. There's no debate to be had when our opinions are mostly based on eye tests, which can be compared but not (dis)proven, but I happen to think yours are bull. Got a taste of your tennis outlook and that's enough. Let's ignore each other then.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I can answer this one easily.

In 2010-2011 he was better because he lost comfortably to Nadal.

It's tough to say which Murray was the best at Wimbledon at all, no obvious superior run. He posted one at the 2012 Olympics and I rate that above Roddick's peak, but the Olympics is not the Wimbledon Championships even at the same venue.

 

[Sabrina]

It's tough to say which Murray was the best at Wimbledon at all, no obvious superior run. He posted one at the 2012 Olympics and I rate that above Roddick's peak, but the Olympics is not the Wimbledon Championships even at the same venue.

I would say 2012-2013 Murray at Wimbledon were about equal, with 2015-2016 slightly behind. In 2016 Murray could have lost if Tsonga hadn't choked.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I would say 2012-2013 Murray at Wimbledon were about equal, with 2015-2016 slightly behind. In 2016 Murray could have lost if Tsonga hadn't choked.

2015 Murray seems overrated at Wimbledon based on the rest of his season. Had a soft draw (Seppi, Karlovic, Pospisil in QF) to the semi, then got rekt by Serverer. Nothing impressive about it.

I struggle to see that any of 2009, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 Murray was definitively above the rest. Of course he did beat Djok in straights in '13 but that was such a sharp contrast to escaping Verdasco and struggling with Janowicz, makes me think Djokovic laying an egg had more to do with it than Murray raising his level specifically for the final, something he's not known for (while Djokovic wasn't quite trustworthy in late stages of slams at the time). Easy draw in 2016 too, only Tsonga did something but he was declining by then. Berdych was in clear decline and SF'ed with a soft draw, Raonic should've lost if Federer was just a bit fitter - truly he has nothing on Roddick.

 

[RS]

Murray would be the favorite, but Roddick would have his chances.

The idea was that 2010-2011 Murray on grass wasn't better than 2009 Murray on grass. 2012 and beyond was.

I think 2011 Murray was behind the other 2 even. Strong showing in 2009 and 2010 despite losses to Roddick and Nadal.

 

[SonnyT]

It got to be Borg, who lost 4 USO finals, 2 in which he was seeded 1st and favorite.

Murray lost 5 AO finals (1 to Fed, 4 to Nole), so he wasn't the favorite in any of them. Roddick lost 3 Wim finals to Fed, but that was expected.

 

[a10best]

Murray - each time to Djokovic had chances. He gave Djokovic so many wins because he was less aggressive.
Rafter - Wimbledon twice 5th set final loses.....avg. strokes but he was effective.
Coria - French Open meltdown
Soderling & Tsonga - should have won at least one slam. both were pretty close. semis and finalists

and finally - Federer 2019 Wimbledon against Djokovic with 40-15 match points - the worst day ever in the history of tennis.

 

[mike danny]

It's tough to say which Murray was the best at Wimbledon at all, no obvious superior run. He posted one at the 2012 Olympics and I rate that above Roddick's peak, but the Olympics is not the Wimbledon Championships even at the same venue.

It's hard for me to assess that one because Federer in the Olympics final was one of the worst versions of Fed in a grass court final and the worst in BO5.

Murray's win over Djokovic was impressive, but then Delpo did exactly the same to him in the Bronze match.

A very good run. But very tough to assess.

 

[mike danny]

Ok, time for a more peaceful approach.

Why do you keep doing this? I never said any of these things. Also stop saying I said it was "much" better. It's better. I never said Murray wasn't playing well. It's just not his top level. If you're saying their equal then you must admit that saying Murray was better is not the big of a change from your view and yet you're still so hostile to it.

In my eyes, 2009, 2010 and 2011 are equal performances at Wimb for Murray. don't see one as better than the other. In one he lost a close one to Roddick and in the others he lost comfortably to Nadal, a much better player than Roddick. So, even stevens in my book. Only since 2012 did his form at Wimb improve, IMO, although he still struggled with players he should not have struggled against like Ferrer, Verdasco and Janowicz.

Again I'll repeat Nadal is a better player who also matches well with Murray so it's expected for him to do worse vs Nadal.

Which proves Murray at Wimb wasn't better in 2010-2011 than 2009, IMO. If he were, he would have shown it against Nadal instead of losing comfortably to Rafa as expected.

Ugh. I made a specific statement and you made it general. If you're taking 09 Haas over 15 Murray I seriously question that. That's a pretty outlandish statement imo.

I am not taking 2009 Haas over 2015 Murray. I'm saying that there is not much separating them and there is no clear point on where to draw the line in regards to them. Both lost in straights to Fed, so that's the only barometer to consider.

I'm making a comparison. I said that the person who we agree is 3rd getting a ton of votes for 1st is bs and a result of GOAT jockeying. You say that as the 3rd place person he's earned those votes. I say if I made a poll on who is the greatest player in Wimbledon history and Djokovic got 21% of the vote you would not be pleased and rightfully so. Fed/Sampras should make up basically all of the votes. Likewise with the AO. If Agassi got a ton of votes for best player in AO history (when he's 3rd) I'd be like wtf. That's what I'm saying

My issue was your statement claiming Roddick should have received little to no votes. I disagree heavily with that.

I don't think 2016 RG Murray was amazing and as I said before there's a difference between 1st round and a QF. A lot of players round into form during the first week so I'm more forgiving of early hiccups. Notice I didn't mention that Roddick dropped a set in each of his first 3 rounds in 09.

You're right, there's a difference between a 1st round and a QF. The fact that Hewitt managed to get that far meant that he rounded himself into form, so I don't see Roddick struggling with him as bad or anything. Especially since he was always ahead of Hewitt in their match.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

It's hard for me to assess that one because Federer in the Olympics final was one of the worst versions of Fed in a grass court final and the worst in BO5.

Murray's win over Djokovic was impressive, but then Delpo did exactly the same to him in the Bronze match.

A very good run. But very tough to assess.

What I like about 2012 Olympicray is that he didn't just drop a single set en route (to Baghdatis, funny how he kept taking sets off top players way past his best, an actually nice talent if he wasn't a fat choker), but didn't even get broken once outside of that single set despite facing Fedovic, and didn't get taken to a tiebreak in any of the sets he won. That's a strongly dominant title run. None of Murray's Wimbledon runs were nearly as dominant.

I don't think Djoko's heart was in the bronze match, honestly. He had already won a bronze in 2008, another one would add little. A prior favourite underperforming in a 3rd place match after a painful semifinal loss isn't uncommon across sports. Whereas in the semifinal he was perfectly motivated and Murray straight up beat him on big points, 2012-13 Murray could do that.

 

[The Guru]

Ok, time for a more peaceful approach.

In my eyes, 2009, 2010 and 2011 are equal performances at Wimb for Murray. don't see one as better than the other. In one he lost a close one to Roddick and in the others he lost comfortably to Nadal, a much better player than Roddick. So, even stevens in my book. Only since 2012 did his form at Wimb improve, IMO, although he still struggled with players he should not have struggled against like Ferrer, Verdasco and Janowicz.


Which proves Murray at Wimb wasn't better in 2010-2011 than 2009, IMO. If he were, he would have shown it against Nadal instead of losing comfortably to Rafa as expected.


I am not taking 2009 Haas over 2015 Murray. I'm saying that there is not much separating them and there is no clear point on where to draw the line in regards to them. Both lost in straights to Fed, so that's the only barometer to consider.


My issue was your statement claiming Roddick should have received little to no votes. I disagree heavily with that.


You're right, there's a difference between a 1st round and a QF. The fact that Hewitt managed to get that far meant that he rounded himself into form, so I don't see Roddick struggling with him as bad or anything. Especially since he was always ahead of Hewitt in their match.

I still don't think you're understanding my analogy and my reasoning for being frustrated with the poll. Otherwise I think we've mostly solved our issues despite maintaining a disagreement, albeit a small one. I think we've squeezed the **** out of this lemon so no reason to discuss it further but in the end I don't think there was any reason for the friction in our argument because there isn't much between our positions. A weird aspect of this is people attribute alterior motives to me and other Djokovic fans for building up Grassray but Djokovic never beat him on grass. Federer beat peak Murray on grass and yet I still build him up. Not for any agenda but because I think it's the truth.

 

[mike danny]

What I like about 2012 Olympicray is that he didn't just drop a single set en route (to Baghdatis, funny how he kept taking sets off top players way past his best, an actually nice talent if he wasn't a fat choker), but didn't even get broken once outside of that single set despite facing Fedovic, and didn't get taken to a tiebreak in any of the sets he won. That's a strongly dominant title run. None of Murray's Wimbledon runs were nearly as dominant.

I don't think Djoko's heart was in the bronze match, honestly. He had already won a bronze in 2008, another one would add little. A prior favourite underperforming in a 3rd place match after a painful semifinal loss isn't uncommon across sports. Whereas in the semifinal he was perfectly motivated and Murray straight up beat him on big points, 2012-13 Murray could do that.

Ok, fair enough. I agree that Murray at least remained dominant throughout and never once did he flinch.

However, I disagree with your last paragraph. I don't think you stop caring the moment you play for a medal for your country, even if you already have a bronze medal. Even a bronze medal is better than no medal when you know the Olympics is once every 4 years. These things don't grow on trees and don't take place every year.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Ok, fair enough. I agree that Murray at least remained dominant throughout and never once did he flinch.

However, I disagree with your last paragraph. I don't think you stop caring the moment you play for a medal for your country, even if you already have a bronze medal. Even a bronze medal is better than no medal when you know the Olympics is once every 4 years. These things don't grow on trees and don't take place every year.

Noel already had one bronze. "Two-time bronze medalist" doesn't really garner so much more respect than "one-time bronze medalist". Of course he tried to win but I don't think he was in the mood to spill his guts out there for the victory.

 

[Bender]

Murray deserves to be the top choice or top 2 choice, but saying Roddick deserves little to no votes is absurd. I can't take anyone who says that seriously.

Good thing I didn't read the rest of the thread then!