Murray vs Roddick- which one is now greater

  • Thread starter Thread starter NadalAgassi
  • Start date Start date

Roddick vs Murray- who is the greater player now

  • Total voters
    65
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
How does one rate Roddick vs Murray now. Both have a slam. Both have 5 slam finals. Roddick has a year end #1. Murray has more Masters and an Olympic Gold. Neither have WTF. I think it is pretty close and mostly subjective in alot of ways. Murray owns Roddick though and won most of their matches even as an upstart ranked outside the top 20. That might be the tiebreaker in his favor.
 
It isnt even close.Roddick transition era champion.I even bored to talk about his game.Everybody knows he is a very limited player to become great.Which he didnt turn out to be great in the end as well.
Murray part of the historical BİG 4 and he is miles ahead of Roddick talent wise.He is going to have much better career than Roddick in the end anyway.I think he already has better career as well.
 
Its not a debate.

Murray's much more diverse. He's reached the semi finals of the French Open, Roddick's scraped through to a fourth round there with an easy draw one time in his career.

Look @ Murray's tally for Masters series and Roddick's.

Look @ the era Murray is playing @ his peak and look @ Roddick's.... aside from Federer who was there?

Roddick had Ferrero in the final of the US Open in 03.

5 slam finals .. countless semi finals ...... its not even in doubt, person that voted Roddick should be ashamed of such bias.
 
I voted Murray but I think some of are you are hard on Roddick (to the same extent *******s overrate him and try and potray him as an all time great). He pushed Federer to 4 sets or more in 3 of their 4 slam finals, ended the top ten 9 years in a row, has a winning record vs Novak Djokovic, and ended a year at #1 over Federer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I vote Roddick but let's check back with Murray once he's hung it up. The Olympic gold medal does give him a nice edge in the hardware dept.
 
Tennis_Maestro said:
Its not a debate.

Murray's much more diverse. He's reached the semi finals of the French Open, Roddick's scraped through to a fourth round there with an easy draw one time in his career.

Look @ Murray's tally for Masters series and Roddick's.

Look @ the era Murray is playing @ his peak and look @ Roddick's.... aside from Federer who was there?

Roddick had Ferrero in the final of the US Open in 03.

5 slam finals .. countless semi finals ...... its not even in doubt, person that voted Roddick should be ashamed of such bias.
Click to expand...

Is it that serious???? We know, we know.....you guys love your Gentleman Andy.......Relax.....you are going to have a heart attack.

And BIG 4.......lol............hahahaaha.......um no
 
Murray has beaten Federer a ton of times in non slam events.. Roddick could only manage like 2-3 wins his whole carer vs. Federer. Neither have beaten Fed at a slam so its like a moot point.. But Murray still had way more success vs Fed then Roddick ever did


Murray has had far and away a better career then Roddick.
 
Roddick for his consistency at the top 10. Year End #1.

Murray leads in MS1000, and tied with Slams. When Murray wins his next slam...he would be greater.
 
NadalAgassi said:
I voted Murray but I think some of are you are hard on Roddick (to the same extent *******s overrate him and try and potray him as an all time great). He pushed Federer to 4 sets or more in 3 of their 4 slam finals, ended the top ten 9 years in a row, has a winning record vs Novak Djokovic, and ended a year at #1 over Federer.
Click to expand...

Pretty much my thoughts. I'll go with Murray but it's not as much of a landslide as some people would suggest. But yes, Murray is more talented and has a greater list of achievements.
 
Career results currently are basically even albeit more of Murray's career was in a tougher time. Of course, he is young and probably has 5-6 years left at or near peak so in the long run Murray's career will far eclipse Roddicks
 
Could the question be more vaguely worded?

Does it mean: who has had the best overall career so far?

Who is likely to have the best career?

Who is currently the best player?

Who is going to be remembered as being superior?
 
Andy Murray
1 major title (2012 US Open)
4 runner-ups in majors (2008 US Open, 2010 Australian Open, 2011 Australian Open, 2012 Wimbledon)
Semi Final Loser at the French Open in 2011
2012 London Olympics gold medalist
Semi Final Loser at the World Tour Finals in 2008 and 2010
8 masters series titles (2008 Cincinnati, 2008 Madrid Indoor, 2009 Miami, 2009 Montreal, 2010 Toronto, 2010 Shanghai, 2011 Cincinnati, 2011 Shanghai)
24 career titles in all
Career high world ranking of number 2

Andy Roddick
1 major title (2003 US Open)
4 runner-ups in majors (2004 Wimbledon, 2005 Wimbledon, 2006 US Open, 2009 Wimbledon)
Semi Final Loser at the Australian Open in 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2009
Round of 16 Loser at the French Open in 2009
Semi Final Loser at the World Tour Finals (then Masters Cup) in 2003, 2004 and 2007
5 masters series titles (2003 Montreal, 2003 Cincinnati, 2004 Miami, 2006 Cincinnati, 2010 Miami)
32 career titles in all
Winner of the Davis Cup with the USA in 2007
Career high world ranking of number 1
 
Last edited:
Murray's obviously the better player, but I'm sure a lot of people will use this thread (I see a few already have) to bash/belittle Roddick.

I think Murray will have won a few slams by the time he's done.
 
Roddick played against PRIME Federer. Murray has only beaten a post prime old Federer. No comparision. 2004-2006 Federer would beat any version of Andy Murray in any surface just like he did with Andy Roddick.

Regards.
 
Murray just has a still very good Federer, as well as a very good Nadal, and a very good Djokovic. Easy! :|
 
At this point Roddick because of longevity. I'm sure soon it will be Murray though.

The top 4 back then wasn't too shabby either. Federer, Hewitt, Safin, Roddick.
 
Mustard said:
Murray just has a still very good Federer, as well as a very good Nadal, and a very good Djokovic. Easy! :|
Click to expand...

Let's be honest. Murray era started with the other 3 contenders with a lot of problems and clearly not at their best. Federer is 31 years old, way past his prime by now, he play well but he is not as consistent as he was in his prime and clearly his main weapon which is the forehand is not what it used to be. His level of play can only go down, it is not going to improve anymore.

Nadal is more injured than ever. If he come back he will not be the same anymore, perhaps just a contender in clay tournaments as he was when he started. Not a contender anymore in hardcourts and with a lot of difficulties in grass as well.

Djokovic is physically and mentally wasted. The difference with Nadal and Federer is that he is still in his prime so he can improve if he focus like he did in 2011, but right now he is not as good as 2011.

So in the end, Murray has only one competition which is Djoker. Unfortunately Fedal era is over, they can only be contenders in RG and Wimbledon, not anymore in hardcourts.

Regards.
 
Mustard said:
Andy Murray
Career high world ranking of number 2

Andy Roddick
Career high world ranking of number 1
Click to expand...

This is the only comparison I would like to talk about.

Roddick's prime:

Grandad Agassi, eratic Safin, hustler Hewitt, Ferrero and Federer.

2 Hall of famers: Agassi and Federer, one wasn't @ his peak.

Murray's prime:

Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, Ferrer, Berdych and Tsonga.

2 possibly 3 Hall of famers: Nadal, Federer and Djokovic. Yes, Djokovic... the guy who almost created history by winning the Grandslam or Grandslams. Wimbledon, the US Open, the Australian Open and the French Open all in a row.

So career highs are misleading.
 
ManFed said:
Roddick played against PRIME Federer. Murray has only beaten a post prime old Federer. No comparision. 2004-2006 Federer would beat any version of Andy Murray in any surface just like he did with Andy Roddick.

Regards.
Click to expand...

Roddick though did not win his major from 2004-2006 either. Murray has to cope with prime Nadal, prime Djokovic, and a still very strong Federer. Roddick only had Federer, nobody else at the level of those I mentioned. Hewitt for a couple years was the next best opponent.
 
Murray. Based on achievements. It's not an argument. This era of tennis is impossibly hard and he's won a slam and the Olympics this year. And he's won lots of Masters titles and other titles.
 
Murray. The only thing Roddick has over him is year end #1, which was during an extremely weak era. Everything else Murray is leagues ahead.
 
That's an interesting point re: masters, every year Murray's been racking the Masters titles up since his first in 2007. This year he hasn't even won 1 yet.

Although, I wouldn't be surprised to see him complete a hat-trick in Shanghai, I doubt anyone turns up [Federer,Nadal]. But it would be good if they would.
 
I think Murray is clearly the better player. Roddick deserves a lot of credit for the career he had though, especially his rededication to fitness and the results he put up in 2009 when it appeared he was being left in the dust. It's a shame he couldn't pull out that Wimbledon final against Federer in 2009. I think that would have really changed the way his career is viewed historically.
 
Roddick has had the better career so far with a better ranking and more titles, but Murray will very likely pass him. I think Murray has more talent as a player, but he doesn't utilize it as much as Roddick utilized his talents (huge serve and forehand) in his prime.
 
In all fairness Roddick is a better tennis player on sheer "will" power, he may not be a better technical tennis player, but he wins or looses with "everything"... Murray has always been and will always be a talented player who people think has "more", with roddick you knew what you got and he gave it... Murray breaks your heart because he leaves you thinking "Uh wtf was that"... if anything you date Murray but you marry roddick... if that makes sense.
 
If Murray retired today, Roddick would still be ahead of him based on the #1 rank. I expect that by the end of his career, Murray will be clearly ahead (such as if he wins a second Slam or gets to #1 himself), but he's not there yet.
 
Max G. said:
If Murray retired today, Roddick would still be ahead of him based on the #1 rank. I expect that by the end of his career, Murray will be clearly ahead (such as if he wins a second Slam or gets to #1 himself), but he's not there yet.
Click to expand...

I think people have the knowledge to see that Roddick making #1 and Murray only making #2 is very much a reflection of the fact that we have some of the best player's ever in Murray's (Prime) generation
 
Roddick because he was the BEST at tennis for a year (2003).
Murray won't get past #3 and this is his best year.
 
One is retired and the other still has 5 years ahead of him i'm not sure what or even why this thead's up when it serves to no good.
 
Mustard said:
Andy Murray
1 major title (2012 US Open)
4 runner-ups in majors (2008 US Open, 2010 Australian Open, 2011 Australian Open, 2012 Wimbledon)
Semi Final Loser at the French Open in 2011
2012 London Olympics gold medalist
Semi Final Loser at the World Tour Finals in 2008 and 2010
8 masters series titles (2008 Cincinnati, 2008 Madrid Indoor, 2009 Miami, 2009 Montreal, 2010 Toronto, 2010 Shanghai, 2011 Cincinnati, 2011 Shanghai)
24 career titles in all
Career high world ranking of number 2
Click to expand...

With due respect, why does this list of yours omit all of Murray's other semi final appearances in majors?
 
I'm a Roddick fan, but I choose Murray. What's funny is that a lot of you haters out there think that it's such a wide margin - as if Roddick was some journeyman who played career challengers and qualifiers, and just happened to accomplish some of the things he did. Roddick had a very respectable career, regardless if you are a personal fan or not, or your gf called out his name in bed with you. I think their careers and accomplishments are a lot closer than some your try to make it not to be.
 
Praetorian said:
I'm a Roddick fan, but I choose Murray. What's funny is that a lot of you haters out there think that it's such a wide margin - as if Roddick was some journeyman who played career challengers and qualifiers, and just happened to accomplish some of the things he did. Roddick had a very respectable career, regardless if you are a personal fan or not, or your gf called out his name in bed with you. I think their careers and accomplishments are a lot closer than some your try to make it not to be.
Click to expand...

He isn't a journey man and I respect his achievements greatly.

However, honest question to an honest answer now. Murray @ his prime in 2003-2008 ... howmany slams would he have by now? ..and be honest. The gap is very wide IMO.
 
Roddick has his whole career to compare while Murray has just 4 years. Murray is almost equal in comparison.

Roddick consistency at the top ten for ten years must mean more than Murray being in the top 4 for 4 years.

Roddick the more limited of the two brought more bang out of his tennis than Murray. Murray can grow even more. The guy worked as hard as anyone.....people shouldn't sell Roddick short of any 1 slamer.

Roddick is the best 1 slam wonder out there. Murray may come close right now....though inevitably.....Murray will win many more slams....and can pass Roddick by Australia.

I agree Murray has to deal with sitffer competion and both are vulnerable to lower players. Barring Nadal....not many can hang with a Prime Federer. An over the hill Federer beat Murray....Imagine 2006 Federer in that 12 Wimbledon final.

Yeah Murray beat 06 Federer....but that was because Federer was tired.
 
Tennis_Maestro said:
This is the only comparison I would like to talk about.

Roddick's prime:

Grandad Agassi, eratic Safin, hustler Hewitt, Ferrero and Federer.

2 Hall of famers: Agassi and Federer, one wasn't @ his peak.

Murray's prime:

Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, Ferrer, Berdych and Tsonga.

2 possibly 3 Hall of famers: Nadal, Federer and Djokovic. Yes, Djokovic... the guy who almost created history by winning the Grandslam or Grandslams. Wimbledon, the US Open, the Australian Open and the French Open all in a row.

So career highs are misleading.
Click to expand...

Safin and Hewitt are clearly hall of fame material, multiple majors/big titles/number 1/wins over legends in major finals it's no argument. You are also massively underrating prime Ferrero and I don't see how Ferrer Berdych and Tsonga deserve recognition above similarly ranked players from when Roddick was near the top of the game.
 
Tennis_Maestro said:
He isn't a journey man and I respect his achievements greatly.

However, honest question to an honest answer now. Murray @ his prime in 2003-2008 ... howmany slams would he have by now? ..and be honest. The gap is very wide IMO.
Click to expand...

Murray still hasnt been able to beat Federer in a slam, and has won only 1 set thus far, so how would he win slams in the era prime Federer was winning nearly every slam, minus Roland Garros (which Murray needless to say wasnt going to win to date anyway, especialy with Nadal winning them all). Alot of that is nerves, but would Murray have miracelously become less nervous in big matches for many years of his prime, had he just been born sooner. Sorry I dont see where the many slams could come from, given his record vs Federer in slams and on clay in general, most likely 0 slams from 2004-2007. Maybe he could have won a slam or two in 2003 and in 2008, so possibly still had more than Roddick's 1, but probably not by much.
 
Breaker said:
Safin and Hewitt are clearly hall of fame material, multiple majors/big titles/number 1/wins over legends in major finals it's no argument. You are also massively underrating prime Ferrero and I don't see how Ferrer Berdych and Tsonga deserve recognition above similarly ranked players from when Roddick was near the top of the game.
Click to expand...

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/356498/20120626/top-10-tennis-players-time-federer.htm

That's a hall-of-fame, that's an example of what a rough hall-of-fame should look like. Hewitt and especially Safin should not even be coming close to entering the top 10 greatest players of all time. NOT EVEN CLOSE. Federer and Nadal are easily in the top 10 and Djokovic isn't too far off it.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm this poll is really one sided so far. Maybe a Hewitt vs Murray poll would be closer. I would disagree with Murray winning a poll over Hewitt considering Hewitt is a 2 slam winner, 2 time year end #1, and 2 time WTF champion vs Murray a 1 slam winner and Olympic Champion. Then again Murray dwarves Hewitt in Masters final despite facing many more greats than peak Hewitt did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
  • Poll Poll
Hewitt vs Murray- who is the greater player now
2 3
Replies
102
Views
9K
dangalak
D
G
Hewitt vs Murray if Murray wins 3rd slam this weekend
2
Replies
92
Views
4K
timnz
T
clout
  • Poll Poll
Who was the greater player in the 2000s (2000-2009): Roddick or Djokovic?
Replies
7
Views
477
Deleted member 775898
D
Kenshin
Is Hewitt a better player than Murray or Roddick?
2 3
Replies
135
Views
11K
Sunny014
Sunny014
deacsyoga
  • Poll Poll
Courier vs Murray- who is better and greater
2
Replies
59
Views
3K
deacsyoga
deacsyoga
Back
Top