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

[RS]

?

 

[RS]

This this could be close.

 

[Kralingen]

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

Is this a troll thread?

 

[RS]

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]

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?

 

[RS]

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

Did well in Masters. Winning 8 I think.

 

[RS]

@The Guru

 

[RS]

It’s more than one vote available btw.

 

[BGod]

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]

Slight edge to Roddick I guess. Impressive Murray makes this so close.

 

[NatF]

Roddick by a lot.

 

[RS]

Roddick by a lot.

 

[CHillTennis]

It’s more than one vote available btw.

I voted for every category because this is a troll thread.

 

[DSH]

Roddick by a lot.

Peak Murray vs Peak Roddick, 10 matches in the four major tournaments, who wins?

 

[BGod]

Peak Murray vs Peak Roddick, 10 matches in the four major tournaments, who wins?

Murray AO about 6>4
Murray FO 10>0
Roddick WMB 8>2
Roddick USO 7>3

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

?

 

[RS]

Peak Murray vs Peak Roddick, 10 matches in the four major tournaments, who wins?

Getting good at this.

 

[RS]

Peak Murray vs Peak Roddick, 10 matches in the four major tournaments, who wins?

AO - 13-7 Murray
RG - 18-2 Murray
Wim - 10-10 ( Would five Olympics 12 Murray 12-8 though)
USO - 12-8 Roddick

 

[Underdog]

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]

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

 

[BGod]

Interesting how Murray was 8/9 in masters finals

Yeah and 6/8 were against strong opponents (mostly Novak) with 1 retirement.

 

[RS]

Yeah and 6/8 were against strong opponents (mostly Novak) with 1 retirement.

And Shanghai 2010 which was one of highest levels in a HC master ever.

 

[NatF]

And Shanghai 2010 which was one of highest levels in a HC master ever.

lol nah.

 

[RS]

lol nah.

Why not? Can’t get much better than what Murray did that week.

 

[NatF]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Kralingen]

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.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Slam and #1 vs no slam and no #1. Easy.

 

[RS]

Does competition slavish anything for Murray? Probably not I guess.....

 

[NatF]

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...

 

[helterskelter]

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.

@RS hypothetical matchups vs. @MichaelNadal pictures of food?

Make it a ten-post series if you like.

 

[RS]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[RS]

NatF tearing Murray slander apart.

 

[NatF]

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.

 

[Deleted member 779124]

Roddick because he had the better major runs. I would say by a small to medium margin.

 

[travlerajm]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[NatF]

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

Average return with a GOAT serve is a good enough combo.

 

[RS]

Interesting how Murray was 8/9 in masters finals

Murray peaked for BO3 tennis

 

[RS]

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

 

[Underdog]

Murray peaked for BO3 tennis

As much as the Big 3 you would say? I mean, has Murray reached the same heights in BO3 as they have? Has he been as good as them for a consistent while?

 

[RS]

Murray GOAT