Murray’s pre 2012 career vs Roddick’s whole career?

?


  • Total voters
    28

RS

Talk Tennis Guru
Not sure if Murray ever brought a Slam winning level before 2012 (and obviously didn’t win one)

Is this a troll thread?
Makes it interesting. Because if you add in 2012 then it’s just so clearly Murray.

Murray was still did well pre 12 even if he didn’t win a major?
 

Kralingen

G.O.A.T.
Makes it interesting. Because if you add in 2012 then it’s just so clearly Murray.

Murray was still did well pre 12 even if he didn’t win a major?
Name one Slam he brought an actually good, worth of Slam winning level?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS

RS

Talk Tennis Guru
Name one Slam he brought an actually good, worth of Slam winning level?
Played well in Wim 09/10/11 and USO 08 and even AO 07-09 was decent and like AO 10 but I admit he didn’t do that well in 2 of his 3 slam finals in comparison so I guess you could argue just the one because of that :D

Did well in Masters. Winning 8 I think.
 

BGod

G.O.A.T.
I like how 2012 is not included. Makes it a good margin for Roddick although if it was included I'd still favour Andy slightly. I think the OP messed up there.

Slam Titles: Roddick 1>0
Slam Finals: Roddick 5>3
Slam Semis: Roddick 10>8
Masters Titles: Murray 8>5
Masters Finals: Each 9-9
Weeks at #1: Roddick 13>0
Weeks in Top 2: Roddick 65>0
500 Titles: Roddick 5>3

I mean I'm not going to look at YEs as that would obviously tilt to Andy's favour for career length but the above is pretty self evident.
 

RS

Talk Tennis Guru
Peak Murray vs Peak Roddick, 10 matches in the four major tournaments, who wins?
:D
AO - 13-7 Murray
RG - 18-2 Murray
Wim - 10-10 ( Would five Olympics 12 Murray 12-8 though)
USO - 12-8 Roddick
 
Last edited:

Underdog

Semi-Pro
I like how 2012 is not included. Makes it a good margin for Roddick although if it was included I'd still favour Andy slightly. I think the OP messed up there.

Slam Titles: Roddick 1>0
Slam Finals: Roddick 5>3
Slam Semis: Roddick 10>8
Masters Titles: Murray 8>5
Masters Finals: Each 9-9
Weeks at #1: Roddick 13>0
Weeks in Top 2: Roddick 65>0
500 Titles: Roddick 5>3

I mean I'm not going to look at YEs as that would obviously tilt to Andy's favour for career length but the above is pretty self evident.
Interesting how Murray was 8/9 in masters finals
 

RS

Talk Tennis Guru
I forgot to keep the 2 votes limited option and sadly 2 posters took advantage of that.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Why not? Can’t get much better than what Murray did that week.
Murray and highest level ever simply don't go together. Big 3, Sampras, Agassi etc...all have dozens of better HC masters displays. You need to cool off on some of these takes.
 

Kralingen

G.O.A.T.
Murray and highest level ever simply don't go together. Big 3, Sampras, Agassi etc...all have dozens of better HC masters displays. You need to cool off on some of these takes.
Murray’s demolition of ATG Juan Monaco in the SFs still echoes in the annals of history to this day. It makes sense that strongest year ever (2010) produces the strongest Masters winners ever.
 

RS

Talk Tennis Guru
Murray and highest level ever simply don't go together. Big 3, Sampras, Agassi etc...all have dozens of better HC masters displays. You need to cool off on some of these takes.
Why was it so far below though. Not overall just that event.

Fed wasn’t great in the final but not super poor and you got a 6-2 6-2 score on a fast surface.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Murray’s demolition of ATG Juan Monaco in the SFs still echoed in the annals of history to this day. It makes sense that strongest year ever (2010) produces the strongest Masters winners ever.
Juan Monaco would probably be a top 5 player in a weak year like 2005.

Why was it so far below though. Not overall just that event.

Fed wasn’t great in the final but not super poor and you got a 6-2 6-2 score on a fast surface.
If there are 50 better performances then how does it qualify as one of the best? Whether it's half as good or 90% of the way there it doesn't matter it's not one of the best. Fed was pretty poor BTW, very error prone.
 

RS

Talk Tennis Guru
Juan Monaco would probably be a top 5 player in a weak year like 2005.



If there are 50 better performances then how does it qualify as one of the best? Whether it's half as good or 90% of the way there it doesn't matter it's not one of the best. Fed was pretty poor BTW, very error prone.
And even if you say Fed was poor how many players would beat that Fed like 6-1 6-1 anyway?

Were there really 50 better anyway? I would put it below some ATG runs but imo the gap is rather small just in that tournament.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
And even if you say Fed was poor how many players would beat that Fed like 6-1 6-1 anyway?

Were there really 50 better anyway? I would put it below some ATG runs but imo the gap is rather small just in that tournament.
It was 6-3 6-2, you trolling by making the score more lopsided each time?

He'd have lost to probably 50+ other winners if I bothered to count them all yes. This is just since Masters were actually a thing in the 90's as well...
 

RS

Talk Tennis Guru
It was 6-3 6-2, you trolling by making the score more lopsided each time?

He'd have lost to probably 50+ other winners if I bothered to count them all yes. This is just since Masters were actually a thing in the 90's as well...
No I was saying 6-1 6-1 to make it clearly more dominant. My bad yes 6-3 6-2.

I wasn’t think H2H but I suppose the best players are ATG so you trust them a bit more. IMO in terms of pure form it wasn’t far off of the players I have seen.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
No I was saying 6-1 6-1 to make it clearly more dominant. My bad yes 6-3 6-2.

I wasn’t think H2H but I suppose the best players are ATG so you trust them a bit more. IMO in terms of pure form it wasn’t far off of the players I have seen.
What was so good about it? Murray was very solid and Fed wasn't sharp enough to hit through him and imploded. It wasn't an offensive masterclass by any means and we've seen that Murray's best defensive work comes up short in the biggest matches against his better peers.

Don't think scorelines are the only way to measure relative forms or abilities. Not everyone plays every point and game with maximum intensity, someone might only beat Federer 6-4 6-4 but then still beat Murray.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Does competition slavish anything for Murray? Probably not I guess.....
Definitely not, considering Roddick won 2 sets against Federer in major finals before 2007, while murray won 0 sets in slam finals in 2008-2011.
 

RS

Talk Tennis Guru
What was so good about it? Murray was very solid and Fed wasn't sharp enough to hit through him and imploded. It wasn't an offensive masterclass by any means and we've seen that Murray's best defensive work comes up short in the biggest matches against his better peers.

Don't think scorelines are the only way to measure relative forms or abilities. Not everyone plays every point and game with maximum intensity, someone might only beat Federer 6-4 6-4 but then still beat Murray.
I guess so. But I assume if at fully throttle players would aim to play with max intensity.

Come on when you say what was so good about it Murray was on fire. It’s not only about offence but Murray was offensive enough anyway.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I guess so. But I assume if at fully throttle players would aim to play with max intensity.

Come on when you say what was so good about it Murray was on fire. It’s not only about offence but Murray was offensive enough anyway.
Players with superior service games often don't go all out on every return game.

Murray served well and was at his solid best from the back of the court, don't know if "on fire" is the right way to describe it.
 

travlerajm

G.O.A.T.
Not sure if Murray ever brought a Slam winning level before 2012 (and obviously didn’t win one)

Is this a troll thread?
Not so fast.

Murray had a stretch in 2008-2009 when he went 9-2 vs the Big3 on hardcourt. He was on the verge of overtaking Fed for the #1 spot when he injured his wrist, and wasn’t quite the same after that. Murray changed his racquet spec after that, and never got back to the same level until 3-4 years after that.
 

Kralingen

G.O.A.T.
Not so fast.

Murray had a stretch in 2008-2009 when he went 9-2 vs the Big3 on hardcourt. He was on the verge of overtaking Fed for the #1 spot when he injured his wrist, and wasn’t quite the same after that. Murray changed his racquet spec after that, and never got back to the same level until 3-4 years after that.
i dont deny that it was a great time for him in Bo3 and in fact it was not at all crazy to call him a truly great player during that time.

However Andy Roddick beat him at Wimby 09, went further than him at AO 09, and in Roddick’s Slam finals he managed to not get absolutely utterly demolished like Murray did in USO 08 (and Roddick played a tougher Federer than Murray did)

There’s nothing to suggest Murray had done more than Roddick’s entire career. End of story.
 

travlerajm

G.O.A.T.
i dont deny that it was a great time for him in Bo3 and in fact it was not at all crazy to call him a truly great player during that time.

However Andy Roddick beat him at Wimby 09, went further than him at AO 09, and in Roddick’s Slam finals he managed to not get absolutely utterly demolished like Murray did in USO 08 (and Roddick played a tougher Federer than Murray did)

There’s nothing to suggest Murray had done more than Roddick’s entire career. End of story.
I agree that young buck peak Roddick was a beast.
 

RS

Talk Tennis Guru
Players with superior service games often don't go all out on every return game.

Murray served well and was at his solid best from the back of the court, don't know if "on fire" is the right way to describe it.
On fire in a way that's less centric on bomber type tennis.

I guess with greater servers that's true. Or in this case of Roddick he tried but just had a average return :whistle:
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
On fire in a way that's less centric on bomber type tennis.

I guess with greater servers that's true. Or in this case of Roddick he tried but just had a average return :whistle:
Average return with a GOAT serve is a good enough combo.
 

RS

Talk Tennis Guru
When we are debating whether a Masters performance is top 50, and the other opponent in question has won a Slam and done the NA HC sweep, you have lost the argument.
Roddick wins this comparison but it's not a landslide even excluding Murray's 4 best seasons :D
 
Top