Biggest difference between Murray and big 3

#1
.....the forehand, obviously. Nothing new here, but given the recent news, I see a lot of Murray apologists touting his game as on par with the big 3. Federer is just a completely different player from the rest of the big 4, so it’s not that useful comparing Muzz to Federer. On the other hand, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray are much closer in terms of style and ability which makes comparing them far more straightforward.

As such, examining his strengths and weaknesses relative to those two, what stands out the most is Murray’s forehand. For all the talk of Nadal and Djokovic’s defensive prowess and court coverage, Murray was never that far behind in those departments. However, along perhaps with mental grit, the true difference between Murray and those two other players is that Murray lacked a truly formidable forehand.

Djokovic is a world class server, has goat class backhand, and has an underrated forehand that does enormous damage. Nadal and Federer, along with many other strengths, have probably the best forehands of all time. Murray, on the other hand, was very good in every category but outstanding in none, especially on the forehand wing.

People chalk Murray’s reliance on a grinding game alternatively to some kind of mental blockage or to some masterful tactical insight that allowed him to compete with the best. But really, he had no choice given his lack of a killer forehand. This is why he has as many slams as Stan. Stan might be weaker in every department than Murray, but his forehand, when on, is so monstrous it can hit anyone off the court.

Tl/dr: Murry’s career was held back by a relatively lackluster forehand.

In TT speak: Murray’s forehand suuuuucks!
 
Last edited:
#4
.....the forehand, obviously. Nothing new here, but given the recent news, I see a lot of Murray apologists touting his game as on par with the big 3. Federer is just a completely different player from the rest of the big 4, so it’s not that useful comparing Muzz to Federer. On the other hand, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray are much closer in terms of style and ability which makes comparing them far more straightforward.

As such, examining his strengths and weaknesses relative to those two, what stands out the most is Murray’s forehand. For all the talk of Nadal and Djokovic’s defensive prowess and court coverage, Murray was never that far behind in those departments. However, along perhaps with mental grit, the true difference between Murray and those two other players is that Murray lacked a truly formidable forehand.

Djokovic is a world class server, has goat class backhand, and has an underrated forehand that does enormous damage. Nadal and Federer, along with many other strengths, have probably the best forehands of all time. Murray, on the other hand, was very good in every category but outstanding in none, especially on the forehand wing.

People chalk Murray’s reliance on a grinding game alternatively to some kind of mental blockage or to some masterful tactical insight that allowed him to compete with the best. But really, he had no choice given his lack of a killer forehand. This is why he has as many slams as Stan. Stan might be weaker in every department than Murray, but his forehand, when on, is so monstrous it can hit anyone off the court.

Tl/dr: Murry’s career was held back by a relatively lackluster forehand.

In TT speak: Murray’s forehand suuuuucks!
Murray is master in lobs. His first serve is fantastic. Dropshots are great. Coverage outstanding.... he is made for long rallies and physical exhausting matches.
 

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
#5
Neither Djokovic or Murray are world class servers. Murray's serve isn't great from a technical perspective and brutal strengh is basically the only reason he served north of 210kph.

But yeah, the forehand and a total lack of natural whip and easy rhs made that his weakest shot. He had a hard time punishing with it, and only had a relatively brief period that it was a big weapon.

Also, Djokovic' agility shouldn't be underestimated. I really think Murray at his peak was faster than Djokovic, but Djokovic' recovery made it actually harder to hit him off court and it was more efficient too, helping Djokovic outlast Murray.

Honestly though, Murray's pure return is better than Djokovic, especially vs big servers.
 
#6
Murray career wasnt held back, he won the biggest titles and was number 1 in the world.
Murray resume was held back because at the time he entered the stage in 2008(after missing 07 because of injury) there were two ATG players with sky rock confidence + his closest pear Djokovic made two enourmous steps - becoming top 3 and winning a Slam which also provided him with superior confidence. By 2011 in order for Murray make his claim, he needed to overcome what would end to be the best three players in the history of the game, all in prime forms .... and he did it. I wont say that if all four of them have even starts, Murray would end up at the top but I would say this that in terms of trophies the gap wouldnt be that big. Is it a coincendence that Roger came first(20), Nadal second (17), Djokovic third(14) and Murray last(3) ?!
 

Big_Dangerous

Talk Tennis Guru
#8
He had power on his forehand but couldn't create as much topspin and the other 3. This meant if he tried to hit big his error rate would go up especially on slow courts.

The other 3 however hit with loads of spin so they can whack it and still keep the error rate low.
Djoker doesn't really hit with loads of spin. He hits it pretty flat on both sides. The biggest difference between those two would be Djoker has a much better second serve than Murray and Djoker returns a bit better than Murray.
 
#10
:-D... Come on. 2013 AO chart of the average spin on each of their forehands says comprehensively that Djokovic does not hit "pretty flat on both sides" at all.
It's hard to argue against their stats, but Nole doesn't leave an impression of being a heavy hitter. Could it be that the graph shows the maximum amount of spin these players were able to impart on the ball? No way Nole hits with 3600+ RPM on average.
Then again, Murray's numbers are too low for the max amount of spin, so this statistics is very strange.
 

tata

Hall of Fame
#11
Apart from a forehand that ends points more easily I think the biggest hole is his 2nd serve. Easily the weakest of the big 4. His first flat serve can be a bomb. But his 2nd ball is much weaker.
 
#12
Neither Djokovic or Murray are world class servers. Murray's serve isn't great from a technical perspective and brutal strengh is basically the only reason he served north of 210kph.

But yeah, the forehand and a total lack of natural whip and easy rhs made that his weakest shot. He had a hard time punishing with it, and only had a relatively brief period that it was a big weapon.

Also, Djokovic' agility shouldn't be underestimated. I really think Murray at his peak was faster than Djokovic, but Djokovic' recovery made it actually harder to hit him off court and it was more efficient too, helping Djokovic outlast Murray.

Honestly though, Murray's pure return is better than Djokovic, especially vs big servers.
If it was, he would have scored more than 3 GS. He didn't. EOD.

Murray and the Big 4 myth. There was no Big 4. Just BIG 3...Eva!
 

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
#13
If it was, he would have scored more than 3 GS. He didn't. EOD.

Murray and the Big 4 myth. There was no Big 4. Just BIG 3...Eva!
Small differences in skill create huge gaps in wins at the very top echelons.

Look at any other stat beside Slam wins and you'll see Murray was up there. Undeniably 4th, but one of them nonetheless.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
#16
He had power on his forehand but couldn't create as much topspin and the other 3. This meant if he tried to hit big his error rate would go up especially on slow courts.

The other 3 however hit with loads of spin so they can whack it and still keep the error rate low.
That was tongue and cheek.

Imo Murray's forehand was often a liability against his biggest rivals. The trajectory of the shot was/is a bit loopy and didn't really penetrate the court, he also didn't generate easy power off that wing.
 
#17
The biggest difference is that the big three all have a unique weapon:

Federer has a forehand, serve accuracy, neo backhand, endurance, volleying superiority and the fastest twitch hand-eye coordination on the tour

Nadal has speed, forehand, and a bulletproof mindset

Djokovic has the return of serve, movement, speed, flexibility and a steely mindset

Murray is excellent but has nothing to consistently counter the top three's weapons and also carries the baggage of the UK press on his shoulders wherever he goes and they're always waiting for him to fail = undue & unnecessary pressure!
 
Last edited:

Bertie B

Professional
#18
He didn't have a weapon. He didn't play to his strength. He didn't protect and cover his weakness.

Murray's backhand was his stronger side, and he failed to develop it and use it as a weapon. Andy's forehand was his weaker side, it was the place the BIG 3 would attack and pick on the most.

There was a point in Andre Agassi's career when he would pin the opponent in the backhand wing, then end the point with a BDTL. Djokovic used this tactic against Nadal very well in 2011 - Backhand CCx3, Backhand dtl. Murray never developed that play. Instead, everytime Murray was given a neutral ball, he engaged the opponent in the forehand cc rally - which happens to be his weaker side.
 
Last edited:
#20
The only one of the three who hits with excessive spin is Rafa. Fed is moderate spin and Djoker hits with even less spin.
See the above graphic. Fed and nole hit with less spin than nadal but they are much closer to nadal than to Murray who clearly hits the flattest out of the 4. Fed and novak hit with massive spin albeit slightly flatter than nadal.
 
#21
:-D... Come on. 2013 AO chart of the average spin on each of their forehands says comprehensively that Djokovic does not hit "pretty flat on both sides" at all.
That chart highlights one stroke in one tournament from 6 years ago! Watch them practice or play live. Djokovic hits a flat ball off both wings compared to Fed and Nadal. Rafa obviously is a spin anomaly, along with Thiem.

Gasquet’s BH has more topspin than any of them, but the chart focuses solely on FH.
 
#22
.....the forehand, obviously. Nothing new here, but given the recent news, I see a lot of Murray apologists touting his game as on par with the big 3. Federer is just a completely different player from the rest of the big 4, so it’s not that useful comparing Muzz to Federer. On the other hand, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray are much closer in terms of style and ability which makes comparing them far more straightforward.

As such, examining his strengths and weaknesses relative to those two, what stands out the most is Murray’s forehand. For all the talk of Nadal and Djokovic’s defensive prowess and court coverage, Murray was never that far behind in those departments. However, along perhaps with mental grit, the true difference between Murray and those two other players is that Murray lacked a truly formidable forehand.

Djokovic is a world class server, has goat class backhand, and has an underrated forehand that does enormous damage. Nadal and Federer, along with many other strengths, have probably the best forehands of all time. Murray, on the other hand, was very good in every category but outstanding in none, especially on the forehand wing.

People chalk Murray’s reliance on a grinding game alternatively to some kind of mental blockage or to some masterful tactical insight that allowed him to compete with the best. But really, he had no choice given his lack of a killer forehand. This is why he has as many slams as Stan. Stan might be weaker in every department than Murray, but his forehand, when on, is so monstrous it can hit anyone off the court.

Tl/dr: Murry’s career was held back by a relatively lackluster forehand.

In TT speak: Murray’s forehand suuuuucks!
Slams #?
 
#23
That was tongue and cheek.

Imo Murray's forehand was often a liability against his biggest rivals. The trajectory of the shot was/is a bit loopy and didn't really penetrate the court, he also didn't generate easy power off that wing.
A good % ending up in the net. The frustration.
 
#24
He didn't have a weapon. He didn't play to his strength. He didn't protect and cover his weakness.

Murray's backhand was his stronger side, and he failed to develop it and use it as a weapon. Andy's forehand was his weaker side, it was the place the BIG 3 would attack and pick on the most.

There was a point in Andre Agassi's career when he would pin the opponent in the backhand wing, then end the point with a BDTL. Djokovic used this tactic against Nadal very well in 2011 - Backhand CCx3, Backhand dtl. Murray never developed that play. Instead, everytime Murray was given a neutral ball, he engaged the opponent in the forehand cc rally - which happens to be his weaker side.
Agassi is a good comparison because he’s a prime example of the kind of damage you can do with an outstanding backhand, which Murray has, provided you have a strong enough forehand that can rip winners, which Murray lacked.
 
#26
He does have one of the odder, more WTAesque forehand swing styles on the men's tour, technique-wise. I reckon that his habit of crossing the plane of his body on the takeback (i.e. longer than usual takeback) instead of keeping the racket out on his side isn't doing him any favors. Leads to a very circular, and longer swing path which is both slightly less conducive to generating racquet head speed and spin. Bit surprising to me that he hasn't addressed this to any particularly notable extent in his career, seeing as it clearly differs from the technical norm on tour, but I guess these guys' forms are just so deeply ingrained.



contrast – shorter, more linear swing path:
 
#27
It's hard to argue against their stats, but Nole doesn't leave an impression of being a heavy hitter. Could it be that the graph shows the maximum amount of spin these players were able to impart on the ball? No way Nole hits with 3600+ RPM on average.
Then again, Murray's numbers are too low for the max amount of spin, so this statistics is very strange.
It was averaged over 10 rally forehands I think. When it was in the broadcast later on they discussed it becuase it looked a bit strange - the height thing esp (it's clearance from the ground, not on top of the net which has varying height).

Djokovic has a much bigger and spinnier forehand than people here give him credit for, almost to the point of comedy.
 
#28
Novak and Nadal seem to hit with more purpose than Andy who prefers to play the long game reeling in his opponents; he’s very good at that game but the Big 3 are more successful taking the game to their opponents.
 
#29
Neither Djokovic or Murray are world class servers. Murray's serve isn't great from a technical perspective and brutal strengh is basically the only reason he served north of 210kph.

But yeah, the forehand and a total lack of natural whip and easy rhs made that his weakest shot. He had a hard time punishing with it, and only had a relatively brief period that it was a big weapon.

Also, Djokovic' agility shouldn't be underestimated. I really think Murray at his peak was faster than Djokovic, but Djokovic' recovery made it actually harder to hit him off court and it was more efficient too, helping Djokovic outlast Murray.

Honestly though, Murray's pure return is better than Djokovic, especially vs big servers.
I don't know about that. I did a compilation of return stats last year on Djokovic, Murray and Federer against the 4 best servers (Isner, Karlovic, Raonic and Roddick) on fast surfaces and Djokovic came out ahead. Murray was 2nd though and very close which shows he is an excellent returner. I do agree that Murray was faster at his peak though.
 
#31
I agree about the Murray forehand. If he would have hit more aggressive with it, it could have become more of a weapon. The other three were able to exploit that wing often and get him on the defensive.
 
#34
He does have one of the odder, more WTAesque forehand swing styles on the men's tour, technique-wise. I reckon that his habit of crossing the plane of his body on the takeback (i.e. longer than usual takeback) instead of keeping the racket out on his side isn't doing him any favors. Leads to a very circular, and longer swing path which is both slightly less conducive to generating racquet head speed and spin. Bit surprising to me that he hasn't addressed this to any particularly notable extent in his career, seeing as it clearly differs from the technical norm on tour, but I guess these guys' forms are just so deeply ingrained.



contrast – shorter, more linear swing path:
Such a huge windup for so few rewards. Also, he always looks like he’s leaning back into the shot as opposed to leaning in. That backfoot stance definitely robs him of pace that he can’t make up for with spin like Nadal.
 
#35
Nobody is claiming that MuryGOAT was as good as the other 3. People just have some respect for his accomplishments in his own right, and unlike OP, can wait half a minute before pissing on his grave.
 
#37
.....the forehand, obviously. Nothing new here, but given the recent news, I see a lot of Murray apologists touting his game as on par with the big 3. Federer is just a completely different player from the rest of the big 4, so it’s not that useful comparing Muzz to Federer. On the other hand, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray are much closer in terms of style and ability which makes comparing them far more straightforward.

As such, examining his strengths and weaknesses relative to those two, what stands out the most is Murray’s forehand. For all the talk of Nadal and Djokovic’s defensive prowess and court coverage, Murray was never that far behind in those departments. However, along perhaps with mental grit, the true difference between Murray and those two other players is that Murray lacked a truly formidable forehand.

Djokovic is a world class server, has goat class backhand, and has an underrated forehand that does enormous damage. Nadal and Federer, along with many other strengths, have probably the best forehands of all time. Murray, on the other hand, was very good in every category but outstanding in none, especially on the forehand wing.

People chalk Murray’s reliance on a grinding game alternatively to some kind of mental blockage or to some masterful tactical insight that allowed him to compete with the best. But really, he had no choice given his lack of a killer forehand. This is why he has as many slams as Stan. Stan might be weaker in every department than Murray, but his forehand, when on, is so monstrous it can hit anyone off the court.

Tl/dr: Murry’s career was held back by a relatively lackluster forehand.

In TT speak: Murray’s forehand suuuuucks!
Honestly, Murray would be a much better player if he just played more aggressively like his rivals. The real thing that separates Murray from the other three is that Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal are willing to go big on big points. Murray defaults to playing passive and second guessing himself about as much as old Federer defaulted to hitting a backhand slice or chip. Yeah, if you're clearly the better player (and he is when he's not playing the top 3), you can demand that your opponents beat you to get the point. But when it's against someone at least as good as you, you gotta know when to pull the trigger, and how to do it with 100% conviction and confidence. Murray can easily compete with these guys. I've seen Murray destroy Nadal when Nadal was playing some of his best tennis. All it takes is for him to play with some aggression and conviction.

His forehand is good enough. Could it be better? Sure. But if we're going to talk about things that need improvement, let's talk about that serve, particularly the second delivery. That thing is atrocious for someone of his height and power. Out of the big 4, his best second serve points won percentage is equal to the worst percentages of the other 3 since they all became big name players (except for Djokovic who had an abysmal year in 2010 for this stat, and Federer who never dropped as low as Murray since 2003). Murray's best second serve win percentage is 54%. The other three have had at least 1 year where they reached 60% or higher. And when playing against others, Murray frequently sports a second serve win percentage in the 40s. Yes, your ability to rally after starting the point with the serve ties into this stat, but Federer is the weakest in this regard and still posts significantly higher numbers. Not to mention, the stat would be inflated by his matches against non-big-4 members, who he should easily be able to beat in rallies, yet it still remains so much lower than the others.

Compare that to his first serve win percentage, which ranges from 74% to 77% (even his injury years of 2017 and 2018 have a winning percentage of 72%). Federer goes from 80% to 76% (2013 and 2005 oddly enough). Djokovic goes from 71% to 75%. Nadal also goes from 71% to 75% (if you ignore 2016, which was 69%). You might argue that this is because Murray has the second best first serve after Federer, but this isn't necessarily true. In Wimbledon of 2015, Federer had the highest average first serve speed of 118 mph, followed by Djokovic at 116, then Murray and Nadal are tied at 114. Murray has the highest max speed at 132, followed by Federer at 128, Djokovic at 127, and Nadal at 124. His first serve (in) percentage is the lowest, in the low 60s, with Federer slightly higher, but basically in the same general area. Nadal has the highest overall percentage of at least 66% with Djokovic hovering around 65%. In their careers, Federer scores 4.11 aces per double fault, Djokovic gets 2.40, Nadal has 1.87, and Murray has 2.69 aces per double fault. So if you look at his first serve, it's probably around Djokovic level, just slightly more aggressive, and he wins more points with it as a result. Now, if he could do the same with his second serve, he'd probably be feel like a more competitive member of the big 4. When it comes to the return game, he's basically on par with Djokovic. With a slightly more assertive mentality, he could probably be as good as Nadal (whose numbers are a touch better in the break point conversion category). The only thing separating Murray from Djokovic and Nadal is the second serve stat. Push those numbers up, and he probably would've had Djokovic's career. Honestly, I think he's the more talented of the two outside of the serve and the decisive instinct needed to be a GOAT candidate. And both of those things can be developed. Djokovic and Federer took years before they had the head became a dominant force, while Nadal had it since before he joined the tour.

It's a shame really. I think if Murray was raised a little differently (got someone who could teach him to serve properly, and a coach that could get him to be a little more assertive and well rounded with his game to truly abuse his feel for the ball), he could've been the second coming of Federer (and probably put the final nail in the coffin for the one handed backhand). At the very least, he could've made the big 4 competition a lot more exciting beyond being the player lost in the large gap between the 3 gods of tennis and the rest of the world. Murray truly is a man among goats (and they ate the shirt off his back).

Hypothetical peak aggressive Murray has the GOAT'hand.

Back when he was using a hammer as a racket right? The thing with like 400+ swingweight that broke his wrist.

It's hard to argue against their stats, but Nole doesn't leave an impression of being a heavy hitter. Could it be that the graph shows the maximum amount of spin these players were able to impart on the ball? No way Nole hits with 3600+ RPM on average.
? The guy has been taking full cuts on every shot since he joined the tour (with a pretty extreme grip too). The only way to do that with the level of consistency he has is to put a lot of spin on the ball like Federer and Nadal do.
 
#38
Small differences in skill create huge gaps in wins at the very top echelons.

Look at any other stat beside Slam wins and you'll see Murray was up there. Undeniably 4th, but one of them nonetheless.
I can make a case for either a Big 3 or a Big 4, but if the latter (and Murray had the overall win percentage, slam finals and semis, Masters and other tourney titles, etc. to hang), then I'm okay with that, and consider Andy the "Ringo" of the Big 4. Not as talented or accomplished, but still a Beatle.
 
#39
His forehand is good enough. Could it be better? Sure. But if we're going to talk about things that need improvement, let's talk about that serve, particularly the second delivery. That thing is atrocious for someone of his height and power. Out of the big 4, his best second serve points won percentage is equal to the worst percentages of the other 3 since they all became big name players (except for Djokovic who had an abysmal year in 2010 for this stat, and Federer who never dropped as low as Murray since 2003). Murray's best second serve win percentage is 54%. The other three have had at least 1 year where they reached 60% or higher. And when playing against others, Murray frequently sports a second serve win percentage in the 40s. Yes, your ability to rally after starting the point with the serve ties into this stat, but Federer is the weakest in this regard and still posts significantly higher numbers.
You’re probably right, the second serve is/was the biggest difference b/w Muzz and the B3.

It's a shame really. I think if Murray was raised a little differently (got someone who could teach him to serve properly, and a coach that could get him to be a little more assertive and well rounded with his game to truly abuse his feel for the ball), he could've been the second coming of Federer (and probably put the final nail in the coffin for the one handed backhand).
Like Norman did for Wawa’s game. People forget that Stan was a double-fault machine, especially on break points, and despite the strength of his backhand, he attacks and wins on the strength Of his forehand.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#40
I don't know about that. I did a compilation of return stats last year on Djokovic, Murray and Federer against the 4 best servers (Isner, Karlovic, Raonic and Roddick) on fast surfaces and Djokovic came out ahead. Murray was 2nd though and very close which shows he is an excellent returner.
Can I see it?
 

upchuck

Professional
#41
Djokovic and Murray had very similar levels of talent, narrower than their slam total differential would suggest. Two major differences between the two: Djokovic is much tougher mentally and reached peak level of performance much more easily than Murray did. It was often quite a chore for Murray to find his best tennis; everything had to go right, often for months if not years, for him to show up to a major capable of fully realising his potential. Djokovic, on the other hand, easily produced tennis that could beat anyone on a given day.
Neither Djokovic or Murray are world class servers. Murray's serve isn't great from a technical perspective and brutal strengh is basically the only reason he served north of 210kph.
They quite literally are world class servers, as is everyone else in the top 100.
 

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
#42
Djokovic and Murray had very similar levels of talent, narrower than their slam total differential would suggest. Two major differences between the two: Djokovic is much tougher mentally and reached peak level of performance much more easily than Murray did. It was often quite a chore for Murray to find his best tennis; everything had to go right, often for months if not years, for him to show up to a major capable of fully realising his potential. Djokovic, on the other hand, easily produced tennis that could beat anyone on a given day.
They quite literally are world class servers, as is everyone else in the top 100.
Serve quality doesn't equal overall game quality.
 
#44
The only one of the three who hits with excessive spin is Rafa. Fed is moderate spin and Djoker hits with even less spin.
I think Rafa skews that a little - I think Fed hits with a lot of spin, but because Nadal has cranked the spin up to 11, Fed's spin looks moderate relatively speaking. Fed's slice, on the other hand...
 
#45
...Isner, Karlovic, Raonic and Roddick are the four greatest servers on all surfaces based on career stats, and they also all are in the top 15 ace leaders for all time. So I will compare Djokovic, Murray and Federer against these four players on grass and hardcourt surfaces such as the USO series, fall tournaments, Dubai, Brisbane, Doha, etc., or all med to faster surfaces. I will exclude clay, AO, Miami, Indian Wells, etc.

Djokovic return points won versus Isner -- 163/424 -- 38.4%
Federer " " " versus Isner -- 160/478 -- 33.5%
Murray " " versus Isner -- 163/492 -- 33.1%

Murray return points won versus Karlovic -- 178/533 -- 33.4%
Federer " " " versus Karlovic -- 185/693 -- 26.7%
Djokovic " " " versus Karlovic -- 45/182 -- 24.7%

Djokovic return points won versus Raonic -- 53/134 -- 39.6%
Murray " " " " versus Raonic -- 226/649 -- 34.8%
Federer " " " " versus Raonic -- 268/862 -- 31.1%

Federer return points won versus Roddick -- 482/1320 -- 36.5%
Murray " " " " versus Roddick -- 242/665 -- 36.4%
Djokovic " " " " versus Roddick -- 158/467 -- 33.8%

Overall
1. Djokovic 419/1207 -- 34.7%
2. Murray 809/2339 -- 34.5%
3. Federer 1095/3353 -- 32.6%
 
#47
how convenient, since Isner beat Novak at IW
It's not convenient at all. This was in response to a post that Federer and Murray were better returners than Djokovic against big servers on fast surfaces. It didn't make sense to include IW, a slow surface. Even if I did, it wouldn't have changed much.
 
#48
It's not convenient at all. This was in response to a post that Federer and Murray were better returners than Djokovic against big servers on fast surfaces. It didn't make sense to include IW, a slow surface. Even if I did, it wouldn't have changed much.
my apologies - I have Lew on ignore and didn't see what you were replying to
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#49
...Isner, Karlovic, Raonic and Roddick are the four greatest servers on all surfaces based on career stats, and they also all are in the top 15 ace leaders for all time. So I will compare Djokovic, Murray and Federer against these four players on grass and hardcourt surfaces such as the USO series, fall tournaments, Dubai, Brisbane, Doha, etc., or all med to faster surfaces. I will exclude clay, AO, Miami, Indian Wells, etc.

Djokovic return points won versus Isner -- 163/424 -- 38.4%
Federer " " " versus Isner -- 160/478 -- 33.5%
Murray " " versus Isner -- 163/492 -- 33.1%


Murray return points won versus Karlovic -- 178/533 -- 33.4%
Federer " " " versus Karlovic -- 185/693 -- 26.7%
Djokovic " " " versus Karlovic -- 45/182 -- 24.7%


Djokovic return points won versus Raonic -- 53/134 -- 39.6%
Murray " " " " versus Raonic -- 226/649 -- 34.8%
Federer " " " " versus Raonic -- 268/862 -- 31.1%


Federer return points won versus Roddick -- 482/1320 -- 36.5%
Murray " " " " versus Roddick -- 242/665 -- 36.4%
Djokovic " " " " versus Roddick -- 158/467 -- 33.8%


Overall
1. Djokovic 419/1207 -- 34.7%
2. Murray 809/2339 -- 34.5%
3. Federer 1095/3353 -- 32.6%
2018 updates:

Djokovic-Isner YEC: 27/65
Federer-Raonic Stuttgart: 17/61
 
Top