Well yes perhaps i framed that wrong but he at least could regularly beat all three albeit not as often as they would beat him. . Nobody else in history could.Let's not go overboard.
i didnt get that far.Stopped reading at "Medvedev much better than Andy Roddick ".
Nvm, we were talking in another thread. Youre a moron who doesnt know tennis. Forget itWhat is history of the game. I have followed tennis from 2012 including many of Murray's peak runs.
If Murray had not suffered the hip injury in 2017 he would have dominated the tour 2017-2023. He got the YE1 in 2016 and was all set it looked like to dominate. Must be so frustrating for him.
Will always be the Big 4 for me as Murray at his best was on a par with the Big 3.
not even sure if he’s better than Davydenko? Slightly more consistent with a better serve but Davydenko hit a much cleaner ball. Put Davydenko in this era and he can make multiple hc slam finals and probably a rg final seeing as ruud managed it twice.Stopped reading at "Medvedev much better than Andy Roddick ".
Haven't read thread in entirety, just want to say, to me Murray is the top shotmaker around, in the past and even now. I love watching him hit that damn yellow ball, such precision! Mad respect for Murray.
Good quote: ) I laugh whenever i see. 'Movement to unveil the greatness of Roger'You are fortunate to have come forth as you did, when you did. The old punishment for overstepping without admission was the removal of the foot that did the stepping. The current punishment is being banned. The punishment for overstepping and admitting is merely being trolled for the rest of your stay.
Let that be a lesson in mercy to all you youngsters.
Lol yeah Murray equal to Agassi what BS.Murray might be a legend in the time of Sampras and Agassi. I consider him equal to the latter.
Absolutely not. He is combined 5-20 against them at slams and the wins include wins against an exhausted, injured Nadal, a 5 set win against Fed in one of his worst years and two wins against an (on paper) prime Djoko who played really bad though. Murray was incredibly consistent in beating players he should beat, but his best was nothing special at all and nowhere near the big three.If Murray had not suffered the hip injury in 2017 he would have dominated the tour 2017-2023. He got the YE1 in 2016 and was all set it looked like to dominate. Must be so frustrating for him.
Will always be the Big 4 for me as Murray at his best was on a par with the Big 3.
Murray's best wasn't on par with peak Courier, let alone peak big 3.Absolutely not. He is combined 5-20 against them at slams and the wins include wins against an exhausted, injured Nadal, a 5 set win against Fed in one of his worst years and two wins against an (on paper) prime Djoko who played really bad though. Murray was incredibly consistent in beating players he should beat, but his best was nothing special at all and nowhere near the big three.
What a plot twist.Stopped reading at "Medvedev much better than Andy Roddick ".
Sampras, Agassi, Lendl, Borg, McEnroe, Courier, Becker all possessed high enough levels to beat the big 3 regularly on their favored surfaces, and Murray and just about every surface.Well yes perhaps i framed that wrong but he at least could regularly beat all three albeit not as often as they would beat him. . Nobody else in history could.
What do you mean by history exactly?Well yes perhaps i framed that wrong but he at least could regularly beat all three albeit not as often as they would beat him. . Nobody else in history could.
Absolutely not. He is combined 5-20 against them at slams and the wins include wins against an exhausted, injured Nadal, a 5 set win against Fed in one of his worst years and two wins against an (on paper) prime Djoko who played really bad though. Murray was incredibly consistent in beating players he should beat, but his best was nothing special at all and nowhere near the big three.
At slams where it counts most, Tsonga, Berdych and Wawrinka have better records against the big three. And yeah past players like Pete, Andre etc. would definitely do better that's next to certain.Naturally of course Murray was always at his absolute best when playing against them. No excuses ever allowed for him but plenty for the 3 best players in history of course!
He still has a better record against the Big 3 than any other player and please don't bore us all by saying past players would have done better because that's just supposition and we just don't know. You can only play against the guys who can play against you.
I like a stat some YouTuber is usingNaturally of course Murray was always at his absolute best when playing against them. No excuses ever allowed for him but plenty for the 3 best players in history of course!
He still has a better record against the Big 3 than any other player and please don't bore us all by saying past players would have done better because that's just supposition and we just don't know. You can only play against the guys who can play against you.
At slams where it counts most, Tsonga, Berdych and Wawrinka have better records against the big three. And yeah past players like Pete, Andre etc. would definitely do better that's next to certain.
Stan won even more slam finals against big three than Murray. If you believe Pete would not go better than 5-20 against the big three at slams I don't know what to tell you.Oh sure because they all won Slam finals against them..........oh wait, only 1 of them did!
As for Pete and Andre etc. we can never know so your opinion is worthless.
Stan won even more slam finals against big three than Murray. If you believe Pete would not go better than 5-20 against the big three at slams I don't know what to tell you.
Great, Murray has a better record against big three than former great players who never faced them or only at the tail end of their careers. Zverev has better H2H against the big three than Murray if we wanna make pointless comparisons. The initial discussion was whether Murray's best is at the level of the big three and it isn't. Murray was pretty consistent but his peak level is not particularly high, plenty of less succesful players whose peak level is higher.Not much you can tell me is there. We have Murray's overall record against the Big 3 and, in this pointless comparison, his is the only 1 that counts.
In the Big 3 Era. Who else bar Murray could beat all three consistently over a period of years as Murray did? Wawrinka had a horrendous record v Fedal and Del potro an awful one v Djoker.What do you mean by history exactly?
Yes i agree but obviously that is hyothetical as they were all retired by the time the Big 3 were aroundSampras, Agassi, Lendl, Borg, McEnroe, Courier, Becker all possessed high enough levels to beat the big 3 regularly on their favored surfaces, and Murray and just about every surface.
Disnt tealise that stat at the slams to be fair.Absolutely not. He is combined 5-20 against them at slams and the wins include wins against an exhausted, injured Nadal, a 5 set win against Fed in one of his worst years and two wins against an (on paper) prime Djoko who played really bad though. Murray was incredibly consistent in beating players he should beat, but his best was nothing special at all and nowhere near the big three.
Great, Murray has a better record against big three than former great players who never faced them or only at the tail end of their careers. Zverev has better H2H against the big three than Murray if we wanna make pointless comparisons. The initial discussion was whether Murray's best is at the level of the big three and it isn't. Murray was pretty consistent but his peak level is not particularly high, plenty of less succesful players whose peak level is higher.
Incredibly overrated player even now.
The Anthony Joshua of tennis.
In the Big 3 Era. Who else bar Murray could beat all three consistently over a period of years as Murray did? Wawrinka had a horrendous record v Fedal and Del potro an awful one v Djoker.
It’s over Mainad. Murray lost. He ended his career a distant 4th to the Big 3. In fact, he was so far behind them as to no longer even be in the conversation, such is the vast distance and chasm between actual ATGs and Murray. He is included out of pity. Each won 17 more Slams than him.That kinda says more about you than it does him.
Yes, but you're basically restricting history to this era only. Many players in history could do better against the Big 3 than Murray.In the Big 3 Era. Who else bar Murray could beat all three consistently over a period of years as Murray did? Wawrinka had a horrendous record v Fedal and Del potro an awful one v Djoker.
It’s over Mainad. Murray lost. He ended his career a distant 4th to the Big 3. Accept it and move on.
Yes, but you're basically restricting history to this era only. Many players in history could do better against the Big 3 than Murray.
Zvev's overall record is better. If you restrict ot to slams, Berdych, Tsonga, and Stan are better. Yea if you completely cherry-pick and say beating all 3 on their favourite surfaces in big title matches (including Olympics and Masters) then ok, nobody is better. But well this as I say is pretty cherry-picked stat. Anywho, saying that we cannot prove that Pete would have had a better record against Big 3 than Murray is like saying we cannot prove Nadal would have won even one FO in the 90s, factually correct, but completely absurd to assume otherwise.Lol....Zverev does not have a better record against the Big 3. Nobody does. Murray remains the ONLY player to notch up double digit victories against Federer and Djokovic and has beaten all 3 on their favourite surfaces in big title matches including, in 1 case, multiple Slams!
I've seen Stan do just as well, so I'm pretty confident many players from the past could do better.But you can have no proof of that so why make statements like that if only to try and dismiss a player you plainly dislike and refuse to rate fairly?
I was meaning though actual matches that happened.Yes, but you're basically restricting history to this era only. Many players in history could do better against the Big 3 than Murray.
I've seen Stan do just as well, so I'm pretty confident many players from the past could do better.
And that is extremely relevant since that's where Murray hasn't been able to do better against the Big 3.You've seen Stan do just as well at the Slams but, unlike Murray, not in anything else and any comparisons with players from other eras is just pointless because you can never match players who only played in different eras.
And that is extremely relevant since that's where Murray hasn't been able to do better against the Big 3.
Nobody here denies that Murray is better than Wawrinka or that he is fourth best of that era. What was however claimed is that he is on the level of Agassi or at his best on the level of the big three. This is where people disagree.But there are other things besides the Slams including other big titles (WTF, Olympics, Masters etc.) and the #1 ranking of course, none of which Wawrinka achieved (except 1 Masters) but Murray did. Slams are the most important things in tennis but they are not all there is in tennis otherwise you could argue that Gaston Gaudio is just as good as Sinner.
Absolutely not. He is combined 5-20 against them at slams and the wins include wins against an exhausted, injured Nadal, a 5 set win against Fed in one of his worst years and two wins against an (on paper) prime Djoko who played really bad though. Murray was incredibly consistent in beating players he should beat, but his best was nothing special at all and nowhere near the big three.
I guess we can say whatever. Subjectively.Murray's best slam win vs the Big 3 was Nadal at the USO 2008. He never managed to surpass that.
After that, he lost surprisingly easily to Nadal at slams like Wimbledon 2010 and 2011, USO 2011, etc. His other win came against a hampered Nadal at the AO. And against Federer, he always did terribly, even when he was doing well Bo3.
He did better vs Djokovic but that USO match in the hurricane was a ****fest, his more impressive victory was the Wimbledon 2013, although Djokovic was playing terribly, Murray played great and it wasn't his fault Djokovic didn't show up. But then in 2014-2016 he was poor vs Djokovic too.