Mainad
Bionic Poster
What's Murray got to do with it. We are talking of Roddick's chances to beat Fed in a Wimby final.
Peak Murray vs Peak Roddick vs Peak Hewitt?
- Thread starter RS
- Start date
What's Murray got to do with it. We are talking of Roddick's chances to beat Fed in a Wimby final.
abmk
Bionic Poster
yeah, I agree.
Its one thing for someone who wanted Roddick to win to say wishfully that he blew set 2.
another thing for a Murray fan to criticize him so much for that one missed volley.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
If only we had a time machine to answer some burning questions:Murray's gonna do better regardless. Too bad I can't bet some of you guys real money so I can watch the results and then clean the table.You'd lose less money than others though. Lol
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Thiem is 6 years younger. That's why he has a rivalry with Djokovic. Unlike Hewitt/Roddick, he is lucky that none of the Big 3 are in their primes.I hate to put it like that...but...
I just don't think that is a good statment to prove the argument he was trying to make.
I will say though that it baffles me why these guys spend so much time building these guys up, when none of them had a real rivalry with Federer after 2004, yet criticize Thiem heavily who actually does have a rivalry with Djokovic and can actually win a match.
abmk
Bionic Poster
I got the first 2 secores (USO 08 final and YEC 2009 RR) - Fed vs Murray
didn't get the last 2
mike danny
Bionic Poster
You seem to bring that one up in relation to the Olympics 2012 final.
metsman
Talk Tennis Guru
2010 AO and WTF, basically how Murray did against 08-10 Fed when Fed wasn't clearly hobbled (08 TMC)
mike danny
Bionic Poster
NatF
Bionic Poster
Would still back Fed. Don't think Murray's chances are particularly better than say 05 Hewitt or 04 Roddick either.
RS
Bionic Poster
You must be responding to the wrong thing... This was not about who did better.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Mostly prime Federer though. Murray barely played peak Fed.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
RS
Bionic Poster
A big one mainly from one poster a bit from some others.Well you said it not me.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
RS
Bionic Poster
Missed the point of the post. I did not say 14-16 was better.
abmk
Bionic Poster
RS
Bionic Poster
Not on this thread. On a Lew thread yeah why not.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
It's not just Murray fans. Many people are criticizing Roddick for that mistake and call him mentally weak. But they completely forget the fact that even the best players make easy crucial mistakes i.e. Nadal's missed BH in the 2012 AO final.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Yea but that is besides the point though. He gets criticized as not a real threat although he's beaten Djokovic twice in Slams and very close to making it 3, while these guys are built up at every turn.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
At this point, every fanbase has an agenda so I'd rather not single out anyone in particular.Well you said it not me.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
I would say every fanbase has their share of bias, not agenda.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Awful is a bit strong imo lol. Hewitt was flat after a long SF the night before.
Agree with second paragraph.
abmk
Bionic Poster
I'll let metsman respond to the rest of it, but stop whining because I called out your murray fanboyism wrt to Oly 12 , because you don't know grass stats 101 (that a -ve W-UE ratio on grass is a well below par performance by the player himself), because you always want to play the Murray victim card even where there is nothing.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
After being disparaged for over a decade, I think it's time to make up for it a bit.
While some of us Fed fans do build them up, none of us are saying they are utter world beaters though. Just that they are unfairly criticized sometimes.
Thiem has beaten Djoker at RG only and that's mainly because Djoker is not as good on clay as he used to be. Same reason why Wawrinka defeated Fed at RG 5 years ago. Djoker played his worst ever AO final this year and Thiem still couldn't beat him, so I think some level of criticism is deserved here. Excusing this loss saying Djoker is the AO GOAT is just a cop out, especially when he didn't play like one.
And besides, Berdych also defeated Fed twice in slams in 2010-2012. Does this make him better than Hewitt/Roddick?
Overall, Thiem is 27 and only has 1 masters title as his biggest prize. Can't blame people for being a bit critical towards him in this case when he hasn't been a young pup for a long time.
Last edited:
mike danny
Bionic Poster
For me, it's the same thing. Can't have an agenda without bias.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Forget it, I've deleted the post because I knew it would be pointless to get through to him in any meaningful way given he's so obviously much more of a Murray hater than even you. Note you didn't attempt to refute anything he said about Murray in his post which I guess is quite typical because either you agree with it completely in which case I rest mine or you only comment on my posts when I defend him but are indifferent to any posts which attack him which only proves my point yet again.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
They are unfairly criticized at times and then on the flip side they are given credit that isn't deserved.
Djokovic's worst final only because he felt unwell for 2 sets. It's not like he was bad the entire match since he was great in the 1st part of the match and the latter part. It's certainly wasn't his overall worst tournament win. And Djokovic is the AO GOAT who hasn't lost to a top 5 player in 15 consecutive matches but I don't get holding Thiem to a standard that no one else can seem to match.
He should have more Masters titles, especially on clay so that criticism is deserved.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
It's pretty bad from Thiem's side that Djokovic can feel unwell for 2 sets and still win.
I'm not saying it was his worst tournament win. I explicitly stated it was his worst ever AO final.
abmk
Bionic Poster
I'd rather let him answer it.
I already said one statement of his was harsh.
to me, it was clear that he was talking about showing heart vs fed in the big matches when fed was playing well - like Roddick did in Wim 09.
not their overall records
Plus the h2h records you mentioned were skewed because of the circumstances - roddick got 0 wins vs fed from 04-07, but a win each in 08 and 10 for example. it wasn't just Murray getting those wins in Bo3 in 2008-10, though he did do well.
I'd disagree with him on YEC 2008 RR match. Murray was determined and got the win there - even if fed had back problems, he was playing some good tennis (not great) - way better than his 1st 2 matches at that YEC.
but still nothing close at a slam or the YEC when fed was playing well (lets leave out USO 08 final - Murray's first slam final and YEC 14 RR because Murray was cooked at the end of the season) - Wim 12 comes closest, but still doesn't compare to Roddick's Wim 09 final effort.
YEC 09, AO 10, YEC 10, Wim 12, Wim 15.
metsman
Talk Tennis Guru
Fed's game was clearly below par in the 08 TMC RR due to physical reasons. Simon ran him ragged and he had little left after the first set vs Murray but still fought very hard. Anyways, I don't consider that win as any more impressive than Hewitt's in 2002 so it's not really a notch in Murray's belt compared to Hewitt.
Actually, in Acapulco, Kuerten lost the first set against #100 Meligeni, won the second set, and was up 3-2 in the third when Meligeni had to retire.
The bottom line is that Guga was an extremely tough out on clay in 2001, and Hewitt straight setted him in a B05 DC match in Guga's backyard. And you can watch the match yourself to see that Kuerten wasn't playing poorly.
skaj
Legend
Your first sentence is completely irrelevant to what we were talking about, you do realize that?
The bottom line is it was one match, and at an event where Guga's game was on a questionable level. Also, the fact that 2001 might be his most successful clay season doesn't mean his tennis was at its peak, and even you have said that he played "solid/not poorly" and not great/peak in that match; knowing that Hewitt has a very good head to head against him ergo had a good game for Kuerten's game, there you go. Let's now get back to the main topic we got away from - it all certainly doesn't suggest that "Hewitt's clay peak" is better than Murray's. (And we have already explained that it wasn't the first time Gustavo had lost to a lesser clay court player in his backyard.)
NonP
Legend
But then your own logic works the other way. If Kuerten could fluctuate that much - and he did - there's no reason to think "peak" Guga would lose a set to an injured Rafter and in straights to Hewitt on the surface that's supposed to be his best. He himself said as much after the match:
And setting aside my impression that he seems to make an UFE every other point (reminds me of his 1st match vs. Fed at '02 Hamburg, actually) I see him hitting lots of CC BHs on return points. That's a dead giveaway that this is far from "peak" Guga we're talking about, but sure, I guess at least he "wasn't playing poorly."
Also excluding DC Guga won 61.2% of his games on clay in '01 - an impressive showing for sure (the 60% Club is a pretty exclusive one) and a higher % than Chang, Kafelnikov, Moya, Costa, Ferrero, Fed or Gaudio ever managed, but lower than not just Courier and Bruguera but also Muster, Agassi, Djokovic and even Coria and Ferrer (just barely in Dre's and Ferru's cases - both won 61.3% in '03 and '11 respectively). Are you going to tell me all of these latter guys were "extremely tough" on clay day in and day out in their own seasons, too?
Let's take another example. Novak won a career-high 63.1% on clay in '11 but lost at RG to Fed who won a merely respectable 56.4% that year. The upset becomes more understandable when you realize that Nole won "only" 60.9% at '11 RG - still a good number but well below his season % and fairly pedestrian by FO-champ standards. OTOH Guga despite his early scares at RG won 62.9% vs. two top-notch dirtballers in Ferrero (the same year he won his own career-high 60.8%) and Corretja in the SF and F, compared to only 57.9% for the whole tourney. Which of these two "peak" guys would you take?
IRL nobody plays at his peak throughout a match, let alone a year. And frankly the very notion that even a merely good Guga would lose in straights to anyone on clay is laughable. The guy thrived on momentum and and it's hardly far-fetched that he needed more match play to find his A game immediately following a disappointing, truncated AO-IW-Miami campaign on HC. His dazzling finish to the CC season proves it.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
How so? I think you need to watch that tournament again. If Djokovic plays the level he played the entire tournament, he wins. He served the best he had in the entire match in the 4th set after his crash in level, and he came into the final serving bigger than he ever has in his career. I don't think he lost serve in the last 2 sets. If the best at that tournament, who never lost in a final, plays a great level of tennis he will win.
But that's not really saying much since he's never lost one and only omce before that was taken to 5.
Yes, Kuerten could fluctuate a lot, but, at least in 2001, he had a high basement, right? He could drop a set or even two to lesser players, but he would always find a way to win, except for the 5 setter against Ferrero in the Italian Open final and the 6-3, 3-6, 7-6 loss to Mirnyi two days later in Hamburg.
I think it's both fair to say that 2001 was Kuerten's clay peak and that his match against Hewitt was not at the top of that peak. Otherwise, Hewitt would have a God-level clay peak.
In that first sentence, I was responding to this point you made: "And we are getting back to the fact that he did not win against Rafter, Rafter unlike the players in the matches you have mentioned retired." My point was that there was another player Guga played on clay in 2001 who retired after winning the first set against him.
As for the overall question, as I said at the beginning, if we're looking at peak as best tournament, peak Murray > peak Hewitt on clay. But, if we're looking at peak as best match, what B05 match would you use as Murray's peak B05 match on clay? That would allow a comparison.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
NonP
Legend
If you're telling me Hewitt being a better dirtballer than Russell is the reason why Guga couldn't make his comeback you'll get no argument from me, but what I objected to is your repeated mentions of "peak" Guga when it's clear at least to me that he was anything but in that DC decider vs. Rusty. The very notion of "peak" is highly questionable when we're talking about a streaky guy like Kuerten who was mighty aggressive on dirt even by today's quasi-HC standards. Just because Rafa, Lendl or even Muster can seemingly bring his 100% to every match doesn't mean that's desirable (if maybe doable) for other top dirtballers. When we say they used to peak for the later rounds of the majors that's because they did.
Now Sampras might have been the most noticeable and extreme practitioner of this playbook, but get this:
- Courier won "only" 64.3% of his games on clay in '92, but a whopping 67.5% at RG that year. Ditto 58.5% on hard (missing several AO/USO rounds) but a stellar 65.2% at the AO (this one is complete) in '93.
- Bruguera won 62.1% overall on clay but a historic 68.8% at RG in '93.
- Kafelnikov won a good but not great 57.6% on dirt but an impressive 62.1% at RG in '96.
And so on. The standardization of the tour, the prevalence of HC-style tennis and the consistency of the Big 3-4 have really spoiled us. Stanimal may be a thing today but in the not-so-distant past he would've been just another contender in the vein of Wilander, Courier, Sampras, Bruguera and even Kafelnikov. You want this "peak" version over Novak's or Muster's who posts impressive regular-season stats but usually fails to make such a big leap for the biggies.
skaj
Legend
Yes, but you didn't realize that it was pointless for the conversation/context: it doesn't matter for what we were talking about if there was another match on clay that year where he won by his opponent retiring, the point was that we don't know whether he would win without Rafter retiring - at that particular event.
I really don't follow Murray's career that closely to remember his matches from 4,5 years ago, but the point is that 1) one match is hardly enough to decide who is better on the surface, especially since the other guy is significantly more accomplished on dirt overall 2) it certainly cannot be a match where one of them played a good but inconsistent clay court player who has a very bad head to head record against him and at an event where his form/game was questionable(in other words, it's not like he won against Nadal at 2010 Roland Garros).
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
Y’all need to throw stats out when talking about Davis Cup. It’s so different than a regular tournament. But it’s safe to say that there was tremendous pressure on Guga to perform well there, I bet he would have rather won that tie than win Monte Carlo that year. It was a huge upset, no one gave Hewitt a chance. When I saw that result(didn’t see the match) I expected Hewitt to win majors, it showed tremendous mental toughness(I remember when Austria withdrew from a tie vs Brazil mid match due to unruly crowd.
And his win over costa in the 2000 DC final was also very impressive.
And his win over costa in the 2000 DC final was also very impressive.
Guga was 36-2 on clay in 2001 outside the loss to Hewitt, with 1 of those losses being a 5 set loss to a terrific clay court player in Ferrero and the other being a loss in a final set tiebreaker 2 days later b/c there weren't first round byes back then. Sure, Guga could be up-and-down, but, in 2001, he was a really tough out on clay, and Hewitt took him out in straight sets.
Look, I'm fine with the first point. I've said from the start that peak Murray > peak Hewitt on clay if we're looking at peak over the course of a clay court tournament and that Hewitt only has a shot if we look at a single match. Personally, I'm agnostic about peak being defined as tournament vs. match and can see arguments on either side. For instance, is peak Safin on HC the 2000 U.S. Open where he smoked Sampras in the final, even though he struggled earlier in the tournament? I don't know.
As to point (2), yes Kuerten could be up-and-down, but he was "up" in 2001 on clay, going 36-2 other than the match against Hewitt, w/one 5 set loss vs. a clay great and the other loss in a deciding set tiebreaker 2 days later. And, yes, Guga was up-and-down in some of his 36 wins, but always "up" enough to win. As for Hewitt's record vs. Hewitt, coming into that match, Kuerten had straight setted Hewitt in their only previous match while Hewitt's 2 other wins (both on hard) would come in 2003-2004 when Kuerten was clearly declined.
NonP
Legend
You're usually a fair poster so I really don't get why it's been so hard for you to concede that one match doesn't tell us much. The fact that this "peak" Guga was a single point away from elimination at RG that year should've ended this frankly silly discussion already.
Anyway if all those jumbles of stats and Guga's own post-match admission of not playing up to his standards don't convince you nothing ever will. Let's just leave it.
As I said above, I'm agnostic about defining peak based on best tournament or best single match. And I'm totally cool w/saying peak Murray > peak Hewitt on clay b/c he has a number of better clay tournaments than Hewitt's best clay tournament. I'm just saying that if someone wants to argue that peak is based on a single match, Hewitt's DC win over Kuerten would give him a good (but not indisputable) case against Murray.
NonP
Legend
But I wasn't talking about Murray vs. Hewitt. Again what I took exception to was your repeated assertions about Rusty beating "peak" Guga (or at least Guga in his peak season - the misleading characterization remains the same). You keep saying he was quite consistent in '01 compared to his other seasons, but that's demonstrably false as those FO stats paint the very opposite picture. Again the guy won a mediocre 57.9% for the whole fortnight vs. 62.9% in the SF and F, or put another way, he won a mere 56.2% in his 1st five rounds in stark contrast to a stellar 62.9% in his last two. (I don't wanna get too nerdy here but he also had more return games than service ones for the event, which usually doesn't happen for the top dogs who tend to serve out the set/match more often than not.)
You'll be hard-pressed to find another FO champ whose form did indeed fluctuate as much or raised his game to such heights for the big matches, as clay rewards consistency more than any other surface. And this was quite possibly his biggest triumph, the one that saw him almost being knocked out in the 4th round by a 122nd-ranked journeyman. I don't see how anyone can take this set of facts and still conclude that the player in question "had a high basement" compared to his other versions. It certainly wasn't "peak" Kuerten who lost to Hewitt in straight sets, and while Rusty deserves props for keeping the pressure on Guga this was a DC decider on friendly home soil/in a hostile environment which can wreak all sorts of unexpected havoc.
As Moose pointed out DC's unique dynamics make it very tricky as a comparative barometer of any one player's "peak," and if you're truly agnostic about using a single match for the same purpose the above is all the more reason not to oversell Rusty's performance here.
skaj
Legend
I guess I wasn't clear enough.
I have already said, the fact that he had a successful clay season in 2001 doesn't mean he played a spectacular peak tennis: it was a post 90s clay court masters and pre Nadal period, not a strong clay court era, where he wasn't too convincing in his wins(you gave examples of that). So he wasn't playing the kind of tennis that would be a parameter for great clay court game of his opponents if they win against him. In the 2003/04 he was winning against Federer, so it's not like his game was complete rubbish. Hewitt won against him at the Davis cup where Kuerten was known to lose to a lesser clay court player before winning the French Open later, and at an event where he did not win another match but his opponent retired. Hewitt has a great head to head against him, meaning he has the game for Kuerten, and it manifested in 2001(and later). The fact that he lost a year earlier during a summer when he had very little success against anyone is little relevant.
Similar threads
- Poll
