In a Bizarro world without the Big 3, Sir Andy Murray would probably have more Grand Slams than Pete Sampras

Razer

Legend
Found this article on Fox Sports on what the last 20 years would look like without the Big 3, it says Murray would have 17 slams, how accurate are these numbers?

Andy Murray 17
Stan Wawrinka 7
Andy Roddick 6
Dominic Thiem 4
Daniil Medvedev 4
Stefanos Tsitsipas 4
Marin Cilic 3
Marat Safin 3
Marcos Baghdatis 2
Nikolay Davydenko 2
Robin Soderling 2
Juan Martin del Potro 2
David Ferrer 2
Kevin Anderson 2
Mark Philippoussis 1
Gaston Gaudio 1
Lleyton Hewitt 1
Andre Agassi 1
Mariano Puerta 1
David Nalbandian 1
Fernando Gonzalez 1
Mikhail Youzhny 1
Gael Monfils 1
Tomas Berdych 1
Richard Gasquet 1
Milos Raonic 1
Jo Wilfried Tsonga 1
Robert Bautista-Agut 1
Casper Ruud 1
Matteo Berrettini 1
Nick Kyrgios 1
Carlos Alcaraz 1

 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
spit-take.gif
 

RS

Bionic Poster
Let me take a dive on Murray

Wim 08 - 50/50
USO 08 - 50/50
AO 10 - probably wins
Wim 10 - probably wins
AO 11- probably wins
RG 11 - probably loses
Wim 11 - 50/50
USO 11 - probably wins
AO 12 - probably wins
Wim 12 - wins
USO 12 - won anyway
AO 13 - 50/50
Wim 13 - won anyway
AO 14 - loses
RG 14 - probably loses
USO 14 - loses
AO 15 - 50/50
RG 15 - probably loses
Wim 15 - probably wins
AO 16 - probably wins
RG 16 - wins
Wim 16 - won anyway

Let’s say Murray loses 2 probably wins and 3 50/50 of the because some of those are pretty tough and Stan in AO 13 played what is arguably the best AO match.

That leaves him on 13 slams but assuming everything stays similar which it might not. Does he have more confidence and less injury problems for example?
 
Last edited:

RS

Bionic Poster
If you have a world that Murray doesn’t push for number 1 so much in 2016 then he is likely touching close to the 20 slam range or at it.

If he was number before or at the time don’t think he would have pushed that hard.
 

Razer

Legend
An era without the Big 3 would be such an insane vaccum era that it would put the CIE to shame.

If you have a world that Murray doesn’t push for number 1 so much in 2016 then he is likely touching close to the 20 slam range or at it.

If he was number before or at the time don’t think he would have pushed that hard.

Tennis might well be dead in such an era if the Big 3 never existed, slam revenues would constantly go down, Murray would cross Sampras and Roddick would have a beckerlike career but at the cost of Alcaraz/Rune/other 2000 borns probably taking up other sports as a career.
 
D

Deleted member 791948

Guest
It would be called the weakest era of all-time, so no.
 
H

Herald

Guest
Let me take a dive on Murray

Wim 08 - 50/50
USO 08 - 50/50
AO 10 - probably wins
Wim 10 - probably wins
AO 11- probably wins
RG 11 - probably loses
Wim 11 - 50/50
USO 11 - probably wins
AO 12 - probably wins
Wim 12 - wins
USO 12 - won anyway
AO 13 - 50/50
Wim 13 - won anyway
AO 14 - loses
RG 14 - probably loses
USO 14 - loses
AO 15 - 50/50
RG 15 - probably loses
Wim 15 - probably wins
AO 16 - probably wins
RG 16 - wins
Wim 16 - won anyway

Let’s say Murray loses 2 probably wins and 3 50/50 of the because some of those are pretty tough and Stan in AO 13 played what is arguably the best AO match.

That leaves him on 13 slams but assuming everything stays similar which it might not. Does he have more confidence and less injury problems for example?
Don't take that dive my friend. Seems like you left the scuba tank at home.
 
H

Herald

Guest
Tennis might well be dead in such an era if the Big 3 never existed, slam revenues would constantly go down, Murray would cross Sampras and Roddick would have a beckerlike career but at the cost of Alcaraz/Rune/other 2000 borns probably taking up other sports as a career.
Murray approaching PETE and Roddick could even be crunching Borg numbers...the stuff of nightmares.
 

BauerAlmeida

Hall of Fame
People act as if Murray was untouchable against other players. Del Potro, Berdych, Tsonga, Wawrina, Soderling, Ferrer, Roddick, Cilic, etc. would all get their fair share of victories against him. He is better than them overall and would win against them more than he would lose, but he wouldn't win every single slam that he lost to a Big 3 member. It's not like he would get a bye to a title every time he lost to them, he would face other players and sometimes lose. He would be the best player in the world but not unbeatable.
 

Rafa4LifeEver

G.O.A.T.
Found this article on Fox Sports on what the last 20 years would look like without the Big 3, it says Murray would have 17 slams, how accurate are these numbers?

Andy Murray 17
Stan Wawrinka 7
Andy Roddick 6
Dominic Thiem 4
Daniil Medvedev 4
Marin Cilic 3
Stefanos Tsitsipas 3
Marat Safin 3
Marcos Baghdatis 2
Nikolay Davydenko 2
Robin Soderling 2
Juan Martin del Potro 2
David Ferrer 2
Kevin Anderson 2
Mark Philippoussis 1
Gaston Gaudio 1
Lleyton Hewitt 1
Andre Agassi 1
Mariano Puerta 1
David Nalbandian 1
Fernando Gonzalez 1
Mikhail Youzhny 1
Gael Monfils 1
Tomas Berdych 1
Richard Gasquet 1
Milos Raonic 1
Jo Wilfried Tsonga 1
Robert Bautista-Agut 1
Casper Ruud 1
Matteo Berrettini 1
Nick Kyrgios 1
Carlos Alcaraz 1

No no but in yellow
 

Soul_Evisceration

Hall of Fame
People act as if Murray was untouchable against other players. Del Potro, Berdych, Tsonga, Wawrina, Soderling, Ferrer, Roddick, Cilic, etc. would all get their fair share of victories against him. He is better than them overall and would win against them more than he would lose, but he wouldn't win every single slam that he lost to a Big 3 member. It's not like he would get a bye to a title every time he lost to them, he would face other players and sometimes lose. He would be the best player in the world but not unbeatable.

I agree he would be the best player but I can't see him having more than 10 Grand Slams had the Big 3 played in a different Era.
 

big ted

Legend
the problem with this bizarro situation is GS winners (ATP) dont win just 1 or 2. there are exceptions but they
show about 16 one time GS winners . never happen haha
 

travlerajm

Talk Tennis Guru
Found this article on Fox Sports on what the last 20 years would look like without the Big 3, it says Murray would have 17 slams, how accurate are these numbers?

Andy Murray 17
Stan Wawrinka 7
Andy Roddick 6
Dominic Thiem 4
Daniil Medvedev 4
Marin Cilic 3
Stefanos Tsitsipas 3
Marat Safin 3
Marcos Baghdatis 2
Nikolay Davydenko 2
Robin Soderling 2
Juan Martin del Potro 2
David Ferrer 2
Kevin Anderson 2
Mark Philippoussis 1
Gaston Gaudio 1
Lleyton Hewitt 1
Andre Agassi 1
Mariano Puerta 1
David Nalbandian 1
Fernando Gonzalez 1
Mikhail Youzhny 1
Gael Monfils 1
Tomas Berdych 1
Richard Gasquet 1
Milos Raonic 1
Jo Wilfried Tsonga 1
Robert Bautista-Agut 1
Casper Ruud 1
Matteo Berrettini 1
Nick Kyrgios 1
Carlos Alcaraz 1

I think Rusty grabs a few more than just 1.
 

Razer

Legend
I think Rusty grabs a few more than just 1.

I think the author has counted only 2003 wimbledon onwards and thats why he just points towards the 2004USO which he gave to Rusty.
Thats why even Agassi has only 1 slam in this list which is 2005USO

However we fans know that an exercise like this is much more subjective than just handing finalists the slam titles. 2004 USO itself would become very tricky between Agassi and Rusty, probably Agassi takes it, but the author hasn't considered this at al.

Same for 2005 wimbledon which might be a close call between Hewitt and Roddick

Other slams too would have such factors involved
 

Purestriker

Legend
Found this article on Fox Sports on what the last 20 years would look like without the Big 3, it says Murray would have 17 slams, how accurate are these numbers?

Andy Murray 17
Stan Wawrinka 7
Andy Roddick 6
Dominic Thiem 4
Daniil Medvedev 4
Marin Cilic 3
Stefanos Tsitsipas 3
Marat Safin 3
Marcos Baghdatis 2
Nikolay Davydenko 2
Robin Soderling 2
Juan Martin del Potro 2
David Ferrer 2
Kevin Anderson 2
Mark Philippoussis 1
Gaston Gaudio 1
Lleyton Hewitt 1
Andre Agassi 1
Mariano Puerta 1
David Nalbandian 1
Fernando Gonzalez 1
Mikhail Youzhny 1
Gael Monfils 1
Tomas Berdych 1
Richard Gasquet 1
Milos Raonic 1
Jo Wilfried Tsonga 1
Robert Bautista-Agut 1
Casper Ruud 1
Matteo Berrettini 1
Nick Kyrgios 1
Carlos Alcaraz 1

Big if true.
 

Robert F

Hall of Fame
If the Big 3 never came about, would we even understand it as a weak era? Or would we just have a generation of 6-8 slam champions that would then have their names interchanged with Agassi, Becker, McEnroe and Edberg in the present day.

Interesting that the list has a lot of 1 slam and 2 slam wonders. But without the Big 3 putting their neck on everyone's throat, I wouldn't doubt is some of the others would gain some momentum from their wins to garner more than 1-2.
I could see Nalbandian or Berdych having clearer paths and having some on court bravado that gets them deep in a lot of tournaments.
 

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
Assuming the timeline stays about the same as what it was (draws remain identical despite different seeings, injuries happen at the same time, bad form/off days still happen as they did, etc)...

(Listing all R4+ times)
Australia
07: Loses a close one to Rafa, who promptly goes out to Gonzalez. I wouldn't necessarily make Murray the favorite over Roddick, Haas, and Gonzalez. Let alone in a row. Low chance.
09: Verdasco loss.
10: Question is if Hewitt, Davydenko, or Tsonga could stop Murray. I'd say he probably takes it, but it's not a guarantee by any means. Let's be generous and say he takes it.
11-13: Takes it.
14: Tsonga/Dimitrov/Stan in a row? Murray isn't unstoppable. I say at the very least to be realistic, we don't give him this one.
15: Honest 50/50 with Stan.
16: I don't see Murray losing to Nishikori/Berdych, so let's be generous (I'll be saying this a lot, don't worry, I'm keeping track).
17: Nope.

France
09,10,12,17: Nope.
11: Needs to get past Soderling, then Monfils/Gasquet/Delpo/Fognini/Wawrinka? I could see it, but I don't think it's guaranteed. However, he did push Rafa and Novak to 3rd sets in 2 Masters that year and I have no reason why the others would succeed over him necessarily. +1 slam, but I'm being generous again.
14: I don't think he gets past Ferrer. Ferrer took a set off Nadal while Murray got taken to 5 by Monfils. This year on clay left a lot to be desired. Ferrer takes 2014.
15: Stan probably still gets the win. Would be tough to play against that guy on that day.
16: I think Murray gets this one. Wouldn't be a straight set affair against Thiem, but he'd win in 4.

Great Britain (oh boy)
06, 09, 14, 17: Non-Big 4 losses, nothing really to note. He'd lose anyway.
08: I can't see Murray falling before the final, where he'd face Safin/Ancic/Hewitt. Could be tough, but I can see him doing it. Let's be generous. +1.
10: It's 50/50 against Berdych, if he gets past Soderling, but let's assume 50/50.
11: Delpo/Fish and then Tsonga. Tough one, but generosity again. +1.
12: He wins.
15: Murray would be the favorite, but there's still 2 matches (semi and final), and he didn't show much more fight vs Fed than Gasquet vs Novak or Simon against Federer. 50/50 at best.

USA
06, 09, 13, 15, 16: Various non-Big 4 losses.
08: Do Fish and Roddick stop him? Probably not. Be generous here. +1.
11: Cilic/Tipsarevic/Tsonga in the final and Roddick in the semi? At this point, that's probably a win too. I suppose we'll be generous again. +1
14: Well, Nishikori beat a Novak (in 4) that beat him (in 4). I'm going to just say probably not. Especially since Cilic beat that same guy (in straights).

In total: +3.5 (or 5.5) AOs, +1 (or 2) RGs, +2 (or 4) Wimbledons, +0 (or 2) USOs. That's +6.5 at least by my calculations (I think about 9 or 10 slams is reasonable), and up to 13.5 at absolute maximum. That isn't even to mention the possibility of shock losses (which do happen) so 9-10 is probably much more reasonable than anything above 10.

My similar list (3+):
Murray 13
Agassi 10
Roddick 7
Wawrinka 6
Delpo 5
Thiem 5
Hewitt 4
Medvedev 4
Soderling 3
Ferrer 3
Cilic 3
(There are a few 2 timers, but it's tough to know exactly where to stop or what to count, so I left them off. Tsitsipas and Zverev were almost in though, might get in by the time Nadal and Djokovic are done. Sad to have to leave Berdych/Tsonga off too - they could've been on, but also could have not. It's tough to say, you could make a case for either. But I think 2+ for sure.)
 

travlerajm

Talk Tennis Guru
Assuming the timeline stays about the same as what it was (draws remain identical despite different seeings, injuries happen at the same time, bad form/off days still happen as they did, etc)...

(Listing all R4+ times)
Australia
07: Loses a close one to Rafa, who promptly goes out to Gonzalez. I wouldn't necessarily make Murray the favorite over Roddick, Haas, and Gonzalez. Let alone in a row. Low chance.
09: Verdasco loss.
10: Question is if Hewitt, Davydenko, or Tsonga could stop Murray. I'd say he probably takes it, but it's not a guarantee by any means. Let's be generous and say he takes it.
11-13: Takes it.
14: Tsonga/Dimitrov/Stan in a row? Murray isn't unstoppable. I say at the very least to be realistic, we don't give him this one.
15: Honest 50/50 with Stan.
16: I don't see Murray losing to Nishikori/Berdych, so let's be generous (I'll be saying this a lot, don't worry, I'm keeping track).
17: Nope.

France
09,10,12,17: Nope.
11: Needs to get past Soderling, then Monfils/Gasquet/Delpo/Fognini/Wawrinka? I could see it, but I don't think it's guaranteed. However, he did push Rafa and Novak to 3rd sets in 2 Masters that year and I have no reason why the others would succeed over him necessarily. +1 slam, but I'm being generous again.
14: I don't think he gets past Ferrer. Ferrer took a set off Nadal while Murray got taken to 5 by Monfils. This year on clay left a lot to be desired. Ferrer takes 2014.
15: Stan probably still gets the win. Would be tough to play against that guy on that day.
16: I think Murray gets this one. Wouldn't be a straight set affair against Thiem, but he'd win in 4.

Great Britain (oh boy)
06, 09, 14, 17: Non-Big 4 losses, nothing really to note. He'd lose anyway.
08: I can't see Murray falling before the final, where he'd face Safin/Ancic/Hewitt. Could be tough, but I can see him doing it. Let's be generous. +1.
10: It's 50/50 against Berdych, if he gets past Soderling, but let's assume 50/50.
11: Delpo/Fish and then Tsonga. Tough one, but generosity again. +1.
12: He wins.
15: Murray would be the favorite, but there's still 2 matches (semi and final), and he didn't show much more fight vs Fed than Gasquet vs Novak or Simon against Federer. 50/50 at best.

USA
06, 09, 13, 15, 16: Various non-Big 4 losses.
08: Do Fish and Roddick stop him? Probably not. Be generous here. +1.
11: Cilic/Tipsarevic/Tsonga in the final and Roddick in the semi? At this point, that's probably a win too. I suppose we'll be generous again. +1
14: Well, Nishikori beat a Novak (in 4) that beat him (in 4). I'm going to just say probably not. Especially since Cilic beat that same guy (in straights).

In total: +3.5 (or 5.5) AOs, +1 (or 2) RGs, +2 (or 4) Wimbledons, +0 (or 2) USOs. That's +6.5 at least by my calculations (I think about 9 or 10 slams is reasonable), and up to 13.5 at absolute maximum. That isn't even to mention the possibility of shock losses (which do happen) so 9-10 is probably much more reasonable than anything above 10.

My similar list (3+):
Murray 13
Agassi 10
Roddick 7
Wawrinka 6
Delpo 5
Thiem 5
Hewitt 4
Medvedev 4
Soderling 3
Ferrer 3
Cilic 3
(There are a few 2 timers, but it's tough to know exactly where to stop or what to count, so I left them off. Tsitsipas and Zverev were almost in though, might get in by the time Nadal and Djokovic are done. Sad to have to leave Berdych/Tsonga off too - they could've been on, but also could have not. It's tough to say, you could make a case for either. But I think 2+ for sure.)
This looks about right.
 

Poisoned Slice

Bionic Poster
26th slam in the bag. I think I'll make Kim and I an Indian tonight.

Oh, yummy.

Yummy indeed, my dear. And secretary, you tell Chef Ramsay that I call the shots now, ok. His scrambled eggs are ****.

slam.jpg
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Let me take a dive on Murray

Wim 08 - 50/50
USO 08 - 50/50
AO 10 - probably wins
Wim 10 - probably wins
AO 11- probably wins
RG 11 - probably loses
Wim 11 - 50/50
USO 11 - probably wins
AO 12 - probably wins
Wim 12 - wins
USO 12 - won anyway
AO 13 - 50/50
Wim 13 - won anyway
AO 14 - loses
RG 14 - probably loses
USO 14 - loses
AO 15 - 50/50
RG 15 - probably loses
Wim 15 - probably wins
AO 16 - probably wins
RG 16 - wins
Wim 16 - won anyway

Let’s say Murray loses 2 probably wins and 3 50/50 of the because some of those are pretty tough and Stan in AO 13 played what is arguably the best AO match.

That leaves him on 13 slams but assuming everything stays similar which it might not. Does he have more confidence and less injury problems for example?

Wim 08 - Murray had to save MP vs Gasquet (was down 2 sets to love). Safin takes this
USO 08 - Roddick gets through to the final in which case he's favored.
AO 10 - is between Murray and davy. Either could win. Its not Murray being particularly favored
Wim 10 - is between Murray, Berdych, Sod. Either of the 3 can win it.
AO 11 - Murray is favorite among the 3, but wouldn't rule out Berdych or Stan
RG 11 - someone in the field gets Murray (delpo, monfils, stan, tsonga, isner whoever)
Wim 11 - is between Murray, Tsonga (maybe throw in delpo). Murray favorite over tsonga in matchup, but if tsonga GOATs like in QF, all bets are off
USO 11 - favorite to win it. ironic considering level was not that good compared to some of the others above.
AO 12 - Murray slight favorite over Berdych, I'd say
Wim 12 - wins this
USO 12 - won
AO 13 - between Murray and Stan
Wim 13 - won
AO 15 - between Murray and Stan again
RG 15 - loses to Stan obviously
Wim 15 - favorite to win this
AO 16 - favorite to win it.
RG 16 - wins this
Wim 16 - won

Throw in couple of upsets
So I have him in the range of 9-12 slams.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Andre isn't beating Federer/Nole on Grass, neither is he even stretching Rafa/Novak to 5 on Clay.

So all he has is HCs, you say he takes 12-13 there? :rolleyes:

Agassi could absolutely beat djokovic on grass if Djokovic lost to past prime/prime-ish fed in Wim 12, lost in straights to Murray in 13 and in 4 sets to Querrey in Wim 16.

Agassi isn't stretching Djokovic to 5 on clay? :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
Seppi was up 2 sets to love in 12. Tsonga had MPs. Murray took him to 5 sets in 15.
gulbis played a competitive 4-setter in 14.

Enough with the Djokobotian nonsense. Guy doesn't have a better form opponent win than Tsonga of RG 12, which pales in comparision to so many others.
and trying to equate prime djoko with prime fed on grass or trying to make prime Djoko invincible on grass. Puhlease.
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
Assuming the timeline stays about the same as what it was (draws remain identical despite different seeings, injuries happen at the same time, bad form/off days still happen as they did, etc)...

(Listing all R4+ times)
Australia
07: Loses a close one to Rafa, who promptly goes out to Gonzalez. I wouldn't necessarily make Murray the favorite over Roddick, Haas, and Gonzalez. Let alone in a row. Low chance.
09: Verdasco loss.
10: Question is if Hewitt, Davydenko, or Tsonga could stop Murray. I'd say he probably takes it, but it's not a guarantee by any means. Let's be generous and say he takes it.
11-13: Takes it.
14: Tsonga/Dimitrov/Stan in a row? Murray isn't unstoppable. I say at the very least to be realistic, we don't give him this one.
15: Honest 50/50 with Stan.
16: I don't see Murray losing to Nishikori/Berdych, so let's be generous (I'll be saying this a lot, don't worry, I'm keeping track).
17: Nope.

France
09,10,12,17: Nope.
11: Needs to get past Soderling, then Monfils/Gasquet/Delpo/Fognini/Wawrinka? I could see it, but I don't think it's guaranteed. However, he did push Rafa and Novak to 3rd sets in 2 Masters that year and I have no reason why the others would succeed over him necessarily. +1 slam, but I'm being generous again.
14: I don't think he gets past Ferrer. Ferrer took a set off Nadal while Murray got taken to 5 by Monfils. This year on clay left a lot to be desired. Ferrer takes 2014.
15: Stan probably still gets the win. Would be tough to play against that guy on that day.
16: I think Murray gets this one. Wouldn't be a straight set affair against Thiem, but he'd win in 4.

Great Britain (oh boy)
06, 09, 14, 17: Non-Big 4 losses, nothing really to note. He'd lose anyway.
08: I can't see Murray falling before the final, where he'd face Safin/Ancic/Hewitt. Could be tough, but I can see him doing it. Let's be generous. +1.
10: It's 50/50 against Berdych, if he gets past Soderling, but let's assume 50/50.
11: Delpo/Fish and then Tsonga. Tough one, but generosity again. +1.
12: He wins.
15: Murray would be the favorite, but there's still 2 matches (semi and final), and he didn't show much more fight vs Fed than Gasquet vs Novak or Simon against Federer. 50/50 at best.

USA
06, 09, 13, 15, 16: Various non-Big 4 losses.
08: Do Fish and Roddick stop him? Probably not. Be generous here. +1.
11: Cilic/Tipsarevic/Tsonga in the final and Roddick in the semi? At this point, that's probably a win too. I suppose we'll be generous again. +1
14: Well, Nishikori beat a Novak (in 4) that beat him (in 4). I'm going to just say probably not. Especially since Cilic beat that same guy (in straights).

In total: +3.5 (or 5.5) AOs, +1 (or 2) RGs, +2 (or 4) Wimbledons, +0 (or 2) USOs. That's +6.5 at least by my calculations (I think about 9 or 10 slams is reasonable), and up to 13.5 at absolute maximum. That isn't even to mention the possibility of shock losses (which do happen) so 9-10 is probably much more reasonable than anything above 10.

My similar list (3+):
Murray 13
Agassi 10
Roddick 7
Wawrinka 6
Delpo 5
Thiem 5
Hewitt 4
Medvedev 4
Soderling 3
Ferrer 3
Cilic 3
(There are a few 2 timers, but it's tough to know exactly where to stop or what to count, so I left them off. Tsitsipas and Zverev were almost in though, might get in by the time Nadal and Djokovic are done. Sad to have to leave Berdych/Tsonga off too - they could've been on, but also could have not. It's tough to say, you could make a case for either. But I think 2+ for sure.)

AO 10 - Davy was in great form at the time AO 10. won YEC 09 beating basically everyone. won Doha 10 again beating fed/nadal b2b.
It'd be close between him and Murray in AO 10.
AO 13 - again Stan is there.

RG 11- doubtful Murray gets past the field

Wim 08 - come on, Murray had to save MP vs Gasquet after being down 2 sets to love. He loses to Safin.
Wim 15 - he definitely played better than Simon did vs Fed. I see Murray edging out Gasquet for this one.

USO 08 - Roddick in a USO final in front of his home crowd vs a not yet overcome slam finalitis Murray. Yeah, I'd say Roddick edges this one out.
 

Kralingen

Talk Tennis Guru
If there was no Baghdatis, then Roger would have 20 slams.
19, actually. Bandian had just beaten Federer at the 05 YEC and while Fed’s ankle was in better shape by AO ‘06, he was still vulnerable. David was the only player of that entire generation who didn’t have fear of Federer and could match him from the baseline. Without Baggy, there was a high possibility that Nalbo could’ve pulled it off.
 
H

Herald

Guest
19, actually. Bandian had just beaten Federer at the 05 YEC and while Fed’s ankle was in better shape by AO ‘06, he was still vulnerable. David was the only player of that entire generation who didn’t have fear of Federer and could match him from the baseline. Without Baggy, there was a high possibility that Nalbo could’ve pulled it off.
And then he may never have continued winning majors. In fact, Sampnet may have sent Nalby into the past to retroactively prevent Roger from winning any majors. It's deep man.
 

Mike Sams

G.O.A.T.
It would be called the weakest era of all-time, so no.
But if the big 3 had never existed, then we wouldn't even know what is a strong era or weak era. Because there'd be nobody to compare them to. We'd just imagine Murray and a few others to be the GOAT with unworldly talent.
 

DSH

Talk Tennis Guru
It does not work like that.
I would give him an estimate between 8 Major titles minimum and 12 Major titles maximum.
8-B
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
Andre isn't beating Federer/Nole on Grass
Andre sure as hell would have defeated Fed on grass in 1999 and 2000. And he retired in 2006 before Djokovic had done anything, so that hypothetical is moot.

I'll guarantee you never saw Andre play one single match or you wouldn't write such drivel.
 
I don't think it works that way, OP. I mean, if the other three weren't there, then Murray's competition wouldn't have been broken shells of men. I don't think Murray was ever at the "rip your heart out" level that has been common for Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. Some of the "broken" would present him with plenty of problems.
 

Razer

Legend
Andre sure as hell would have defeated Fed on grass in 1999 and 2000. And he retired in 2006 before Djokovic had done anything, so that hypothetical is moot.

I'll guarantee you never saw Andre play one single match or you wouldn't write such drivel.

I've seen Andre play in 2004 and 2005, yes he would never have beaten Federer or Novak on Grass if all of them were at their peaks. He can beat them on HCs but not on Grass where they essentially are superior athletes in movement to him with better serves too.

There is a reason why Federer has 8 wimbledons and Novak has 7 while Andre only has 1, it is not drivel to say that at their peaks they are all a tier above Andre. 1999 was probably a great version of Agassi but then the game has moved on, the Big 3 play higher level tennis. Most of the balls which vroomed past the receiver in 1990s would all be returned back in 2010s by the Big 3, the videos are there on youtube for everyone to see.
 
Top