Did Murray Overachieve?
- Thread starter TTMR
- Start date
He was playing phenomenal in the semis indeed. I wonder which Federer win that RG was better - the one against Haas or the one against Delpo.
I thought Murray's level in 2016 was great considering how easily he beat Wawrinka in the semis, but we can agree to disagree.
All things considered, I thought Robin Soderling deserved a French open championship. What a phenomenal player.
This just goes to show how much luck with injuries/illness is involved at the highest level, where there's so little difference in the skill level between players.
abmk
Bionic Poster
definitely the Delpo match. Delpo was playing well above Haas' level. And fed wasn't down 2 sets to love vs delpo unlike vs Haas.
Delpo had also cruised through a draw including Andreev, Robredo, Tsonga (losing 1 TB set combined vs 3 guys who could definitely play on clay/at RG)
Similar level to Soderling at that RG (and Sod in RG 2010). Soderling definitely deserved an RG.
Murray's level in RG 16 semi was very good, but still below delpo's in RG 09 IMO. But lets keep in mind Murray collapsed in the final vs djoko after set1 and had 2 5-setters vs Borgue and old Stepanek at that RG.
zvelf
Hall of Fame
Murray wasn't useless against Federer except in slams. Murray led their head-to-head 6-2 at one point and this was against peak Federer from when Federer was age 24-27. Federer was behind in their head until 2014.
If the requisite criteria is for Murray to beat the Big 3 consistently, then perhaps no one in the history of tennis could meet that criteria except for the Big 3 themselves. The fact is that throughout his career, Murray’s had to play against the Big 3, who have an argument for being the 3 best players ever. Murray reached 11 major finals, the same number as McEnroe, Edberg, and Wilander. Murray had to face either Djokovic or Federer in 10 of those 11 major finals. Murray is 29-56 against the Big 3, so he's won slightly more than 1 in every 3 matches against them, which isn't that bad. Murray has played the Big 3 an astounding 85 times in his career's 950 matches. That means roughly 1 out of every 11 matches he's ever played, he's had to play 1 of the Big 3. That's an insane level of competition. So no, Murray definitely did not overachieve. If anything, he underachieved due to injury.
AgassiSuperSlam11
Hall of Fame
As a neutral observer what happens if that roof was open in 2018? Let's forget about that and sorry to have raised that.
DSH
Talk Tennis Guru
Murray disappeared and Joker went on to win more Wimbledon titles in his 30s than in his prime.
Coincidence?
I do not think so.
abmk
Bionic Poster
almost every ATG in open era would in fact. (sampras, Borg especially so)
every ATG would have a better record in slams vs big 3 than Murray's 5-20.
Heck, Wawa is 6-14 in slams vs big 3 - clearly better
Delpo is 4-14 (same ballpark due to no win over djoko)
Tsonga is 4-13 (a little better)
Last edited:
Murray might have peaked higher at particular Slam but was it good enough to beat in form Big 3? I don't think Murray's peak anywhere was good enough unlike other two.
abmk
Bionic Poster
taking in-form to be good enough form, but not close to their bests.
well, that depends, Murray could beat in-form djoko at Wim/USO and nadal at AO/USO
don't think Stan beats in-form fed/nadal at any slam except maybe nadal at AO, while he can obviously beat in-form Djoko at AO/USO/RG
delpo's range is probably better than Stan's. one of the few who could beat a decent nadal at RG. (and obviously fed/djoko as well). and he can beat all of them at the USO (though he has his matchup issues vs djoko). might beat nadal/djoko at Wim as well, but fed is a step too far at Wim.
I do get your point, but difference b/w Murray and other 2 is lesser than you are making it out to be IMO
StrongRule
Talk Tennis Guru
Actually, Wawrinka has a case for being considered the better player in USO overall, not just by peak level. The usual argument of Murray being more consistent doesn't apply here, as they had the same number of deep runs. Murray had a high level before the final in 2008 (really disappointing final though), a semifinal in 2011 and of course a title in 2012. Other than that, his USO performances were hardly impressive. Wawrinka also leads the head to head there.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Even Berdych has better slam H2H against the big three than Murray (5-16).
abmk
Bionic Poster
well, one of those Berdych wins was a retirement after just one set (Djoko Wim 17). So, lets just put it as in the same ballpark.
abmk
Bionic Poster
I rate Murray of USO 12 and USO 08 before final higher than Wawa's in USO 13/16. He doesn't get as rushed as Wawa on return/ground game wise and can obviously counterpunch better.
Murray's wins over Nadal in USO 08 and Djoko in USO 12 > wawa's win over djoko in USO 16 and 5-setter in USO 13.
But yes, Murray has under-performed at the USO especially after 2012.
Last edited:
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
No, he isn't.
MurraysMetalHip
Hall of Fame
Yes
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Murray considering who he was up against achieved alot still and maybe could have taken a few slams more. But the guy could never catch a break with the competition and never enjoyed an easier period like some past ATGs did. The fact that he still achieved as much as he did is a testament to his greatness. His numbers and consistency is off the charts. He went up against Fedovic on HC (especially AO) and grass and Nadal on clay.
RS
Bionic Poster
What's Murray AO 10 QF chance vs Wawrinka AO 13 4R?
RS
Bionic Poster
Last slam final played were any the opponents was better than Roddick USO 03 F?
RS
Bionic Poster
Wawrinka AO 13 4R chance vs AO 12 Nadal?
Djokovic RG 15 F chance vs RG 20 F Nadal?
RS
Bionic Poster
Federer RG 09 final chance vs Nadal RG 17 final
Roddick USO 03 final chance vs Nadal USO 13 final
RS
Bionic Poster
But at a stretch as far as Wim 15 F?
RS
Bionic Poster
I think? Think Djokovic was able to coast more vs Murray than Fed.
Last edited:
RS
Bionic Poster
9.5 vs 9 in favour of 15.
zvelf
Hall of Fame
So first, I did not say ATGs could not do better than Murray against the Big 3, so that's a straw man position in regards to what I wrote. Second, when someone writes that the criterion to be met is to consistently beat the Big 3, I take that to mean to win more than half of all matches against them combined. If you win less than half, you're not consistently beating them. Wawrinka, Del Potro, and Tsonga are marginally better than Murray percentage-wise in slams, but are all worse than Murray when you take the full h2h into account. Murray is 29-56 (34%) against the Big 3, Wawrinka is a dismal 12-61 (16%), Delpo is 17-45 (27%), and Tsonga is 16-39 (29%). By the way, Murray is 13-9 (59%) against Wawrinka, 7-3 (70%) against Delpo, and 14-2 (87.5%) against Tsonga. Nothing points to Murray overachieving. He beat everyone in his way except the three best players of his generation and maybe ever.
And I don't think Borg or Sampras would have a winning h2h against the Big 3 combined in the Big 3's era. There's a reason almost no one plays serve and volley anymore and that's essential to Sampras' game. Also, Sampras would lose every clay court match against the Big 3, may win on grass but barely any tournaments are played on grass, and would at best split hard court matches except he would trounce Nadal indoors. Even Borg would be no match for Nadal on clay, no match for Federer on grass, and no match for Djokovic on hard court.
abmk
Bionic Poster
beating consistently means that. winning a decent chunk or % of matches in slams, that's it, not to win more than half the matches. that would be specified as leading the h2h.
bringing in requirement to be winning atleast half the matches is a BS leap to defend Murray.
the point about raising h2h of Stan/Delpo as opposed to Murray in slams vs big 3 is to argue that their peak level in slams is better than Murray's. So one needs to stop hiding behind big3. read the post which you quoted again. All he said was to win a decent enough chunk or % of matches vs big 3 to be able to get to 5 or 6 slams. If expectation was leading h2h in slams vs them, he'd have 10+ slams, not 5 or 6.
...............
in non-slam events, Murray is clearly better than Stan/Delpo etc. obviously
borg is nadal's equal prime to prime on clay. a little better than djokovic/nadal on grass.
and he'd have his share of wins vs fed/djoko on HC though they'd clearly have the edge there.
guy did make 3 USO finals out of 4 that he played only losing to 2 USO GOATs in Mac and Connors. did beat Connors in 81 and took Mac to 5 in 80.
also Sampras could do just fine from the baseline off clay
fed/djokovic have lost on clay to much worse players than Sampras. he'd grab a couple of wins here and there
Last edited:
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
This all stretches it immensely. First, again the good old complete underrating of Sampras on clay. He wouldn’t have a winning H2H against anyone of the big three on clay, but losing every match? He was 2-3 against Agassi, 1-0 against Muster, 1-1 against Kafelnikov, 1-2 Bruguera and 1-2 Courier, so he would have a few wins against Djokovic or Federer on clay. As you said, he would also dominate Nadal on grass and indoors. So he will likely not win more than 50% against the big three, but then again even Federer couldn’t do this, Pete would definitely be way better than Murray. As for Borg, he would definitely be a match for all of them on their respective favorite surfaces. He wouldn’t have a winning H2H on clay against Nadal, grass against Fed and HC against Djokovic, but would be able to hold his own and have respectable scores. On top, he would better Fed on clay, Nadal on grass and indoors, and Djokovic on clay and possibly also grass. So given his surface versatility and with a little luck with where and how often they meet, he could even have a winning H2H against them combined.
StrongRule
Talk Tennis Guru
Do you have some objective explanation? Or is it again that Djokovic fans simply like Murray more because of his losses to Djokovic, unlike Wawrinka who could actually beat him consistently in slams? It makes zero sense to claim that losing finals to Djokovic is more impressive than beating him. You don't get any credit for losing.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
If you used your head a little bit you would see that notion doesn't hold up. Murray has stopped Djokovic from PLENTY of things. He has denied him 2 slams, olympic gold, YE#1, YECs title, handful of masters etc. He has done more damage to Djokovic than Wawrinka who showed up once or twice a year and beat an injured Djokovic in 19 and pretty bad form Djoko in 16 US Open. Prime Murray would love to have a crack at Djokovic here aswell.
Wawrinka is not better at USO than Murray IMO. He has an extra final, more QFs and beat a better Djokovic. Better deal with that and stop this nonsense about not liking Wawrinka cause he beat Djokovic. It doesn't hold up.
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
Wawa has Djoko beaten 4 times out of 8 in slams, including in 3 of the 4 slams
Murray has Djoko beaten 2 times out of 10 in slams, in 2 of the 4 slams
pretty obvious who has done more damage at the slams.
and djoko was significantly worse in Wim 13 final than in USO 16 final where he was decent (but not good)
djokovic was just getting plain beat in USO 19. don't think whatever issue he had was significant.
I do think Murray is little better at USO and he did beat the better djokovic in USO 12 final, but both Stan and Murray have same number of QFs at USO - 6 each.
Murray in 08, 11-14,16
Stan in 10,13-16,19
Zardoz7/12
Hall of Fame
Murray was the bridge between the big 3 and the likes of Wawrinka, Del Potro, Ferrer, Soderling and Berdych...even Davydenko.
Barring the 2nd half of 2016 Murray was never a dominator, I don't believe he possessed the mental hardware to be able to be a dominating force. His forehand was erratic, backhand was a beauty, slices slick, first serve solid, second serve a very noticeable weakness. Murray was the 4th most consistent player in an era where 3 of the greatest Male players played at the same time, that in theory is an amazing achievement. I believe he didn't maximise his ability due to mental constraints, he could flatten out his forehand but always chose not to and the constant borderline pushing was a massive negative in my opinion.
Murray's consistency was a topic of negativity as many would take the higher ceiling Wawrinka had rather than Murray's consistency.
To sum up barring some of the commenters here who have held a long detestation of Murray, when it's all said and done despite his technical and mental faults he was consistently one of the greatest players in the last 20 years, ONLY to be beaten by Nadal, Federer and Djokovic.
Barring the 2nd half of 2016 Murray was never a dominator, I don't believe he possessed the mental hardware to be able to be a dominating force. His forehand was erratic, backhand was a beauty, slices slick, first serve solid, second serve a very noticeable weakness. Murray was the 4th most consistent player in an era where 3 of the greatest Male players played at the same time, that in theory is an amazing achievement. I believe he didn't maximise his ability due to mental constraints, he could flatten out his forehand but always chose not to and the constant borderline pushing was a massive negative in my opinion.
Murray's consistency was a topic of negativity as many would take the higher ceiling Wawrinka had rather than Murray's consistency.
To sum up barring some of the commenters here who have held a long detestation of Murray, when it's all said and done despite his technical and mental faults he was consistently one of the greatest players in the last 20 years, ONLY to be beaten by Nadal, Federer and Djokovic.
StrongRule
Talk Tennis Guru
Murray was too busy being breadsticked by Nishikori at that time. Against Murray in the final Djokovic actually would have a chance to vulture this slam after 3 walkovers. Murray already had 5 attempts to play Djokovic in slams in 2014-2016, and he collapsed in all 5 meetings, not being able to hold a decent level for more than 1 or 2 sets in a match. Wawrinka on the other hand got 3 wins over Djokovic in BO5 during these years, not just in USO 2016. Not to mention that someone who hypes wins over 2015 Nadal shouldn't use the argument of Djokovic being in bad form.
Anyway, Wawrinka beat Djokovic 4 times in slams. This is twice more than Murray, and in less attempts. I think it's obvious who hurt him more when it matters.
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
This is not being utterly useless against the big 3:
2008 USO: Andy beats Nadal 6-2, 7-6, 4-6, 6-4
2010 AO: Andy beats Nadal 6-3, 7-6, 3-0 [retired]
2012 USO: Andy beats Djokovic 7-6, 7-5, 2-6, 3-6, 6-2
2013 Wimbledon: Andy beats Djokovic 6-4, 7-5, 6-4
2013 AO: Andy beats Federer 6-4, 6-7, 6-3, 6-7, 6-2
