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

abmk

Bionic Poster
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.

Pappu level post seriously.
Agassi's best levels at Wim were 92,95, not 99.
And thinking you can judge 90s, early 2000s Agassi by watching 04-05 Agassi is beyond stupid.
Djoko got beat by past prime fed, Murray and querrey at his prime at Wim in 11-16. Had his struggle(s) in earlier rounds in 11, 14, 15 even when he won. He's better than Agassi on grass, but definitely beatable by him
Just because he vultured big time in 19-22 doesn't mean Agassi couldn't beat him.

Ivanisevic has 1 Wimbledon and he beat a good Sampras in 92. Krajicek has 1 Wimbledon and he beat prime Sampras in 96.

In case it isn't clear, fed is a tier above Djoko on grass level wise and it ain't remotely close. Stop equating the 2. Sampras is a tier above Djoko as well.

Agassi also had to play on inconsistent bouncing, faster grass at Wim.
Djok would be winning less than he has on that sort of grass for sure. And Agassi would be winning more on 2000s grass than he did.
 
Last edited:

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Pappu level post seriously.
Agassi's best levels at Wim were 92,95, not 99.
And thinking you can judge 90s, early 2000s Agassi by watching 04-05 Agassi is beyond stupid.
Djoko got beat by past prime fed, Murray and querrey at his prime at Wim in 11-16. He's better than Agassi on grass, but definitely beatable by him
Just because he vultured big time in 19-22 doesn't mean Agassi couldn't beat him.

In case it isn't clear, fed is a tier above Djoko prime to prime on grass and it ain't remotely close. Stop equating the 2.

Agassi also had to play on inconsistent bouncing, faster grass at Wim.
Djok would be winning less on that sort of grass for sure.

No Federer is not a tier above Djokovic prime to prime, he might be a better player with a higher level but "tier above" is a big word that can only be used against Murray, Roddick type men, not vs Djokovic or Nadal who have beaten him in Wimbledon finals. If Federer's peak was a tier above then he would not be 3-0 in finals even in his 30s. A man who cannot deliver a first serve for life on Championship Point is not a tier above his winning rival who is close to him in slams, you don't get to same ballpark in achievements without having similar peak levels. Peak to Peak both Djokovic and Nadal are in the same tier even if Fed is better.

You have been posting everywhere 100 times about Djokovic vulturing, cry all you want but 7 is very close to 8 and it might become 8 very soon. Fed being 0-3 is the finals and unable to serve out on grass at 40-15 certifies that 7 & 8 are in the same tier.
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
No Federer is not a tier above Djokovic prime to prime, he might be a better player with a higher level but "tier above" is a big word that can only be used against Murray, Roddick type men, not vs Djokovic or Nadal who have beaten him in Wimbledon finals. If Federer's peak was a tier above then he would not be 3-0 in finals even in his 30s. A man who cannot deliver a first serve for life on Championship Point is not a tier above his winning rival who is close to him in slams, you don't get to same ballpark in achievements without having similar peak levels. Peak to Peak both Djokovic and Nadal are in the same tier as Fed is better.

You have been posting everywhere 100 times about Djokovic vulturing, cry all you want but 7 is very close to 8 and it might become 8 very soon. Fed being 0-3 is the finals and unable to serve out on grass at 40-15 certifies that 7 & 8 are in the same tier.

3 out of 6 Wimbledons with none of the losses going to 5 compared to 6 out of 7 with the only loss being an epic 5-setter. yes, fed's a tier above on grass as is Sampras.
past prime Fed thrashed prime Djoko in Wim 12. that match more important level evaluation wise than when fed was ~33 and above. But you have selective amnesia,

and yes, Djokovic is the biggest vulture at a slam, ever.
past prime Fed, Murray and Querrey beat prime Djoko at Wim. Agassi can too. Go and actually watch agassi at Wim 92/95/99/00/01.
Not basing it on 2004/05 agassi :rolleyes:
Ivanisevic has 1 Wimbledon and he beat a good Sampras in 92. Krajicek has 1 Wimbledon and he beat prime Sampras in 96.

Edit: oh and yeah, Fed Wim 14/15/17 at Wim > Djoko Wim 19/21/22 by some margin. Yet djokovic with mega luck has 3 of those Wimbleonds (3 of the lowest levels in open era bar the 73 boycott one) whereas fed won only one of those 3.
 
Last edited:

No_Kwan_Do

Semi-Pro
I wouldn't give him as many as 17, but I'd certainly put him somewhere in the 10-14 category. It's difficult to quantify, because Murray may not have become the player he did had he not been pushing himself to the absolute limit season on season just to keep up the with the big 3.

Then you have the psychological toll that it took on these would-be slam contenders getting pummelled in major after major for over a decade by the big 3, and Murray to an extent. A lot of them were probably beaten before they even stepped onto the court against the Big 3. Murray had some of that intimidatory factor, but not all of it. How different would Berdych have been as a player for example if he had won a slam early in his career like Wimbledon 2010? With that extra belief he could have gone on and won a lot more. The same applies to players like Tsonga (Australia 2008), Ferrer (at RG) etc etc.

There's also the what if's around Del Potro as I believe he could have played a huge part in disrupting the pecking order as it were between 2010 and 2016, but alas, we can only go on the data we have regarding potential draws for Murray had the big 3 not been around.

Murray may not have had the consistency of the big 3, but he was reasonably close for over half-a-decade. He had a 78% win rate on tour prior to his hip injury in 2017, which put him above Sampras and into the top 10 all-time tour win percentages, so I wouldn't expect him to lose often, or at all in some cases against guys he had a positive H2H over, especially in most of his 2009-2016 years.

Against players like Davydenko (6-4), Roddick (8-3), Tsonga (14-2), Ferrer (14-6), Nishikori (9-2), Raonic (9-4), Berdych (11-6), Cilic (12-3) and Gasquet (9-4) (73% win rate against those players in total) I think he's winning around 65-70% of those finals. I'd give him :

AO - 4x (2010, 2011, 2013 and 2016)
RG - 1x (2016)
Wimbledon - 5x (2008, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016)
USO - 2x (2011, 2012)

USO 2008 : Roddick defeats him in the final. Home crowd support. Still in his prime. Murray's first slam final. 4 set win for Roddick.
W 2010 : Berdych to beat him in the Final, who played really well that tournament, but a closer match than the Nadal match ended up being. 4-sets.
FO 2011 : With no Nadal, Soderling becomes his SF opponent. I'd back Soderling to win in 4-sets against someone that still wasn't up to speed on clay.
W 2011 : 50/50 between him and Jo Tsonga. Took Djokovic to 4 in the SF with a couple of tight sets. I think he would have beaten Murray in 5 in the Final.
USO 2011 : He'd face Roddick in the SFs. I'd give that to Murray given how easily Nadal did actually take him out in the QFs that year.
FO 2014 : Murray/Ferrer is a 50/50 in the SF and the winner of that beats Gulbis or Raonic. I'd give it to Ferrer.
AO 2015 : Would be a 50/50 between him and Stan. I'll give it to Stan.

So 12 slams in total, and would have been 3 wins off completing the CYGS in 2016. Damn that bell.
 
Last edited:

socallefty

G.O.A.T.
So if there were no Big 3 and many other players won 5-8 Slams instead including younger players (instead of 3 players winning 63 Slams), would many of you argue that it was a stronger era of tennis? That is the argument used to justify previous eras being stronger that there were more ATGs winning titles. But, how can the quality of tennis played and the 2003-2022 era be stronger if you take out Federer, Djokovic and Nadal from the later stages of tournaments as competitors?
 
yato-herzog.gif
 
Top