Murray would have won many more majors in a different era.

[George Turner]

in the 80's and 90's the tour was full of serve volleyers. This is usually what happens when you try and serve-volley Murray

In a different era i believe Murray would have won upto 8 majors. He could have beaten Sampras or Becker at Wimbledon, won multiple US open titles and Australian open titles, maybe even picked up a French with the right draw like Agassi did.

Murray's been unfortunate to play in this era, in another one we'd be looking at an ATG.

 

[Sport]

Maybe 1 or 2 more. But he is nowhere near as talented as Agassi or Lendl.

 

[mike danny]

What about this one?

Also keep in mind that not all serve and volley players were as bad as Groth.

 

[mike danny]

@Sabratha, it is your time to shine now

 

[User123]

No, he wouldn't. If Mischa Zverev can school him in a best of five match then imagine what Sampras could do to him.

 

[George Turner]

What about this one?

Also keep in mind that not all serve and volley players were as bad as Groth.

Only took 2 posts for someone to post that!

Ofc Sam Groth is a dreadful player for tour standards so that's an extreme example, but Murray usually likes players who rush the net because his passing shots are first class.

He also likes players who hit the ball well so he can do his counterpunching, Agassi and Lendl would have been good match ups for Murray.

A player in the mould of Djokovic was always going to be hard for Murray, there was no Djokovic in the 80's-90's unless you count the moonballer Chang

 

[mike danny]

Only took 2 posts for someone to post that!

Ofc Sam Groth is a dreadful player for tour standards so that's an extreme example, but Murray usually likes players who rush the net because his passing shots are first class.

He also likes players who hit the ball well so he can do his counterpunching, Agassi and Lendl would have been good match ups for Murray.

A player in the mould of Djokovic was always going to be hard for Murray, there was no Djokovic in the 80's-90's unless you count the moonballer Chang

The 80's had Mac, Lendl, Becker, Edberg. Many dangerous ones. Murray would have had his hands full.

 

[SafinSucks]

If Lleyton could beat a declining version of Pete Sampras, then I believe Andy Murray could do it too.

 

[Tiki-Taka]

Murray is worthy of more than 3 Slams in my opinion but he is definitely not on Agassi's level.

 

[SafinSucks]

Murray is worthy of more than 3 Slams in my opinion but he is definitely not on Agassi's level.

Agree.
Andy Murray faced the strongest competition of all time, I would say he is worth 6 majors in a different era.

 

[Backspin1183]

Lol Sam Groth is not a very good serve and player, is he? I remember him being taken to the cleaners by Nadal with a wrist injury.

 

[BeatlesFan]

In a different era i believe Murray would have won upto 8 majors. He could have beaten Sampras or Becker at Wimbledon

I assume you're joking. He would never have won a set from either Pete or Boris at Wimbledon and probably wouldn't have won any slams in the 80's or early 90's. Lendl would have thrashed him on every single surface, and even imagining Murray on carpet is pretty cringe worthy.

 

[BringBackWood]

@George Turner

Two big factors you have not considered: Murray wouldn't have modern strings that make passing shots much easier & would be facing huge servers on much quicker courts

Of course Murray looks good in general against S&V when nowadays everything is stacked in favour of the player hitting passing shots. Didn't stop him being flummoxed by Zverev. S &V is becoming such a rarity it benefits from a shock factor.

 

[George Turner]

I assume you're joking. He would never have won a set from either Pete or Boris at Wimbledon and probably wouldn't have won any slams in the 80's or early 90's. Lendl would have thrashed him on every single surface, and even imagining Murray on carpet is pretty cringe worthy.

I guess you don't know much about Murrays game, he prefers fast conditions, and in any conditions he'll get more serves back than pretty much anyone. Pete and Boris never faced any opponent who got so many returns back in play except Agassi. Murray would be good on carpet courts.

 

[SafinSucks]

I assume you're joking. He would never have won a set from either Pete or Boris at Wimbledon and probably wouldn't have won any slams in the 80's or early 90's. Lendl would have thrashed him on every single surface, and even imagining Murray on carpet is pretty cringe worthy.

I know nostalgia is a powerful drug, but for the record, Boris Becker has lost sets at Wimbledon to guys with 0 ATP title (and I don't mean at the end of his career).
Pete Sampras on a bad day probably did too.

 

[George Turner]

@George Turner

Two big factors you have not considered: Murray wouldn't have modern strings that make passing shots much easier & would be facing huge servers on much quicker courts

Of course Murray looks good in general against S&V when nowadays everything is stacked in favour of the player hitting passing shots. Didn't stop him being flummoxed by Zverev. S &V is becoming such a rarity it benefits from a shock factor.

Even in older conditions, there's no reason why Murray wouldn't have been as good as Agassi or Connors at returning, he's got the same level of timing and ability to anticipate the opponents serve.

Murray is also very crafty, another factor suited for that era. With todays technology you get far more robotic players.

 

[BringBackWood]

Even in older conditions, there's no reason why Murray wouldn't have been as good as Agassi or Connors at returning, he's got the same level of timing and ability to anticipate the opponents serve.

Murray is also very crafty, another factor suited for that era. With todays technology you get far more robotic players.

Murray is simply not as talented as Connros or Agassi. Look at Murray's forehand. Neither of the 2 aforementioned greats have such a glaring technical weakness in their game.

 

[70後]

Of the topic, I have often thought that myself. This was a generation of three hyper, hyper predators and one hyper predator all becoming nearly unimaginable monsters devouring all the resources including all the other predators. Another era not sandwiched between three super number ones, Murray would be a normal dominant number one with at least 10 slams by now.

 

[George Turner]

Murray is simply not as talented as Connros or Agassi. Look at Murray's forehand. Neither of the 2 aforementioned greats have such a glaring technical weakness in their game.

Connors forehand was considered a weakness relative to his backhand. Agassi's backhand was his bigger strength aswell. In terms of groundstrokes i see Murray as on par or very close to those guys, he's also got better movement than either of them.

If you had a guy with Federers forehand and Agassis backhand you've got a player whose nearly unbeatable

 

[Spencer Gore]

Murray would have won many more majors in a different era.
Not using the rackets and strings of the era, he wouldn't.

 

[SafinSucks]

On a side note, Samuel Groth is one of the worst players I have seen reach a 3rd round in a slam.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

in the 80's and 90's the tour was full of serve volleyers. This is usually what happens when you try and serve-volley Murray

In a different era i believe Murray would have won upto 8 majors. He could have beaten Sampras or Becker at Wimbledon, won multiple US open titles and Australian open titles, maybe even picked up a French with the right draw like Agassi did.

Murray's been unfortunate to play in this era, in another one we'd be looking at an ATG.

You didn't even watch Kuerten play and now you're going further back and trying to stupidily rewrite history.

Murray in another era might have won less but an uneducated simpleton like you cannot grasp that.

May I ask how Murray is going to topple Sampras at Wimbledon when he can't even beat Federer on his deathbed there?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Connors forehand was considered a weakness relative to his backhand. Agassi's backhand was his bigger strength aswell. In terms of groundstrokes i see Murray as on par or very close to those guys, he's also got better movement than either of them.

If you had a guy with Federers forehand and Agassis backhand you've got a player whose nearly unbeatable

Murray is on a similar level to Agassi in terms of groundstrokes... Now I've seen it all.

Have you even WATCHED Agassi? I mean you didn't watch Kuerten so it's a fair question.

And if some moron comes by and says "Murray lost 9 finals to ATGs so he'd win at least 9 slams in a different era, hurr durr" the fact he got crushed pretty much every time ruins that theory.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I know nostalgia is a powerful drug, but for the record, Boris Becker has lost sets at Wimbledon to guys with 0 ATP title (and I don't mean at the end of his career).
Pete Sampras on a bad day probably did too.

Just like Murray isn't winning 6 majors in a different era if he can't even deal with the closest we have to a throwback well at all.

Seriously Murray's record in majors V Federer is horrendous. How are we to expect him to beat Sampras at Wimbledon? Just lmao..

And your quip about Lleyton is untrue - guy was giving Sampras trouble as far back as '99 when he was No. 1 in the world.

Don't see Murray beating Federer on grass during his prime.. and the 2012 Olympics wasn't.

 

[tennisaddict]

OP, can you clarify if you mean in ATP or WTA ?

 

[Poisoned Slice]

 

[George Turner]

Just like Murray isn't winning 6 majors in a different era if he can't even deal with the closest we have to a throwback well at all.

Seriously Murray's record in majors V Federer is horrendous. How are we to expect him to beat Sampras at Wimbledon? Just lmao..

And your quip about Lleyton is untrue - guy was giving Sampras trouble as far back as '99 when he was No. 1 in the world.

Don't see Murray beating Federer on grass during his prime.. and the 2012 Olympics wasn't.

Federer is not a throwback, he plays an all court game, Sampras/Becker are serve and volleyers. Federers game has very little in common with Beckers, he's more similar to Edberg than either of those guys.

Murray has the right game to play serve-volleyers, so yes he would be capable of beating them. Even more so on the US open courts. Heck Brad Gilbert beat Becker there!

 

[BringBackWood]

Murray is on a similar level to Agassi in terms of groundstrokes... Now I've seen it all.

Have you even WATCHED Agassi? I mean you didn't watch Kuerten so it's a fair question.

And if some moron comes by and says "Murray lost 9 finals to ATGs so he'd win at least 9 slams in a different era, hurr durr" the fact he got crushed pretty much every time ruins that theory.

Yep I think the OP is one of those 'everything prior to 15 minutes ago was crap' brigade. The world and his wife is capable of passing net rushers in today's game.

 

[George Turner]

Murray is on a similar level to Agassi in terms of groundstrokes... Now I've seen it all.

Have you even WATCHED Agassi? I mean you didn't watch Kuerten so it's a fair question.

And if some moron comes by and says "Murray lost 9 finals to ATGs so he'd win at least 9 slams in a different era, hurr durr" the fact he got crushed pretty much every time ruins that theory.

Yes i have watched Agassi. great returner, great groundstrokes, exceptional at creating angles. Murrays groundstrokes are different and more passive but overall he's not inferior from the baseline.

Murray has faced an ATG in every major final he's played (except Wimbledon 2016) if he'd faced a Clement and a Schuttler i think he'd have won both those. So his level of competition certainly is better than Agassis.

 

[BringBackWood]

Murray has faced an ATG in every major final he's played (except Wimbledon 2016) if he'd faced a Clement and a Schuttler i think he'd have won both those. So his level of competition certainly is better than Agassis.

Its not 'bad luck' to have not got Clement and Schuttler. That was unusual 'good luck' for Agassi. Murray got Raonic and if he keeps going it's not inconceivable he'll vulture another one time slam finalist. When Murray has faced an 'ATG' down under he's put in performances worthy of Clement and Schuttler I must say. Maybe Novak was lucky to be in this era?

 

[TMF]

If Lleyton could beat a declining version of Pete Sampras, then I believe Andy Murray could do it too.

Hewitt was only 20 when he beat Sampras who was only 20 in 2001 USO

 

[lud]

Coulda,Shoulda,Woulda...

 

[Gazelle]

I try to imagine Sampras gifting slams to Murray...

Maybe near-retirement, but prime? I just can't imagine.

 

[ollinger]

in another one we'd be looking at an ATG

in a post apocalyptic era, with Murray the only tennis player to survive, he might have won EVERY tennis tournament

 

[metsman]

I love these threads

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Federer is not a throwback, he plays an all court game, Sampras/Becker are serve and volleyers. Federers game has very little in common with Beckers, he's more similar to Edberg than either of those guys.[/QUOTE

Before Sampras started S&Ving on every point he was an allcourter too, much like Federer.

Murray has the right game to play serve-volleyers, so yes he would be capable of beating them. Even more so on the US open courts. Heck Brad Gilbert beat Becker there!

Still haven't explained how a mug like Murray would win that many slams in a bygone era.

Hewitt might have because he rose before polyester strings and his game was based around defeating S&V with the old strings.

 

[Mind Doctor]

Depends on how far back you want to go.

 

[peakin11mugs]

How does this hypothetical work?

You mean if you transported his current body in a time machine so he faces players from 40 years ago. Then yes. Just by virtue of being a 2017 player taking him back 40 years he would be better than everyone

Option 2 he is born 40 years ago. Well he wouldn’t be Andy Murray. He’s the product of modern tennis training. Modern health and fitness. Modern training regimes and funding and sponsorship. He wouldn’t exists as he does 40 years ago

Option 3 just 10 or 15 years ago. Well he’s be facing Sampras and aggasi at al

 

[Mainad]

I assume you're joking. He would never have won a set from either Pete or Boris at Wimbledon and probably wouldn't have won any slams in the 80's or early 90's. Lendl would have thrashed him on every single surface, and even imagining Murray on carpet is pretty cringe worthy.

You really haven't got a clue about Murray's career and what he is capable of, have you? He does have a carpet title by the way, 2007 St. Petersburg (beat Verdasco). But I wouldn't expect you to know that of course!

 

[Mainad]

Not using the rackets and strings of the era, he wouldn't.

Why, do you think he would not have grown up being able to use them or something?

 

[Druss]

If Lleyton could beat a declining version of Pete Sampras, then I believe Andy Murray could do it too.

Declining version of Sampras? What about Hewitt, he was in 'diapers'!

 

[Druss]

Murray would have won a similar number of slams in the 80's (2-3). In the 90's, due to his incredible consistency and prime longevity of around 8-9 years, there is certainly a case for him winning 6-7 slams. He would sneak perhaps 1 slam between '90-95, then clean up from '96 to mid '99 until Agassi returns to playing peak tennis again. I can't see him beating Agassi on a consistent basis.

 

[big ted]

I don't think he would have won many more titles than he has.. to me he might be one of the least mentally tough multiple GS winners I can think of.. ?

 

[jaggy]

And if my grandma had ......etc

 

[AngryBirds]

So 3 slammers like Wawrinka and Murray can win 8 slams in other eras. Yeah right..

 

[SafinSucks]

Hewitt was only 20 when he beat Sampras who was only 20 in 2001 USO

Just like Murray isn't winning 6 majors in a different era if he can't even deal with the closest we have to a throwback well at all.

Seriously Murray's record in majors V Federer is horrendous. How are we to expect him to beat Sampras at Wimbledon? Just lmao..

And your quip about Lleyton is untrue - guy was giving Sampras trouble as far back as '99 when he was No. 1 in the world.

Don't see Murray beating Federer on grass during his prime.. and the 2012 Olympics wasn't.

Murray > Hewitt.

 

[SafinSucks]

Hewitt was only 20 when he beat Sampras who was only 20 in 2001 USO

Sampras was not 20.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Murray > Hewitt.

In terms of top level not really.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Murray wouldn't have gotten the chance to face an atrocious slam finalist like he has in this era in others.

I've brought up Roddick but he faced the No. 1 player in EVERY final he contested so stop crying wolf about freaking Murray. Just shows he isn't good enough to be an ATG when he lays dud eggs like he has in finals.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Sampras was not 20.

Yeah, he was 30 and Hewitt had been troubling him since he was 28, which Sampras himself has called "the prime age of a tennis professional" heavily implying that was his own prime.

Game, set and match.