Is Alcaraz already greater than Andy Murray?

[BorgTheGOAT]

I read just fine.

I’ve told you numerous times that I find your method of reasoning (and obsession with a false timeline) to be utterly contemptuous.

Fool’s errand.

If you are not interested in a discussion why not simply stay out of it? Just an idea.

 

[mike danny]

Yeah please attack every discussion here in TTW involving hypotheticals lol good luck. You cannot tell me even a year in 2003-2011 where it can be reasonably assumed that Murray wins Wimbledon but just simply say it is hypothetical so let’s ignore it altogether. Sure it is, but there are hypotheticals where yiu can make reasonable assumptions based on what actually happened. But I will look out for future posts of yours whether you are so strict on every hypothetical discussion here in the future as well.

I also said where he stands among the ATGs (multiple times actually). If you can’t read it’s your problem.

Look I genuinely don’t care whether you want to engage in further discussions with me lol. Not sure why you brought that even up.

He does’t like hypotheticals, bit has no issues claiming Murray would easily beat Hewitt and Roddick at the USO based on wins in a small event in 2006

 

[mike danny]

So if Murray had beaten Federer in ‘15, he’d have been the favourite to beat Djokovic in that final on account of his 2-0 H2H on Centre Court and 5-0 in sets?

I know I’m restricting it to Wimbledon, but that is the topic at hand and we are talking about previous matches being indicators of future results.

There is a larger sample size with Fed-Murray than with Djoko-Murray on grass

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Literally no one. Birdman was used as an example of a less quality player than Murray who did better (at Slams) against Big 3 guys.

Yeah exactly. By me even. But those guys want to understand it wrong on purpose.

 

[abmk]

Okay, but how does this discount the idea that Murray’s level was demonstrable in how he efficiently handled his business?

i already said he was excellent in Oly 12.

Respectfully, I flat out cannot agree that Djokovic in the SF is more favourable than Del Potro.

you are just looking at name/paper draw instead of actually what happened.
then you can't complain when people look at actually what happened.

before AO 13, no one would agree that wawrinka in 4R was tougher than Murray in final for djoko. But we all saw what happened.
based on what happened, delpo was clearly tougher/better in Oly 12.

 

[Mainad]

Of course that’s how you see it since it puts Murray in a good light

Well, someone's got to redress the balance, haven't they?

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

There is a larger sample size with Fed-Murray than with Djoko-Murray on grass

Lol they fail with literally every post.

 

[Rebel-I.N.S]

Of course that’s how you see it since it outs Murray in a good light

And reciprocally, you elevate Roddick because of the implications for Federer’s legacy.

Isn’t this exactly the point @Djokovic2011 made a few pages ago? Regarding who props up whom?

 

[Maddamhussein]

He does’t like hypotheticals, bit has no issues claiming Murray would easily beat Hewitt and Roddick at the USO based on wins in a all event in 2006

I did.

A foetal Murray beat them both on American soil and I said that he’d be likelier to do it to them in his prime years, as a result.

I’d argue that that’s a slightly more rational take then discounting a man’s achievements in the toughest era ever and saying “but if he was born in 1981…”

What tf is that?

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Bery tough to get a good faith argument going.

 

[mike danny]

And reciprocally, you elevate Roddick because of the implications for Federer’s legacy.

Isn’t this exactly the point @Djokovic2011 made a few pages ago? Regarding who props up whom?

Some of us are simply saying that Roddick was tougher for Fed at Wimb than Murray, that’s just stating a fact, not elevating. It’s not like any of us claimed Roddick is better than Murray.

If that hurts some people, it’s their problem

 

[Mainad]

Some of us are simply saying that Roddick was tougher for Fed at Wimb than Murray, that’s just stating a fact, not elevating. It’s not like any of us claimed Roddick is better than Murray.

If that hurts some people, it’s their problem

Wonder how Rodders would have fared facing Fed in an Olympic final instead?

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

A foetal Murray beat them both on American soil and I said that he’d be likelier to do it to them in his prime years, as a result.

I’d argue that that’s a slightly more rational take then discounting a man’s achievements in the toughest era ever and saying “but if he was born in 1981…

An older Fed beat Murray twice at Wimbledon and we say he would be more likely to do it in his prime years, so you admit you applied literally the same reasoning when it suited you. Thanks for sharing.

 

[mike danny]

I did.

A foetal Murray beat them both on American soil and I said that he’d be likelier to do it to them in his prime years, as a result.

I’d argue that that’s a slightly more rational take then discounting a man’s achievements in the toughest era ever and saying “but if he was born in 1981…”

What tf is that?

Same rationale is applied by the other side: given how convincingly Fed beat Murray in BO5 more often than not, he’d very likely deny Murray a Wimb during his own prime.

I’d say that’s a better argument than using some 250 matches to boast your claim against not even prime versions of them. Why isn’t Roddick’s win in Cincy over that same Murray more relevant than a San Jose match?

 

[mike danny]

Wonder how Rodders would have fared facing Fed in an Olympic final instead?

Against that Fed? Quite well, I’d say

 

[Maddamhussein]

There is a larger sample size with Fed-Murray than with Djoko-Murray on grass

And there it is.

You’re perfectly fine with citing Rafa/Murray at Wimbledon when it suits you though when there is only one match difference.

You’re fine with making concessions for your heroes but you can’t even give Murray a crumb of a crumb, here.

It’s your model that I’m applying here and you still couldn’t answer. Tbf, I knew you wouldn’t answer it cos it’d show you up for the hypocrites that you’re being.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Same rationale is applied by the other side: given how convincingly Fed beat Murray in BO5 more often than not, he’d very likely deny Murray a Wimb during his own prime.

I’d say that’s a better argument than using some 250 matches to boast your claim against not even prime versions of them. Why isn’t Roddick’s win in Cincy over that same Murray more relevant than a San Jose match?

Lol at that point it is simply getting ridiculous. Can someone twist himself into more absurd knots.

 

[RS]

Carlitos at 22 now has 5 slams won vs Murray who has 3 slams won. Murray does have a better non-slams resume than Carlos (for now) though, as he won 14 Masters, 2 Olympic gold medals, 1 YEN1, 1 YEC, and 41 weeks at number one all while playing in the big 3 era compared to Carlos who has won 7 Masters, 1 Olympic silver medal, 0 YEC, 1 YEN1, and 36 weeks at number one.

However, 2 more slams is a lot....not to mention Carlos has won a major on every surface, and he's only 22

Great thread man.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Great thread man.

 

[Maddamhussein]

An older Fed beat Murray twice at Wimbledon and we say he would be more likely to do it in his prime years, so you admit you applied literally the same reasoning when it suited you. Thanks for sharing.

Was that the issue I was taking up with you though?

The rationale here makes sense, and I’m fine with the conclusion.

Don’t hide behind a different topic and attach it to me.

 

[mike danny]

And there it is.

You’re perfectly fine with citing Rafa/Murray at Wimbledon when it suits you though when there is only one match difference.

You’re fine with making concessions for your heroes but you can’t even give Murray a crumb of a crumb, here.

It’s your model that I’m applying here and you still couldn’t answer. Tbf, I knew you wouldn’t answer it cos it’d show you up for the hypocrites that you’re being.

I didn’t bring up Murrdal at Wimb in an argument about Fed and Murray.

Again, it’s all hypothetical, but I’ve yet to see a valid argument for why Murray would stand a chance vs Fed other than personal feelings

 

[Maddamhussein]

I didn’t bring up Murrdal at Wimb in an argument about Fed and Murray.

No, but you’d refer to it in another discussion as if it’s representative of anything, which it is by the way. I’m saying we can do the same with Murrovic despite it being one match fewer.

Two matches within a 12 month period with two players in their prime at Wimbledon is good enough to be used as an indicator of a hypothetical match that would then take place at the same venue, two years later.

That’s all I’m saying.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Was that the issue I was taking up with you though?

The rationale here makes sense, and I’m fine with the conclusion.

Don’t hide behind a different topic and attach it to me.

Then what is your issue? I seriously don’t get it.

 

[RS]

For exactly that reason.

 

[mike danny]

No, but you’d refer to it in another discussion as if it’s representative of anything, which it is by the way. I’m saying we can do the same with Murrovic despite it being one match fewer.

Two matches within a 12 month period with two players in their prime at Wimbledon is good enough to be used as an indicator of a hypothetical match that would then take place at the same venue, two years later.

That’s all I’m saying.

Go ahead if you like, I’ll have my popcorn ready.

Djoker’s record vs Murray on grass is not something that can be dismissed

 

[Maddamhussein]

Then what is your issue? I seriously don’t get it.

We’ve covered this. It’s your hypocrisy.

I made the point, yesterday, while people were talking about Murray/Becker that people might make comparisons because their numbers, slam totals aside, are near identical. I made the point that Murray is in the top 10 of a lot of Grand Slam related stats and that he has the weeks at no.1 on Becker and you said that doesn’t matter, Becker has the slams and higher peak level. I agreed and said that Murray, in any case, wouldn’t be miles away from him which you of course pushed back on.

You said that Murray is on Kuertens level instead - a man that has never made a semi outside of the French Open on account of the three slams at FO and his 2 extra weeks at number one - a stat that you ignored when I raised it with Becker.

I come back on today and you and Razer are indulging in the latter’s fantasy of Murray being born in 1981 and ending up slamless. What does that have to do with what he achieved in the prime of the Big 3? You say you give him his due credit but you can’t even let him have the crumbs that he earned off the Big 3. It’s pathetic. Beyond, in fact.

You pick and choose what stats take precedence, as long as Murray is made to look unfavourable in it. But when it’s one of your heroes, suddenly these things don’t matter.

We have had Stan/Murray comparisons for almost a decade now, you don’t see me dumping on him unprompted for my own amusement. Because it would be in bad taste to do so, especially as a big tennis fan.

That’s what makes you petty and a hypocrite. I count your pals in this as well.

 

[Rebel-I.N.S]

i already said he was excellent in Oly 12.


you are just looking at name/paper draw instead of actually what happened.
then you can't complain when people look at actually what happened.

before AO 13, no one would agree that wawrinka in 4R was tougher than Murray in final for djoko. But we all saw what happened.
based on what happened, delpo was clearly tougher/better in Oly 12.

You are very much underselling Murray’s shading of Djokovic in that SF and Novak’s relative level overall.

Djokovic cared so much to win a Bronze medal that he pulled out of the Mixed Doubles BMM in Tokyo.

Federer may have felt drained in that final but must take responsibility for allowing his opponent to take him to four and a half hours. Federer’s fatigue is on Federer.

And speaking of AO ‘13, there are similarities with Murray being dragged to five by Fed in that tournament. It’s logical to assume this is why Murray’s physical state (blisters) deteriorated in sets three and four of that match. And like Federer in 2012, that’s on Murray for not dispatching his opponent more readily.

 

[RS]

Yeah Fed obviously didn't turn up to the Oly 12 final but Murray destroying him like that was impressive and entertaining.

 

[abmk]

You are very much underselling Murray’s shading of Djokovic in that SF and Novak’s relative level overall.

not at all. I said Murray was excellent and Djokovic. was You are over-rating Djokovic's level compared to delpo's at that Olympics

Djokovic cared so much to win a Bronze medal that he pulled out of the Mixed Doubles BMM in Tokyo.

massive difference when he was 25 to when he was 34. body demands are different.

Federer may have felt drained in that final but must take responsibility for allowing his opponent to take him to four and a half hours. Federer’s fatigue is on Federer.

And speaking of AO ‘13, there are similarities with Murray being dragged to five by Fed in that tournament. It’s logical to assume this is why Murray’s physical state (blisters) deteriorated in sets three and four of that match. And like Federer in 2012, that’s on Murray for not dispatching his opponent more readily.

you are just refusing to admit delpo at Oly 12 was playing clearly better than djokovic there inspite of all evidence pointing to it. that's your problem.
also coming up with fairytales that djokovic didn't care about bronze medal in 12 when I literally posted a clip showing Djokovic was nearly in tears when the match ended,
show some semblance of honesty or I'm done.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

We’ve covered this. It’s your hypocrisy.

I made the point, yesterday, while people were talking about Murray/Becker that people might make comparisons because their numbers, slam totals aside, are near identical. I made the point that Murray is in the top 10 of a lot of Grand Slam related stats and that he has the weeks at no.1 on Becker and you said that doesn’t matter, Becker has the slams and higher peak level. I agreed and said that Murray, in any case, wouldn’t be miles away from him which you of course pushed back on.

You said that Murray is on Kuertens level instead - a man that has never made a semi outside of the French Open on account of the three slams at FO and his 2 extra weeks at number one - a stat that you ignored when I raised it with Becker.

I come back on today and you and Razer are indulging in the latter’s fantasy of Murray being born in 1981 and ending up slamless. What does that have to do with what he achieved in the prime of the Big 3? You say you give him his due credit but you can’t even let him have the crumbs that he earned off the Big 3. It’s pathetic. Beyond, in fact.

You pick and choose what stats take precedence, as long as Murray is made to look unfavourable in it. But when it’s one of your heroes, suddenly these things don’t matter.

We have had Stan/Murray comparisons for almost a decade now, you don’t see me dumping on him unprompted for my own amusement. Because it would be in bad taste to do so, especially as a big tennis fan.

That’s what makes you petty and a hypocrite. I count your pals in this as well.

Dear lord. Let’s tackle it 1:1.

comparisons because their numbers, slam totals aside, are near identical.

Yeah “slam numbers aside” is the key. Slam numbers unfortunately is by far the most important metric. Becker is three ahead here which in the single digit area is a lot. This is very tough to make up for by finals, semis etc. Also keep in mind that during Becker’s time a) there were more polarised conditions and b) we had 16 seed system. During Becker’s time it was way tougher to reach later stages of EVERY slam. Even Ferrer put up great consistent numbers of quarters and semis, more than way more accomplished players from the 80s/90s.
During Becker’s time the importance ranking was:

1) Wimbledon
2) other slams
3) YEC/Davis Cup/weeks and YE #1 (interchangeable)
4) (already way below) masters
5) (light years below) Olympics (even some 500 equivalents were more important)

Becker is top 5 OE at Wimbledon, close to GOAT candidate at YEC, GOAT at DC and still has a Murray-like career at 2). His only black mark are weeks at No.1 but ranking system was still ****ty during that times. He wouldn’t have got to 41 like Murray most likely but he would have come closer had it been for accurate rankings.
Murray on the other hand has his two OGs which weren’t important during Becker’s time but it does not quite make up for the YEC/Davis Cup success of Becker.

You said that Murray is on Kuertens level instead - a man that has never made a semi outside of the French Open on account of the three slams at FO and his 2 extra weeks at number one - a stat that you ignored when I raised it with Becker.

Yeah exactly because Kuerten is equal with Murray IN THE MOST IMPORTANT STAT SLAM COUNT WHILE BOTH ARE THREE BEHIND BECKER. What exactly is so outrageous for you to say those two are closer to each other than they are to Becker??? As if semis, finals or quarters are more important here. The weeks at No.1 are the second most important stat during Kuerten’s and Murray’s time and here Kuerten is even ahead. They are both ahead of Becker but I have addressed that above. It is still a plus for Murray to close the gap to Becker but not enough imho.

I come back on today and you and Razer are indulging in the latter’s fantasy of Murray being born in 1981 and ending up slamless. What does that have to do with what he achieved in the prime of the Big 3? You say you give him his due credit but you can’t even let him have the crumbs that he earned off the Big 3. It’s pathetic. Beyond, in fact.

We said 1982 first of all and second what’s the problem? You admitted above that you find it reasonable that Murray will not beat Fed in 2003-2007, so that would basically mean he ends up slamless other than if you give him the odd USO which I also cannot see during Fed’s prime. It has nothing to do with what he achieved in real life it is just a hypothetical but because many posters here deliberately understood Razer wrong and claimed he had said Roddick would be greater than Murray I chimed in and explained why the hypothetical is reasonable imho.

You say you give him his due credit but you can’t even let him have the crumbs that he earned off the Big 3. It’s pathetic. Beyond, in fact.

I said multiple times that I have him slightly below Courier but above Kuerten, Stan, Roddick, Safin, Hewitt etc. Closer to Kuerten and Stan than to Becker. This is my stance and most reasonable posters will agree. If you don’t fine, I will not discuss that any further.

But when it’s one of your heroes, suddenly these things don’t matter.

Lol who are my heroes??

That’s what makes you petty and a hypocrite. I count your pals in this as well.

Yeah whatever not that I cared.

 

[mike danny]

Yeah Fed obviously didn't turn up to the Oly 12 final but Murray destroying him like that was impressive and entertaining.

But Murray fans use it to further their narrative.

 

[Djokovic2011]

You are very much underselling Murray’s shading of Djokovic in that SF and Novak’s relative level overall.

Djokovic cared so much to win a Bronze medal that he pulled out of the Mixed Doubles BMM in Tokyo.

Federer may have felt drained in that final but must take responsibility for allowing his opponent to take him to four and a half hours. Federer’s fatigue is on Federer.

And speaking of AO ‘13, there are similarities with Murray being dragged to five by Fed in that tournament. It’s logical to assume this is why Murray’s physical state (blisters) deteriorated in sets three and four of that match. And like Federer in 2012, that’s on Murray for not dispatching his opponent more readily.

I completely agree with this and have said a similar thing over the years whenever people talk about how tired Djokovic was after his semifinal with Delpo, almost as a way of trying to take credit away from Murray's great victory. At the end of the day Djokovic could(and should) have won his match in 4 so it's on him for being physically drained in the final just as it was with Federer a year earlier at the Olympics. FWIW I think Andy would've won regardless even if Novak had been a bit fresher, he was just the slightly better grass court player at the time.

 

[mike danny]

Let’s all remember that Youzhny destroyed 2008 Nadal 6-0 6-1 at one point. Clearly a greater peak than Djokovic

 

[RS]

Dubai 2008 Youzhny vs Nadal and Olympics 2012 Murray vs Fed comparison

 

[Mainad]

Against that Fed? Quite well, I’d say

Straight sets then?

 

[mike danny]

Straight sets then?

If he plays at his very best then yes

 

[Mainad]

If he plays at his very best then yes

He would have liked that. A title at Wimbledon beating his old nemesis even if not the one he would have preferred. But given how close he came in 2009 but couldn't get over the line do you think it would probably have happened again?

 

[Djokovic2011]

If he plays at his very best then yes

Roddick ain't beating any version of Federer in straights sets in a best of 5 on grass lol. Come on now.

 

[mike danny]

He would have liked that. A title at Wimbledon beating his old nemesis even if not the one he would have preferred. But given how close he came in 2009 but couldn't get over the line do you think it would probably have happened again?

If that Olympics F version of Fed shows up, it doesn’t go that far

 

[mike danny]

Roddick ain't beating any version of Federer in straights sets in a best of 5 on grass lol. Come on now.

Easy to say that when he never faced a version of Fed like that. Murray isn’t beating any good Fed in straights either

 

[Razer]

Both Roddick and Federer were reliant on their serves in 2009. Roddick, with his hopeless returning is what lost him the match. Murray's return is going to be much better, which combined with his far superior to Roddick ground game would tip the balance to him. Murray, with Roddick's birthday is 26 in Wimbledon 2009, which means it's 2013 Murray.

Roddick is 5 years older to Murray

So 2014 Murray would be in 2009, not 2013. FYI even 2013 Murray would get stomped by 2009 Federer because Murray doesn't have Roddick's serve to take it to 5 vs Federer, let alone win that. Get it a rest Herald, in no universe is Murray touching peak Federer when IRL he struggled vs a past his prime Federer of 12-15.

 

[Holmes]

Roddick is 5 years older to Murray

So 2014 Murray would be in 2009, not 2013. FYI even 2013 Murray would get stomped by 2009 Federer because Murray doesn't have Roddick's serve to take it to 5 vs Federer, let alone win that. Get it a rest Herald, in no universe is Murray touching peak Federer when IRL he struggled vs a past his prime Federer of 12-15.

Roddick was 26 at Wimbledon in 2009. Murray was 26 in 2013. The point about the serve has been covered, and your trolling is getting painfully obvious. Your homework is to review the discussion, summarize the key points, and explain exactly where you went wrong. Due Monday.

 

[Holmes]

Roddick ain't beating any version of Federer in straights sets in a best of 5 on grass lol. Come on now.

Roddick straight setting Fed in a best of 5 when he couldn't even capitalize on 4 set points to go up 2 sets to 0 against nervous, 30%erer in 2009? Some of these takes have me crying

 

[SonnyT]

Go ahead if you like, I’ll have my popcorn ready.

Djoker’s record vs Murray on grass is not something that can be dismissed

Of course, this was easily dismissed, they played only twice on grass, both won by Murray. It was a bad stretch by Djokovic, '12-14, only one winning slam per year!

 

[Holmes]

Go ahead if you like, I’ll have my popcorn ready.

Djoker’s record vs Murray on grass is not something that can be dismissed

Neither can Federer's v Djokovic.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Roddick was 26 at Wimbledon in 2009. Murray was 26 in 2013. The point about the serve has been covered, and your trolling is getting painfully obvious. Your homework is to review the discussion, summarize the key points, and explain exactly where you went wrong. Due Monday.

Pointless hairsplitting. Roddick turned 27 in August, just one and a half month after Wimbledon. Murray's bday is in May, roughly one month before Wimbledon. So it is reasonable to put 2014 Murray into 2009 not 2013. You also initially spoke about 27 years old Murray but then figured 2013 Murray would suit your agenda better. 2013 Murray would have to play in 2008 where he wont beat Fedal.

 

[abmk]

I completely agree with this and have said a similar thing over the years whenever people talk about how tired Djokovic was after his semifinal with Delpo, almost as a way of trying to take credit away from Murray's great victory. At the end of the day Djokovic could(and should) have won his match in 4 so it's on him for being physically drained in the final just as it was with Federer a year earlier at the Olympics. FWIW I think Andy would've won regardless even if Novak had been a bit fresher, he was just the slightly better grass court player at the time.

Murray would've won regardless in WIm 13 final and Oly 12 final, but it would be tighter. Pretending otherwise is BS.

And again what does this have to do with the fact that delpo in Oly 12 was clearly better than djoko in Oly 12?
refusing to accept that is pure Murray fanboyism
that djokovic didn't care about Oly bronze medal in 12 is also pure Murray fanboyism when djoko was on the verge of tears as seen in the clip I posted.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Murray would've won regardless in WIm 13 final and Oly 12 final, but it would be tighter. Pretending otherwise is BS.

And again what does this have to do with the fact that delpo in Oly 12 was clearly better than djoko in Oly 12?
refusing to accept that is pure Murray fanboyism
that djokovic didn't care about Oly bronze medal in 12 is also pure Murray fanboyism when djoko was on the verge of tears as seen in the clip I posted.

I do not understand where this notion comes from suddenly that Djoko did not care about that bronze match. Djoko has several times given the impression that he actually is the one of the big three that cares most about Olympics. He cried several times and even endangered the CYGS chances.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Dear lord. Let’s tackle it 1:1.

Yeah “slam numbers aside” is the key. Slam numbers unfortunately is by far the most important metric. Becker is three ahead here which in the single digit area is a lot. This is very tough to make up for by finals, semis etc. Also keep in mind that during Becker’s time a) there were more polarised conditions and b) we had 16 seed system. During Becker’s time it was way tougher to reach later stages of EVERY slam. Even Ferrer put up great consistent numbers of quarters and semis, more than way more accomplished players from the 80s/90s.
During Becker’s time the importance ranking was:

1) Wimbledon
2) other slams
3) YEC/Davis Cup/weeks and YE #1 (interchangeable)
4) (already way below) masters
5) (light years below) Olympics (even some 500 equivalents were more important)

Becker is top 5 OE at Wimbledon, close to GOAT candidate at YEC, GOAT at DC and still has a Murray-like career at 2). His only black mark are weeks at No.1 but ranking system was still ****ty during that times. He wouldn’t have got to 41 like Murray most likely but he would have come closer had it been for accurate rankings.
Murray on the other hand has his two OGs which weren’t important during Becker’s time but it does not quite make up for the YEC/Davis Cup success of Becker.

Yeah exactly because Kuerten is equal with Murray IN THE MOST IMPORTANT STAT SLAM COUNT WHILE BOTH ARE THREE BEHIND BECKER. What exactly is so outrageous for you to say those two are closer to each other than they are to Becker??? As if semis, finals or quarters are more important here. The weeks at No.1 are the second most important stat during Kuerten’s and Murray’s time and here Kuerten is even ahead. They are both ahead of Becker but I have addressed that above. It is still a plus for Murray to close the gap to Becker but not enough imho.

We said 1982 first of all and second what’s the problem? You admitted above that you find it reasonable that Murray will not beat Fed in 2003-2007, so that would basically mean he ends up slamless other than if you give him the odd USO which I also cannot see during Fed’s prime. It has nothing to do with what he achieved in real life it is just a hypothetical but because many posters here deliberately understood Razer wrong and claimed he had said Roddick would be greater than Murray I chimed in and explained why the hypothetical is reasonable imho.

I said multiple times that I have him slightly below Courier but above Kuerten, Stan, Roddick, Safin, Hewitt etc. Closer to Kuerten and Stan than to Becker. This is my stance and most reasonable posters will agree. If you don’t fine, I will not discuss that any further.

Lol who are my heroes??

Yeah whatever not that I cared.

Yeah, there’s room for disagreement like with almost any topic, but I didn’t detect any inconsistency or “hypocrisy” here.

 

[Razer]

Roddick was 26 at Wimbledon in 2009. Murray was 26 in 2013. The point about the serve has been covered, and your trolling is getting painfully obvious. Your homework is to review the discussion, summarize the key points, and explain exactly where you went wrong. Due Monday.

Roddick was almost 27 in 2009 Wimbledon, 1 month before his birthday the Wimbledon final happened
Murray was 26 years and 2 months during the 2013 Wimbledon final.

So the gap between Murray and Roddick's birthdates is 4 years and 9 months, that is almost 5. You trying round off 4.75 years to 4 instead of 5 is arguing in bad faith, so it is you who needs to do your Maths homework.