Is Murray the unluckiest player ever

Raiden

Hall of Fame
What a preposterous, ungrateful, vain, prima-donna claim.

Ofcourse Murray is not the unluckiest player ever. In fact one of the luckiest alive. He escaped the Dunblane massacre, where he could have easily been one of the kids who were shot dead.
 
Last edited:

Turing

Rookie
A lot of that is his own fault though. He had plenty of chances to take slams away from them, but he faltered numerous times and played like crap. In any other era, he'd be losing to tons of other guys as well since his peak level just isn't that good.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Murray could very easily have been born in 1982 like Roddick and then have won 0 or 1 slam because his peak would then have clashed with Federer's and there is no going past Federer in any slam for his generation, then teenage nadal also arrived and it became impossible for Fed gen to win anything

This could have happened to Murray and Stan who were already pigeons of old federer, they could have been bigger pigeons with no slams if they were born like 5-6 years back.

So no, Andy Murray is very lucky that he did not end up like Tiger Tim Henman on 0 slams despite being a great talent.
 

RS

G.O.A.T.
Murray could very easily have been born in 1982 like Roddick and then have won 0 or 1 slam because his peak would then have clashed with Federer's and there is no going past Federer in any slam for his generation, then teenage nadal also arrived and it became impossible for Fed gen to win anything

This could have happened to Murray and Stan who were already pigeons of old federer, they could have been bigger pigeons with no slams if they were born like 5-6 years back.

So no, Andy Murray is very lucky that he did not end up like Tiger Tim Henman on 0 slams despite being a great talent.
Murray >> Roddick
 

Sunny014

Legend
Murray >> Roddick
13>10 but then compared to 100 they are both quite small .....

Roddick and Murray r same types, whether 1 is slightly better than other doesn't matter, they are both pigeons of Fed ..... better pigeon or worse pigeon doesn't matter as pigeons all the same
 

Sunny014

Legend
Inferiors like Murray never could tame the big 3 because his actual level was that of roddick's and hewitt's ..... he is in that league in terms of peak level and shall forever remain so, so no matter how consistently above average he was doesn't matter, in any other era he would scored between 1-3 slams and nothing more.
 

RS

G.O.A.T.
13>10 but then compared to 100 they are both quite small .....

Roddick and Murray r same types, whether 1 is slightly better than other doesn't matter, they are both pigeons of Fed ..... better pigeon or worse pigeon doesn't matter as pigeons all the same
At this rate you might as well just call Murray a worse player and say stats and numbers mean nothing :D
 
Last edited:

Sunny014

Legend
At this rate you might as well just call Murray a worse player and say stats and numbers and H2Hs mean nothing :D
I know that had Murray been in peak Fed's era then his slam count would be close to 0 or at max 1-2 in the Hewitt range.

So why should I buy this theory of murray winning 7-8 slams ?

U think he is in Boris Becker's league or Mcenroe's league to win 6-8 slams ???

Do you guys even know what it takes to win 5 slams ?

One has to be really really elite and consistent for a decade to take home that many slams and also should have a high ATG level peak.

Being a pigeon even 3 slams is an overachievement.
 

Sunny014

Legend
FYI if Murray was worth 7-8 slams (i.e he being in the Agassi-Becker category) then he would have won 7-8 slams and Big 3 instead of 20-20-20 would have been on something like 18-18-18 today which is still the world record but that wouldn't stop Murray from winning the slams he deserves. They are on 20 each because Murray is weak and not even half as good, not because of any special supernatural powers.

Stop glorifying the big 3 and everyone in their era. They big 3 are no better than Sampras or Borg or Mcenroe were at their peaks, just that these guys have far greater longevity to reach 20 slams each and play on homogeneous conditions favoring them,
 

Sunny014

Legend
Nice one bud. Roddick was a weak era mug who rolled over for Federer to inflate his slam count.
Murray on the other hand goes above Sampras in the GOAT race because he played in the strongest most evolved era of all time.
Many Murray Fanatics might actually be putting him on the level of Sampras/Agassi since the common perception on facebook is that big 3 are far ahead of pete and agassi
 

NoleIsBoat

Hall of Fame
Murray in any other era would be a 10-12 slam winner ->


He was the person that broke into the Federer-Nadal-Djokovic trio in their prime,” said Agassi, as quoted by Sky Sports.


He showed that he can play every bit up on their level.

“It is a rough generation to win a lot of Grand Slams.

“If Andy was in my generation he would have had probably three times the career.

“Those guys haven’t left much for others but Andy went in there and took it. I only have respect for him.

“He did, in some cases, against the biggest odds. He is a fighter at heart – you can see it out here, even in pain he is going to fight to the end.

“That is what you want to see. It is never fun to see him suffer on a tennis court, either emotionally or physically, but he never stopped fighting. That is the thing you have to respect.”




I guess Agassi is another clueless former pro who knows nothing compared to TTW gurus :whistle:
 
Murray could very easily have been born in 1982 like Roddick and then have won 0 or 1 slam because his peak would then have clashed with Federer's and there is no going past Federer in any slam for his generation, then teenage nadal also arrived and it became impossible for Fed gen to win anything

This could have happened to Murray and Stan who were already pigeons of old federer, they could have been bigger pigeons with no slams if they were born like 5-6 years back.

So no, Andy Murray is very lucky that he did not end up like Tiger Tim Henman on 0 slams despite being a great talent.
That is true actually. That is another way to look at it.

Although Murray's history with Federer is interesting. He did quite well vs Federer in the early going if you look at their head to head, then Federer figured him out and got more and more dominant as he aged out of his prime and Murray entered his. Very unusual.
 

Rago

Hall of Fame
Nice one bud. Roddick was a weak era mug who rolled over for Federer to inflate his slam count.
Murray on the other hand goes above Sampras in the GOAT race because he played in the strongest most evolved era of all time.
What?
 

Sunny014

Legend
That is true actually. That is another way to look at it.

Although Murray's history with Federer is interesting. He did quite well vs Federer in the early going if you look at their head to head, then Federer figured him out and got more and more dominant as he aged out of his prime and Murray entered his. Very unusual.
That would be nothing different from Hewitt doing good vs Federer in the teen years or in early 20s until Fed reversed everything at age 22.
You can expect something similar even if they were aged same and I assume Murray having some initial edge (unlikely but for assumptions sake :D )

Thats why it is not surprising than Hewitt and Murray have same similar career stats, they are actually same level players born 7 years apart, old wine in a new bottle.

Hewitt has 2 slams, 80 weeks at 1, two YEC Tittles and has lost 13 times in slams to the eventual champion.
Murray has 3 slams, 41 weeks at 1, one YEC title and has lost 13 times in slams to the eventual champion.

Similar players with similar talents, anyone glorifying Murray to be a 6-8 slams winner in other eras is delusional.
 

jhhachamp

Hall of Fame
Stop glorifying the big 3 and everyone in their era. They big 3 are no better than Sampras or Borg or Mcenroe were at their peaks, just that these guys have far greater longevity to reach 20 slams each and play on homogeneous conditions favoring them,
They not only have greater longevity, but also more dominance. Stop glorifying the older generation of players.
 

Jokervich

Hall of Fame
Not even really a fan of him, but just realizing he was the 4th best player in the era that had 3 guys who combined for 60 slams and counting. 3 GOATs who combined for 15 years worth of slams, LOL! To be the next best of that era, could you be anymore unlucky than that?
No, in my opinion Murray overachieved for his ability level. He was fortunate to win the 3 slams that he did.
 
no.. he just wasn't that good.. Its easy to see the flaws in Roddicks/Murray's respective games and see why they didn't have dominant careers. Murray had no real weapons (he was just a great returner with great stamina) and Roddick had no net game, athleticism, movement to back up his Serve/FH combo. They achieved about what their talents measure up to. You aren't going to dominate the game without real weapons, and you aren't going to dominate if all you have is a serve and FH and weak in every other facet of the game.

Both guys had good solid careers. They didn't have all time great talent, so naturally they weren't going to have all time great careers. Still, nothing wrong with their careers. Most guys would love to have their careers. They maximized their abilities.
 
Last edited:

Sunny014

Legend
They not only have greater longevity, but also more dominance. Stop glorifying the older generation of players.
Naa..

At age 29 in 2010 Federer had 16 Slams
At age 29 in 2015 Nadal had 14 Slams
At age 29 in 2000 Sampras had 13 Slams
At age 29 in 2016 Djokovic had 12 Slams
At age 26 in 1981 Borg had 11 Slams
Even Jimmy Connors could have had similar 11-12 type numbers had he not skipped AOs and missed the FO for many years during his peak.

What exceptional dominance do the Big 3 have?

Except Federer and Borg I don't see any exceptional numbers, remaining of that is vulturing in the 30s done by Big 3.

If I check the ladies section then I will have more slams won by age 29-30.

So the dominance of the big 3 is a big myth, they have been aided by some weak set of youngsters born after 1991, all of them useless garbage, if Roger Federer after 35 years of age can win 3 slams vs these youngsters then is it shocking that Djokovic and Nadal who are significantly younger would be milking them as well ????
 
That would be nothing different from Hewitt doing good vs Federer in the teen years or in early 20s until Fed reversed everything at age 22.
You can expect something similar even if they were aged same and I assume Murray having some initial edge (unlikely but for assumptions sake :D )

Thats why it is not surprising than Hewitt and Murray have same similar career stats, they are actually same level players born 7 years apart, old wine in a new bottle.

Hewitt has 2 slams, 80 weeks at 1, two YEC Tittles and has lost 13 times in slams to the eventual champion.
Murray has 3 slams, 41 weeks at 1, one YEC title and has lost 13 times in slams to the eventual champion.

Similar players with similar talents, anyone glorifying Murray to be a 6-8 slams winner in other eras is delusional.
Hewitt and Murray are totally different in that sense though since Murray was initially doing well head to head with Federer in 2008-2010 when Federer was still in or near his prime, and Murray while also close to his was on the rise. Then Murray did a lot worse as Federer aged well out of his prime, and Murray matured, which is the strange aspect of it. One of the more unusual archs of a rivalry.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Hewitt and Murray are totally different in that sense though since Murray was initially doing well head to head with Federer in 2008-2010 when Federer was still in or near his prime, and Murray while also close to his was on the rise. Then Murray did a lot worse as Federer aged well out of his prime, and Murray matured, which is the strange aspect of it. One of the more unusual archs of a rivalry.
Nothing strange about it, an inferior always remains an inferior.

Some wins in BO3 is just okay for a bit of a confidence, best of 5 is a different game, taking 3 sets is something that does not happen unless your peak game levels up vs the rival. Murray never had it in him to trouble Federer because he was never in that league even at his best, there was a lack of a real weapon in his armor, he was a baseliner who was just happy to keep the ball in play and expect some miracles.

It is not the number of above average weapons you have at your disposal, it is that 1 weapon which is powerful enough to make a difference that counts.

Roddick had the GOAT serve but no other skills to back it, his tennis IQ was average or else even with that serve that he could have won a few more slams.
Murray has decent enough IQ but no weapon to hurt a GOAT level candidate.
Hewitt also had decent enough IQ, good clutch and enough grit but again no weapons at his disposal.

Nadal had his forehand and his footspeed.
Djokovic has his return and his double handed GOAT backhand.

Safin also had his GOAT level backhand and massive forehand but he was inconsistent.

Without weapons murray and hewitt the same type of candidates, old wine in new bottle.
 

Rebel-I.N.S

Professional
As a Murray fan, I feel more rueful about his injuries after July 2017, rather than the competition he faced across his career.

He’d have got 6 slams if his hip hadn’t chucked it.
 
Top