How Many Slams Does Sinner Win In The 2000s?

How Many Slams Does Jannik Sinner Win In The 2000s & 10s?

  • 0

    Votes: 37 43.0%
  • 1

    Votes: 7 8.1%
  • 2

    Votes: 3 3.5%
  • 3

    Votes: 5 5.8%
  • 4

    Votes: 3 3.5%
  • 5

    Votes: 3 3.5%
  • 6

    Votes: 1 1.2%
  • More than 6

    Votes: 27 31.4%

  • Total voters
    86

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Nadal is old era player

Sinner is 16 years younger and of course Sinner who was 10 years old in 2012 can not go back and play.

Its pathetic to push these failed products because they failed vs good players. Sinner will eat Berdych for breakfast now. He will destroy Berdych in AO. And Sinner is just 23 still getting better.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
A player of Sinner's caliber dominating really goes to show how weak the era has been. No wonder Djokovic fans want to build him up...
 

CHillTennis

Hall of Fame
Nadal is old era player

Sinner is 16 years younger and of course Sinner who was 10 years old in 2012 can not go back and play.

Its pathetic to push these failed products because they failed vs good players. Sinner will eat Berdych for breakfast now. He will destroy Berdych in AO. And Sinner is just 23 still getting better.
Bro, Sinner couldn't even beat a 36 year old Djokovic at Wimbledon. He got rolled in straights against Djokovic at the World Tour Finals.

So what chance does he have against a young Djokovic, who hits harder, plays better and is much tougher than the borderline retired 37 year old?

The answer is zero.

 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Bro, Sinner couldn't even beat a 36 year old Djokovic at Wimbledon. He got rolled in straights against Djokovic at the World Tour Finals.

So what chance does he have against a young Djokovic, who hits harder, plays better and is much tougher than the borderline retired 37 year old?

The answer is zero.


Realistically speaking Sinner is a Murray level talent, a bit better than Berdych but not too high in talent. This era however lacks Big 3 level fella. Peak Federer was savage, Murray, Sinner both of them would win 0 slams if they were born in 1981.
 

jm1980

Talk Tennis Guru
Realistically speaking Sinner is a Murray level talent, a bit better than Berdych but not too high in talent. This era however lacks Big 3 level fella. Peak Federer was savage, Murray, Sinner both of them would win 0 slams if they were born in 1981.
Murray had a winning H2H against Fed 2005 to 2009, it was 6-2 Murray.

Fed didn't reverse the H2H until 2014
 
A player of Sinner's caliber dominating really goes to show how weak the era has been. No wonder Djokovic fans want to build him up...

Yep. This is what they are reduced to now. Building up freaking Sinner as some kind of superhuman.

The sad thing, is even if they succeeded in that (never happening) it still would reflect nothing considering very old age Djokovic's ultimate vulturing all took place before Sinner and Alcarez even started coming into their own, and he even lost out on alteast 1 Wimbledon to Alcarez before that point.
 
Yikes even on a forum 95% Serbian and/or Djokovic fanatics about 50% vote no slams for Sinner in another era. Keeping in mind Medvedev, Zverev, Titslesspass, and those other dorks that old Djokovic has been winning almost all his 30 something slams against are far worse than Sinner, let alone baby Alcarez. :unsure:
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Murray had a winning H2H against Fed 2005 to 2009, it was 6-2 Murray.

Fed didn't reverse the H2H until 2014

Nobody cares if Murray had a winning h2h against Federer or that Davydenko had a winning h2h against Nadal.... give better arguments.

Murray was impotent against Federer for all his life except 2013 when he managed to beat Fed at the AO. Ohh an yeah, he beat Fed at that olympics too when Fed was like 31 and tired out by Del Potro. Stop glorifying losers like Murray. I am respecting Murray by saying he was as good as Sinner will ever be but you are trying to overrate Murray ? For what ? He was nothing vs Federer. Not everybody is as weak as your Djokovic was against Murray, no?
 

jm1980

Talk Tennis Guru
Nobody cares if Murray had a winning h2h against Federer or that Davydenko had a winning h2h against Nadal.... give better arguments.

Murray was impotent against Federer for all his life except 2013 when he managed to beat Fed at the AO. Ohh an yeah, he beat Fed at that olympics too when Fed was like 31 and tired out by Del Potro. Stop glorifying losers like Murray. I am respecting Murray by saying he was as good as Sinner will ever be but you are trying to overrate Murray ? For what ? He was nothing vs Federer. Not everybody is as weak as your Djokovic was against Murray, no?
Federer-Murray H2H: 14-11
Djokovic-Murray H2H: 25-11

200.gif
 

Aabye5

G.O.A.T.
Nobody cares for your h2h

Djokovic was pathetic.... lost 2 finals to Murray

Fed lost 0

Fed was more man than Djokovic vs Murray and Wawrinka.

That's how matchups work. Fed didn't have a matchup problem against Murray or Wawrinka. Djokovic did.

On the other hand, Fed did have more of a matchup problem against Nadal.
 

jm1980

Talk Tennis Guru
Nobody cares for your h2h

Djokovic was pathetic.... lost 2 finals to Murray

Fed lost 0

Fed was more man than Djokovic vs Murray and Wawrinka.
14-11 vs 25-11 it's very clear which one is better H2H, even the stupid can understand the math involved here

PS: Fed lost to Wawrinka in the French in 2015 before Djokovic did

PPS: Cute how Fed's loss to Murray was excused because he was "tired out" by delPo when the exact same thing happened to Djokovic in their 2013 Wimbledon final
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
14-11 vs 25-11 it's very clear which one is better H2H, even the stupid can understand the math involved here

PS: Fed lost to Wawrinka in the French in 2015 before Djokovic did

Take a good look at these pics and drink a glass of water @jm1980 .... Murray + Wawrinka were nobodies that Djokovic decided to pump up. These average players would both be on 0 slams if born in 1981 in the presence of their superior Roger Federer.

PS : Fed was 34 in 2015 when he lost to Wawrinka, I dont see 2011 Fed lose to Wawrinka if Wawrinka is born in 1981 .... 0 SLAMS for Stan and Andy BUD ..... Case closed.

images
images
images

That's how matchups work. Fed didn't have a matchup problem against Murray or Wawrinka. Djokovic did.

On the other hand, Fed did have more of a matchup problem against Nadal.

So what ? Nadal is Nadal, in any era he would be hard against anyone and Ilets not forget Federer never grew up with nadal, otherwise Fed would have changed his racquet much earlier to his present one, Nadal would have ensured that by facing Fed many times in teen years itself.
 

Aabye5

G.O.A.T.
Murray crushed Zed not this gen.
Zed is slamless even in this era. Its Sinner Alcaraz who are the beasts.

Old Murray and young Sinner are tied in h2h. As are old Murray and young Alcaraz. Oh, that's right. That's old HIPSTER Murray.

Wonder what he could have done with two legs?
 

jm1980

Talk Tennis Guru
Take a good look at these pics and drink a glass of water @jm1980 .... Murray + Wawrinka were nobodies that Djokovic decided to pump up. These average players would both be on 0 slams if born in 1981 in the presence of their superior Roger Federer.

images
images
images



So what ? Nadal is Nadal, in any era he would be hard against anyone and Ilets not forget Federer never grew up with nadal, otherwise Fed would have changed his racquet much earlier to his present one, Nadal would have ensured that by facing Fed many times in teen years itself.
Murray has 11 wins over Fed, with many of those matches being peak/prime Fed vs pre-prime Murray, and you're saying he would have won zero Slams if he were Fed's age?

LOL, Fed fanatics are a delusional bunch

PS: Wawrinka won his first major against Nadal, not Djokovic. So he wasn't a "nobody"
 

CHillTennis

Hall of Fame
Realistically speaking Sinner is a Murray level talent, a bit better than Berdych but not too high in talent. This era however lacks Big 3 level fella. Peak Federer was savage, Murray, Sinner both of them would win 0 slams if they were born in 1981.
I don't think that he his Murray level.

I can't see him beating Federer in 2006 or beating Nadal at the 2008 US Open or 2012 Djokovic at the US Open.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Murray has 11 wins over Fed, with many of those matches being peak/prime Fed vs pre-prime Murray, and you're saying he would have won zero Slams if he were Fed's age?

LOL, Fed fanatics are a delusional bunch

Most of those wins were in useless bo3 matches, Murray even won in cincinnati in 2006 when Fed tanked the match.... good luck convincing anyone that Murray was a threat to Fed in 2000s..... Not my problem you started watching tennis in 2011 and so these h2hs convinced you otherwise :rolleyes:
 

CHillTennis

Hall of Fame
Murray has 11 wins over Fed, with many of those matches being peak/prime Fed vs pre-prime Murray, and you're saying he would have won zero Slams if he were Fed's age?

LOL, Fed fanatics are a delusional bunch

PS: Wawrinka won his first major against Nadal, not Djokovic. So he wasn't a "nobody"
Murray would definitely have a couple of slams if he were Fed's age.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Old Murray and young Sinner are tied in h2h. As are old Murray and young Alcaraz. Oh, that's right. That's old HIPSTER Murray.

Wonder what he could have done with two legs?
Old Murray vs teenager these guys is just a fair fight. These guys have not lost that h2h which is good for them

Alcaraz is 17
Sinner 19

Both not even near their potential
 

CHillTennis

Hall of Fame
Most of those wins were in useless bo3 matches, Murray even won in cincinnati in 2006 when Fed tanked the match.... good luck convincing anyone that Murray was a threat to Fed in 2000s..... Not my problem you started watching tennis in 2011 and so these h2hs convinced you otherwise :rolleyes:
Murray beat Nadal at the US Open in 2008.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
I don't think that he his Murray level.

I can't see him beating Federer in 2006 or beating Nadal at the 2008 US Open or 2012 Djokovic at the US Open.

Already replied in my previous comment.... Murray never beat Fed in 2006, it was Federer who allowed Murray to win in 2006 by tanking the match on purpose to rest for us open.


I agree current Sinner might not beat Nadal in 2008 US Open, but then who knows ? Sinner has been great this year for his age, lets respect that.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Murray had a winning H2H against Fed 2005 to 2009, it was 6-2 Murray.
True, but the 2008 US Open final was the biggest match of those, and Federer won it in 3 straight sets.

Fed didn't reverse the H2H until 2014
Murray didn't beat Federer again after their 2013 Australian Open semi final that Murray won in 5 sets. Federer won their last 5 matches to turn the head-to-head from 9-11 to 14-11.
 

Aabye5

G.O.A.T.
Old Murray vs teenager these guys is just a fair fight. These guys have not lost that h2h which is good for them

Alcaraz is 17
Sinner 19

Both not even near their potential

Not exactly a fair fight -- Murray was on one leg, Alcaraz won his first major a year later.

But even if we say it was close, that's just proof that they have yet to show themselves as better than him. In two "fair fights", they both could only tie Murray. They are not head and shoulders above him.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Not exactly a fair fight -- Murray was on one leg, Alcaraz won his first major a year later.

But even if we say it was close, that's just proof that they have yet to show themselves as better than him. In two "fair fights", they both could only tie Murray. They are not head and shoulders above him.
A year later nothing

In almost 15 months a lot of improvement can happen.

Murray had to prove vs big 3 not vs these teenagers.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Murray would definitely have a couple of slams if he were Fed's age.

Lol

Name them ?

Murray wins 0 brother, trust me. If born in 1981 then he becomes a 0 slam winner. :D

Roger was savage in his peak, there was no room for vulturing for anyone.
 

CHillTennis

Hall of Fame
Already replied in my previous comment.... Murray never beat Fed in 2006, it was Federer who allowed Murray to win in 2006 by taking the match on purpose.


I agree current Sinner might not beat Nadal in 2008 US Open, but then who knows ? Sinner has been great this year for his age, lets respect that.
Federer lost to Murray in the second round of Cincinnati that year.

As the #1 seed, the second round would have actually been Roger Federer's first match at that event.

So if he was going to deliberately lose to Andy Murray in Cincinnati, then why bother playing the event in the first place?

He just wanted to give Andy Murray that win over him?

That seems awfully nice of Roger to do that.
 

jm1980

Talk Tennis Guru
Lol

Name them ?

Murray wins 0 brother, trust me. If born in 1981 then he becomes a 0 slam winner. :D

Roger was savage in his peak, there was no room for vulturing for anyone.
This is a classic case of Federer winning all hypothetical matches. Impossible to prove or disprove
 

Aabye5

G.O.A.T.
A year later nothing

In almost 15 months a lot of improvement can happen.

Murray had to prove vs big 3 not vs these teenagers.

And Murray won 3. Alcaraz and Sinner have the chance to take on players that aren't even the best of their own generation.
 

CHillTennis

Hall of Fame
Lol

Name them ?

Murray wins 0 brother, trust me. If born in 1981 then he becomes a 0 slam winner. :D

Roger was savage in his peak, there was no room for vulturing for anyone.
Well, he's definitely winning the US Open in 2003.

He would also have a chance at the 2004 French Open.
 

Neptune

Hall of Fame
Murray had a winning H2H against Fed 2005 to 2009, it was 6-2 Murray.

Fed didn't reverse the H2H until 2014

After Fed reached No. 1, for the next 10 full years (Feb 2, 2004 – Feb 2, 2014), he was Claydal's pigeon on outdoor hard courts, with a 2-8 record. Crazy scene.
Vacuum era dominator is funny.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Federer lost to Murray in the second round of Cincinnati that year.

As the #1 seed, the second round would have actually been Roger Federer's first match at that event.

So if he was going to deliberately lose to Andy Murray in Cincinnati, then why bother playing the event in the first place?

He just wanted to give Andy Murray that win over him?

That seems awfully nice of Roger to do that.

Federer played long matches at the Canada masters, then quickly played cinci round 1 vs Srichaphan, he was tired and so he tanked the next match. I am not cooking stories, everybody at that time understood it and Mary Carillo even pointed that out which angered Federer. Federer being the gentleman that he is defended Murray and said it is not right to take credit away from a young player like that. He tanked it, trust me. The only person to beat Federer properly that year as Rafael Nadal.

Well, he's definitely winning the US Open in 2003.

He would also have a chance at the 2004 French Open.

Murray was straight setted by Cilic in 2009 but you are saying he would win in 2003 ?
Murray lost to Berdych of all people in straight sets at 2010 French open but you think he is winning clay slam in 04 ?

The only slam where Murray has a small chance (I don't see Federer losing it against a guy who is yet to win his 1st slam but I will still give Murray a small chance) of taking it the distance is 2006 Aus open.

So Murray wins 0 or at best 1 if born in 1981, I say ZERO
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
A great match by Berdych. He beat Murray well that day. I seem to remember Berdych talking the talk before that match as well.

Berdych is underrated, he got caught peaking in the wrong era. What I fail to understand even today is how Wawrinka peaked so late ? It is a mystery. Berdych peaked at the right time and fell prey to strong players whenever he played great. Wawrinka is a bit overrated who gives the vibe of being underrated.
 
Last edited:

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Berdych is underrated, he got caught peaking in the wrong era. What I fail to understand even today is how Wawrinka peaked so late ? It is a mystery. Berdych peaked at the right time and fell pray to strong players whenever he played great. Wawrinka is a bit overrated who gives the vibe of being underrated.
Magnus Norman as coach? Soderling improved similarily with Norman coaching him.
 

CHillTennis

Hall of Fame
Federer played long matches at the Canada masters, then quickly played cinci round 1 vs Srichaphan, he was tired and so he tanked the next match. I am not cooking stories, everybody at that time understood it and Mary Carillo even pointed that out which angered Federer. Federer being the gentleman that he is defended Murray and said it is not right to take credit away from a young player like that. He tanked it, trust me. The only person to beat Federer properly that year as Rafael Nadal.



Murray was straight setted by Cilic in 2009 but you are saying he would win in 2003 ?
Murray lost to Berdych of all people in straight sets at 2010 French open but you think he is winning clay slam in 04 ?

The only slam where Murray has a small chance (I don't see Federer losing it against a guy who is yet to win his 1st slam but I will still give Murray a small chance) of taking it the distance is 2006 Aus open.

So Murray wins 0 or at best 1 if born in 1981, I say ZERO
If Roger Federer wanted to tank that match, then why even bother entering in the first place?

Why not just take the week off?
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
If Roger Federer wanted to tank that match, then why even bother entering in the first place?

Why not just take the week off?
He was defending champion. It's obvious he didn't approach it with full intensity. Murray's win is no different to Hrbaty's two years earlier. The only reason anyone talks about it is because Murray ended up being a great player.
 
Last edited:

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Murray has 11 wins over Fed, with many of those matches being peak/prime Fed vs pre-prime Murray, and you're saying he would have won zero Slams if he were Fed's age?

LOL, Fed fanatics are a delusional bunch

PS: Wawrinka won his first major against Nadal, not Djokovic. So he wasn't a "nobody"
I don’t think Murray and Stan would’ve won slams against prime Fed and we have enough evidence to assess that
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Federer lost to Murray in the second round of Cincinnati that year.

As the #1 seed, the second round would have actually been Roger Federer's first match at that event.

So if he was going to deliberately lose to Andy Murray in Cincinnati, then why bother playing the event in the first place?

He just wanted to give Andy Murray that win over him?

That seems awfully nice of Roger to do that.
It was his second match, not his first
 
Top