Murray vs Fed’s first 10 GS opponents

[RS]

Agassi was legit playing great tennis, think even at his best Murray struggles.

Not sure if Murray raised his level lots or the wind was an equaliser.

I said Murray was at strong risk as losing.

Wind helped Murray esp vs Djokovic.

 

[NatF]

I said Murray was at strong risk as losing.

Wind helped Murray esp vs Djokovic.

Yes? You also said Murray may have raised his level which is what I was mostly responding to.

To reiterate I don't think Murray has no chance it's just not one I think is likely.

 

[NatF]

Well, he certainly dominates the H2H with Cilic.

And? Says even more about his level of a guy he dominates should have been 0-2 over him if not for a monstrous choke.

 

[tudwell]

I think mentality was at least as much a factor of Murray's slam success as competition was. Look how competitive he was (before 2014 at least) with the Big 3 in best-of-three on hard courts. Yet he has just one hard court slam. He pretty much owned Fed in best-of-three for years, but reliably went down when they met in majors, usually without much fight. He completely imploded in his first three slam finals, and this at a time when he had the H2H edge over Fed and Djokovic was a one-slam wonder. He's consistently underperformed at the US Open – it's primarily not been the Big 3 stopping him there.

Murray had the game to win more slams than he did even in this era. Would he have suddenly become a mental giant in a different era? I doubt it. But I do think he'd win a couple Australians without Djokovic constantly in his way.

 

[RS]

Yes? You also said Murray may have raised his level which is what I was mostly responding to.

To reiterate I don't think Murray has no chance it's just not one I think is likely.

I think did raise his level and like you said about the wind as well but not really gonna keep going back and forth on this.

 

[mike danny]

Murray would probably have not had as much success against those guys as Fed did. But if you put Rafa or Novak against those guys they would go 20-0 most likely.

Rafa and Novak's peaks were against much more difficult competition that Baghdatis or Gonzalez. They would wipe the floor with those guys.

Baghdatis and Gonzalez were just 2 finals.

Nadal has had Anderson, Ferrer, Soderling, Ferrer and Medvedev, so there you go.

 

[Mainad]

And? Says even more about his level of a guy he dominates should have been 0-2 over him if not for a monstrous choke.

Because, of course, Murray had nothing to do with turning that match round and winning it (something you might recall he is pretty good at).

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Absolutely. Give peak Novak 2003-2007 field and he wins 3 CYGS in a row minimum. Federer never faced anyone on the same level as Murray, Wawrinka, Nishikori and Querrey.

Also that was baby in diapers nadal who lost to Gonzalez in 2007. Peak 33 year old nadal would wipe the floor with him in straights.

You crack me up with this stuff!

 

[NatF]

Because, of course, Murray had nothing to do with turning that match round and winning it (something you might recall he is pretty good at).

Cilic choked badly, his level collapsed completely. Murray raising his game could have certainly taken the following sets but not by those scores and the second set should have been a done deal.

Murray isn't the only one to benefit from a Cilic losing his mind. In the 2016 Wimbledon QF I lost count of the second serve returns Cilic buried in the net up BP against Federer. Even Goran had to hang his head in shame at those...

 

[tennis_pro]

can you pencil murray in USO 19 final? or would he had gassed on berrettini?

he would had gassed on berrrettini

 

[Mainad]

Cilic choked badly, his level collapsed completely. Murray raising his game could have certainly taken the following sets but not by those scores and the second set should have been a done deal.

Murray isn't the only one to benefit from a Cilic losing his mind. In the 2016 Wimbledon QF I lost count of the second serve returns Cilic buried in the net up BP against Federer. Even Goran had to hang his head in shame at those...

It might possibly be that Cilic often just can't sustain the mental strength required to close out matches against superior players. Something makes him believe that it can't be happening. Obviously there have been important exceptions eg. his semi against Federer at 2014 USO and the way he fought almost to the end against Federer in the 2018 AO final.

Incidentally, Goran's reactions to Marin's misses against Fed in the 2016 Wimbledon match did not go unobserved by an unamused Cilic. Unsurprisingly they parted company soon afterwards.

 

[NatF]

It might possibly be that Cilic often just can't sustain the mental strength required to close out matches against superior players. Something makes him believe that it can't be happening. Obviously there have been important exceptions eg. his semi against Federer at 2014 USO and the way he fought almost to the end against Federer in the 2018 AO final.

Incidentally, Goran's reactions to Marin's misses against Fed in the 2016 Wimbledon match did not go unobserved by an unamused Cilic. Unsurprisingly they parted company soon afterwards.

I think Cilic is just mentally weak. He also has a very annoying ball bouncing routine..

He has had some exceptions as you noted but I tend to think of him as a disgusting choker for the most part.

 

[Fridge]

Baghdatis and Gonzalez were just 2 finals.

Nadal has had Anderson, Ferrer, Soderling, Ferrer and Medvedev, so there you go.

Ferrer was a much better player than those two combined. Save for the top4 he was the best of everyone else for several years
I think most would agree Soderling also achieved more than either Gonzalez or Baghdatis and he retired early as well.
You said Ferrer twice even though Nadal has only played him once in GS finals. If you meant theim then surely you must realize Theim will achieve more than either Baghdatis or Gonzalez (I would argue he has already surpassed them).

For Medvedev it is too early to tell. But you can't argue that Medvedev was the second best player last summer. He was playing lights out for 6 weeks.
As far as Anderson I don't think that he is any worse or any better than either baghdatis in 2006 or gonzalez in 2007. But he has two slam final though I don't think that warrants placing him above Baghdatis and Gonzalez.

 

[Lew II]

The magnificent Andy from 2008 to 2016 never lost a Slam to a player who's never been top10 in his career.

Only quality losses.

About this type of stat I also have to say that Federer from 2003 Wimbledon to 2013 French Open only lost players who have been top5. Sick stat.

 

[SonnyT]

And yet Fedfans are not grateful for the luck Fed had, and still keep complaining!

 

[mike danny]

Ferrer was a much better player than those two combined. Save for the top4 he was the best of everyone else for several years
I think most would agree Soderling also achieved more than either Gonzalez or Baghdatis and he retired early as well.
You said Ferrer twice even though Nadal has only played him once in GS finals. If you meant theim then surely you must realize Theim will achieve more than either Baghdatis or Gonzalez (I would argue he has already surpassed them).

For Medvedev it is too early to tell. But you can't argue that Medvedev was the second best player last summer. He was playing lights out for 6 weeks.
As far as Anderson I don't think that he is any worse or any better than either baghdatis in 2006 or gonzalez in 2007. But he has two slam final though I don't think that warrants placing him above Baghdatis and Gonzalez.

Anderson is much worse than Gonzalez definitely.

I just don't see the point in you haters always bringing up Baghdatis and Gonzalez. Those were just 2 finals out of 31 for Federer. I just don't see the point. Novak and Rafa have also had their weak finalists too.

And, in my view, Gonzalez was a tougher opponent in the 2007 AO final than Nadal in the 2019 AO final. You will not agree because you prefer to only look at the name, but you just have to look deeper than that.

 

[Lew II]

Anderson is much worse than Gonzalez definitely.

I just don't see the point in you haters always bringing up Baghdatis and Gonzalez. Those were just 2 finals out of 31 for Federer. I just don't see the point. Novak and Rafa have also had their weak finalists too.

And, in my view, Gonzalez was a tougher opponent in the 2007 AO final than Nadal in the 2019 AO final. You will not agree because you prefer to only look at the name, but you just have to look deeper than that.

Can you tell me how many times in history a 1 time finalist like Gonzalez and Baghdatis beat an ATG in a final?

 

[SonnyT]

Anderson is much worse than Gonzalez definitely.

I just don't see the point in you haters always bringing up Baghdatis and Gonzalez. Those were just 2 finals out of 31 for Federer. I just don't see the point. Novak and Rafa have also had their weak finalists too.

And, in my view, Gonzalez was a tougher opponent in the 2007 AO final than Nadal in the 2019 AO final. You will not agree because you prefer to only look at the name, but you just have to look deeper than that.

What is important is % of weak finalists! That number for Federer is so much greater than for Djokovic, there's no comparison!

In 2019 alone, Nadal won 2 Slams. Djokovic emasculated a great player, there's absolutely comparison with Gonzalez!

 

[tudwell]

What is important is % of weak finalists! That number for Federer is so much greater than for Djokovic, there's no comparison!

In 2019 alone, Nadal won 2 Slams. Djokovic emasculated a great player, there's absolutely comparison with Gonzalez!

No comparison?

Slam finals played against 0 slam winners:
Federer 4
Djokovic 3

Slam finals played against 1-3 slam winners:
Federer 12
Djokovic 10

Slam finals played against 8+ slam winners:
Federer 15
Djokovic 13

Slam finals played against players ranked #1 (at some point in their career):
Federer 24
Djokovic 20

Slam finals played against players never ranked #1:
Federer 7
Djokovic 6

Seems pretty much dead even to me.

 

[Yugram]

Puerta
Berdych
Ferrer
Anderson
Thiem (and until he starts winning slams, he's weak)
Medvedev

It’s not only about the finals, it’s about general competition, which was trash off-clay in Federer’s Era. In 3 of the 6 tournaments you mentioned, Nadal had to play peak or near peak versions of Federer or Djokovic before the final.

 

[RelentlessAttack]

Yeah Safin the one who gifted Johansson a Slam is some kind of god here.

Safin was either hungover or still drunk as per Koellerer

 

[RelentlessAttack]

Zverev, Thiem, Medvedev, Tsitsipas, Shapovalov, Kyrgios, Khachanov have a very high peak. Stats can't describe their level of play.

Safin beat two tier 1 ATGs to win his slams, and absolutely destroyed Sampras in his USO win. Murray never produced anything like that level in his career

 

[tudwell]

As for the OP, I would comfortably favor Murray over:

2003 W Philippousis
2004 AO Safin (he was tired)
2005 W Roddick
2006 AO Baghdatis

These are pretty much a coin toss, maybe slightly favoring Murray (he’s just never been super great at the US Open):

2004 USO Hewitt
2005 USO Agassi
2006 USO Roddick

These I would expect Murray to lose:

2004 W Roddick
2006 FO Nadal
2006 W Nadal

This is all of course assuming Murray is healthy and in good form and essentially disregarding whether he would be likely to make the final in the first place, etc. In utter isolation, that’s how I see those matches, but I don’t think it’s a very useful rubric for determining how Murray might have actually fared had he had his best years in the Fed era.

 

[Wurm]

Problem is that there's no guarantee he reaches all of those slam finals, you have to navigate the draw. First 10 slam finals was peak Fed, the guy basically didn't lose before semis. Murray was never that consistent aside from AO and Wimbledon and at latter he lost to a worse Roddick than 2003/2004 versions.

Murray's run at slams from 2011 AO - 2013 Wimbledon

F, SF, SF, SF, SF, QF, F, W, F, (A), W.

His losses during that run are to Novak, Nadal, Nadal, Nadal, Nadal, Ferrer, Fed, Novak, respectively.

"Never that consistent" still puts Murray in a rarefied level of consistent GS performances.

Even the two slam semi-finals he's lost to non-big 3 members were to slam winners.

Obviously the fallacy is to assume that he unequivocally would've beaten any non-big 3 players in the matches he lost but his win-loss records at slams suggests he would've at least won most of those.

 

[mike danny]

As for the OP, I would comfortably favor Murray over:

2003 W Philippousis
2004 AO Safin (he was tired)
2005 W Roddick
2006 AO Baghdatis

These are pretty much a coin toss, maybe slightly favoring Murray (he’s just never been super great at the US Open):

2004 USO Hewitt
2005 USO Agassi
2006 USO Roddick

These I would expect Murray to lose:

2004 W Roddick
2006 FO Nadal
2006 W Nadal

This is all of course assuming Murray is healthy and in good form and essentially disregarding whether he would be likely to make the final in the first place, etc. In utter isolation, that’s how I see those matches, but I don’t think it’s a very useful rubric for determining how Murray might have actually fared had he had his best years in the Fed era.

Heck, as far as the bolded ones are concerned, I could see Murray losing to Agassi at the 2004 USO and to Hewitt at the 2005 USO. He has never been a great USO player and 2012 was his only good year there in the 2012-2016 period, but even in 2012 there's no guarantee he beats 2004 USO Agassi or 2005 USO Hewitt.

 

[Druss]

Here’s my best estimate:
2003 W vs Philippousis Loss
2004 AO vs Safin (coin toss)
2004 W vs Roddick Loss
2004 USO vs Hewitt (coin toss)
2005 W vs Roddick Win
2005 USO vs Agassi Loss
2006 AO vs Baghdatis Win
2006 FO vs Nadal Brutal Loss
2006 W vs Nadal Loss
2006 USO vs Roddick Win

3-5. Throw in one of the coin tosses, that's 4-6.

 

[kevin qmto]

Probably beats tired Baghdatis but that's it.

Would still lose the first set though.

 

[NatF]

Would still lose the first set though.

Goes without saying.

 

[ND-13]

So if we take Murray 2012-2016 as his highest level (somewhat debatable), how would the Muzz have done in hypothetical matchups against Fed’s first ten GS opponents?
Here’s my best estimate:
2003 W vs Philippousis W
2004 AO vs Safin (coin toss)
2004 W vs Roddick L
2004 USO vs Hewitt W
2005 W vs Roddick W (Muzz figures him out)
2005 USO vs Agassi (coin toss)
2006 AO vs Baghdatis W
2006 FO vs Nadal W
JK. L
2006 W vs Nadal W
2006 USO vs Roddick W

So that’s 6 likely wins. Let’s add one for the two coin tosses. So 7-3.

What do you think?

Murray did not show the consistency at the peak of his career to reach that many finals in that short span.

This seems to insinuate he would have won 7 majors , when we know that is not possible

 

[zagor]

Murray's run at slams from 2011 AO - 2013 Wimbledon

F, SF, SF, SF, SF, QF, F, W, F, (A), W.

His losses during that run are to Novak, Nadal, Nadal, Nadal, Nadal, Ferrer, Fed, Novak, respectively.

"Never that consistent" still puts Murray in a rarefied level of consistent GS performances.

Even the two slam semi-finals he's lost to non-big 3 members were to slam winners.

Obviously the fallacy is to assume that he unequivocally would've beaten any non-big 3 players in the matches he lost but his win-loss records at slams suggests he would've at least won most of those.

Fair point to make. However, in like half of those losses he was blown out straights. Getting destroyed by an ATG doesn't make you an automatic winner if said ATG was missing from the field

For example. 2012 Wimbledon final Murray was playing some slam worthy winning tennis despite losing. Murray who showed up in 2010 and 2011 AO finals however? Bad mental and tactical performances even taking into account the opposition.

The same logic for me applies when say people act like Fed losing repeatedly to Nadal at the FO makes him equal to Lendl and Kuerten (some even say Borg) on clay, considering he wasn't even able to push any of those matches to 5 sets.

 

[JoshuaPim]

The same logic for me applies when say people act like Fed losing repeatedly to Nadal at the FO makes him equal to Lendl and Kuerten (some even say Borg) on clay, considering he wasn't even able to push any of those matches to 5 sets.

How do you know any of those would have pushed it to 5 sets? Strange logic.

 

[SonnyT]

No comparison?

Slam finals played against 0 slam winners:
Federer 4
Djokovic 3

Misleading. Now do comparison of slam won against, not slam played against. You'll see a marked difference!

 

[tudwell]

Heck, as far as the bolded ones are concerned, I could see Murray losing to Agassi at the 2004 USO and to Hewitt at the 2005 USO. He has never been a great USO player and 2012 was his only good year there in the 2012-2016 period, but even in 2012 there's no guarantee he beats 2004 USO Agassi or 2005 USO Hewitt.

You mean before the final? Probably, but I didn't really dig into overall draws. At some point it just gets silly. I do think Murray would mightily struggle to navigate Fed's 2004 AO draw, though, for example, and probably most of his USO draws as well (to your point).

 

[tudwell]

Misleading. Now do comparison of slam won against, not slam played against. You'll see a marked difference!

What's misleading? The only remotely misleading thing in the exact numbers you quoted is that Thiem might still win a slam, but he might also never win a slam. At best it bumps one of Djokovic's finals to the next tier up.

Here's finals won against 0 slam winners:
Federer 4
Djokovic 3

Against 1-3 slam winners:
Federer 11
Djokovic 6

Against 8+ slam winners:
Federer 5
Djokovic 8

Not as even across the all the categories, but they've played all these levels of players with a similar frequency. Fed's been more effective against the 1-3 camp, Djokovic is more effective against the 8+ camp. If that makes him better, then sure, but that doesn't mean he had tougher overall competition throughout his career than Fed did. You don't have to denigrate Fed's competition to make a point that Novak is the superior player, if that's what you believe.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

As for the OP, I would comfortably favor Murray over:

2003 W Philippousis
2004 AO Safin (he was tired)
2005 W Roddick
2006 AO Baghdatis

These are pretty much a coin toss, maybe slightly favoring Murray (he’s just never been super great at the US Open):

2004 USO Hewitt
2005 USO Agassi
2006 USO Roddick

These I would expect Murray to lose:

2004 W Roddick
2006 FO Nadal
2006 W Nadal

This is all of course assuming Murray is healthy and in good form and essentially disregarding whether he would be likely to make the final in the first place, etc. In utter isolation, that’s how I see those matches, but I don’t think it’s a very useful rubric for determining how Murray might have actually fared had he had his best years in the Fed era.

Thanks for letting us get back to Murray.
I think Murray is a much craftier player than Hewitt or Roddick and can adjust his game mid match. He is basically a superior version of Hewitt, just as Djokovic is a superior version of Murray.

 

[tudwell]

Thanks for letting us get back to Murray.
I think Murray is a much craftier player than Hewitt or Roddick and can adjust his game mid match. He is basically a superior version of Hewitt, just as Djokovic is a superior version of Murray.

I agree, but I don't think he'd win every match he plays against them, and he has a habit of severely underperforming in slam finals that I don't think would go away entirely even with lesser opposition.

 

[NatF]

Thanks for letting us get back to Murray.
I think Murray is a much craftier player than Hewitt or Roddick and can adjust his game mid match. He is basically a superior version of Hewitt, just as Djokovic is a superior version of Murray.

Massive oversimplifications and not wholly accurate either...

 

[Mainad]

Safin beat two tier 1 ATGs to win his slams, and absolutely destroyed Sampras in his USO win. Murray never produced anything like that level in his career

Didn't he? Seem to recall Murray destroyed Djokovic in a Wimbledon final (nobody else has ever been able to do that).

 

[King No1e]

4th best player of all time?
I hesitate to put PETE above Murray.. 1 RG final > 0.

Murray Elo higher than Sampras.
Mury GOAT

 

[RelentlessAttack]

Didn't he? Seem to recall Murray destroyed Djokovic in a Wimbledon final (nobody else has ever been able to do that).

He played good matches there and in Olympics 2012 but truth is he got two big assists from Delpo. Not saying he wouldn’t have won anyways, but neither match would have been so one sided if Djokovic and Federer hadn’t been softened up first.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Didn't he? Seem to recall Murray destroyed Djokovic in a Wimbledon final (nobody else has ever been able to do that).

I guess 2005 Safin the GOAT because he beat peak Fed. Oh wait, Canas did too so he must be GOAT.
Murray so much more consistent than Safin!

 

[RelentlessAttack]

I guess 2005 Safin the GOAT because he beat peak Fed. Oh wait, Canas did too so he must be GOAT.
Murray so much more consistent than Safin!

Canas > Murray

 

[tudwell]

Canas > Murray

Well, Murray beat Fed in his peakest of peak seasons – 2006. So Murray > Canas (and also Djokovic who did not beat Federer in 2006).

 

[RelentlessAttack]

Well, Murray beat Fed in his peakest of peak seasons – 2006. So Murray > Canas (and also Djokovic who did not beat Federer in 2006).

Roddick beat Murray in the same tourney so Roddick > Murray > Peak Fed confirmed.

 

[zagor]

How do you know any of those would have pushed it to 5 sets? Strange logic.

My logic is consistency =/ top level.

Losing repeatedly in routine fashion (the key factor here) to an ATG at a specific slam doesn't make you equal to players who actually won said slam multiple times.

 

[zagor]

I guess 2005 Safin the GOAT because he beat peak Fed. Oh wait, Canas did too so he must be GOAT.
Murray so much more consistent than Safin!

Fed has 10 times more slams than Safin yet still lost to him in 2005 when he was in terrific HC form.

 

[Mainad]

Roddick beat Murray in the same tourney so Roddick > Murray > Peak Fed confirmed.

That clinches it. Roddick must be The Goat.

 

[Mainad]

I said Murray was at strong risk as losing.

Wind helped Murray esp vs Djokovic.

No one's ever been able to explain why wind is supposed to help Murray more than his opponents. In the 2009 Indian Wells final, on a very windy day, he lost heavily to Nadal. How come the wind didn't come to his aid there?

 

[Nadalgaenger]

No one's ever been able to explain why wind is supposed to help Murray more than his opponents. In the 2009 Indian Wells final, on a very windy day, he lost heavily to Nadal. How come the wind didn't come to his aid there?

Spanish Armada got revenge for the Protestant Wind that wrecked its invasion of Britain.

 

[beard]

2010-16 Murray went 10-0 in Slam finals and semifinals against non-Big3.

Federer played Big3 in just 2 of his first 11 slam finals.

Connect the dots

Murray's 2010-16 Grand Slam score against non-Big3 --> 131-7 (94.9%)

In a specific 7 years timespan:

2004-10 Federer 161-5 (97.0%)
2010-16 Murray 131-7 (94.9%)
2010-16 Djokovic 142-8 (94.7%)
2007-13 Nadal 116-8 (93.6%)

Top10 beaten at Slams:

2010-16 Murray --> 16
2000-06 Hewitt --> 7
2003-09 Roddick --> 5

Slam score against non-Big4:

Tsonga 116-28 (80.6%)
Raonic 86-22 (79.6%)
Cilic 119-32 (78.8%)
Nishikori 93-25 (78.8%)
Berdych 140-42 (76.9%)
Ferrer 142-49 (74.3%)

Roddick 128-34 (79.0%)
Hewitt 145-48 (75.1%)
Ancic 41-15 (73.2%)
Safin 92-34 (73.0%)
Nalbandian 83-31 (72.8%)
Ferrero 98-40 (71.0%)

The players that Murray routined for years are not worse than the players that Federer routined in 2003-07.

You see all those facts on one side, and on others side you see Fed fans repeating "he must get to final first", and repeating how Hewitt and RodDick were so good...

It's insane level of insanity...



I will repeat my self, but Murray is most unlucky sportsman (not tennis only) that ever lived...