Put Sir Andrew Barron Murray in the 2003-2009 era instead of Federer, how does he do?

How does Muzz fare in this era?

  • He wouldn't win any noteworthy titles

    Votes: 6 6.4%
  • Probably could vulture a Masters or a Slam every now and then

    Votes: 26 27.7%
  • He wins a good share of Big Titles but not quite as many as Federer did

    Votes: 34 36.2%
  • He'd

    Votes: 9 9.6%
  • He'd do even BETTER than Fed

    Votes: 10 10.6%
  • Undisputed GOAT

    Votes: 9 9.6%

  • Total voters
    94

Third Serve

G.O.A.T.
Unashamed bait thread as suggested by the master of them, @RS

edit: eff'd up the poll by accidentally pressing enter: the fourth option is supposed to be "he'd do as well as Fed did"
 

aldeayeah

Legend
Generally speaking I like the chances of the random hot players du jour beating him more often than Fed (baggy, gonzo, etc)
 

aldeayeah

Legend
I don’t think he’d win most of the hard court slams. More than one, yes, but not a ton of them. He’s always vulnerable to big hitters in the zone a la Verdasco, Cilic, Wawrinka (even before his Stanimal phase).
I mean he did lose to Verdasco in AO 2009, that match was an epic itself, and this was close to peak Mury
 

Kralingen

Legend
had some time on lunch break:

'10 - 2003, '11 - 2004, '12 - 2005, '13 - 2006 , '14 - 2007, '15 - 2008, '16 - 2009

working off these assumptions - also assuming Murray gets Federer's draw... I don't believe he'd be able to keep #1 as long, but I really don't want to re-shuffle draws like that.

'03 - Murray gets to AO final but loses to Agassi most likely, could possibly win Wimbledon but likely loses to Roddick in the SF. IIRC he was good at the '10 YEC so could possibly win that.
0 Slams, 1 YEC. Roddick = 2 Slams (lol)
'04 - Murray gets to AO final and pulls it out vs. dead leg Safin in 5. Loses to Guga at FO, loses to Roddick at Wimbledon, loses to Agassi/Hewitt at US Open. 1 Slam. Roddick = 1 Slam
'
05 - Murray loses to Safin in 5 in epic AO match, loses in FO, and finally beats Roddick/Hewitt at Wimbledon. Also wins US Open. 2 Slams. Roddick = 0 Slams.
'06 - Murray wins AO. Wimbledon is a toss-up - Nadal owned him on the grass but babydal in '06 wasn't that great. Could win USO but likely doesn't. 2 Slams. Roddick = 1 Slam (USO).
'
07 - Murray doesn't win any Slams. However Roddick comes up short to Gonzo in '07 AO. Roddick's '07 USO QF voted greatest match of the decade as he triple bagels Murray with a golden set, but he comes up short to Djokovic in the final. Murray/Roddick = 0 Slams
'08 - Murray doesn't win anything, '15 AO form loses to '08 Djokovic as well. However he wins Olympic Gold. Murray/Roddick = 0 Slams
'09 - Wins YEC, Wimbledon is toss-up but have to go with Roddick bc he beat real-life Murray in Wimby '09. However he wasn't good enough to beat Nadal/Del Potro in AO/FO/USO.
Murray = 0 Slam, YEC, Roddick = 1 Slam


Murray total - 5 Slams. Roddick total - 5 Slams. Waiting for @NatF to tell me how wrong I am about peak Murray vs. Hewitt ;)
 
Last edited:

ForehandRF

Hall of Fame
The serious answer would be that Murray would be a different player without the battles against Fedalovic.One cannot assume that he would have the same level that he actually had in the actual timeline because things would be much different.Just my 2 cents :D
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
Not a single slam where I'd give Murray better than 40-45% odds of winning besides 06 AO (where I'd have him as the favorite) and 06 wimby (where I think it'd be 50/50 assuming Rolfe can avoid stage fright, but even if he does he spotted Murray a set in 2011 without issue).

Replacing Federer is a bit dumb anyways as he should be replacing a similar level player (so Roddick or Hewitt). In which case he obviously wins nada. Same with Stan.

Only other era in which we can confidently give Murray multiple slams is 98-02 with the poverty AOs.
 

tudwell

Legend
I mean he did lose to Verdasco in AO 2009, that match was an epic itself, and this was close to peak Mury
Exactly. There are a lot of floaters out there in the years in question. Haas, Davydenko, Nalbandian, Blake, probably more (and that's to say nothing of the other truly top players like Safin, Agassi, Hewitt, Roddick, plus later Djokovic and Nadal). Even a more mature Murray who was a multi-slam champion lost to the likes of Anderson and Nishikori at the US Open. He's always been more consistent at the Australian, but that was also all on Plexicushion and we don't know if his game would translate in quite the same way to Rebound Ace (might dent his consistency, who knows).

I'd certainly favor him to snag at least a couple more titles than he did, especially in years like 06 (both hard court slams winnable), but he'd still lose more often than he won.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
had some time on lunch break:

'10 - 2003
'11 - 2004
'12 - 2005
'13 - 2006
'14 - 2007
'15 - 2008
'16 - 2009

working off these assumptions - also assuming Murray gets Federer's draw... I don't believe he'd be able to keep #1 as long, but I really don't want to re-shuffle draws like that.

'03 - Murray gets to AO final but loses to Agassi most likely, could possibly win Wimbledon but likely loses to Roddick in the SF. IIRC he was good at the '10 YEC so could possibly win that.
0 Slams, 1 YEC. Roddick = 2 Slams (lol)
'04 - Murray gets to AO final and pulls it out vs. dead leg Safin in 5. Loses to Guga at FO, loses to Roddick at Wimbledon, loses to Agassi/Hewitt at US Open. 1 Slam. Roddick = 1 Slam
'
05 - Murray loses to Safin in 5 in epic AO match, loses in FO, and finally beats Roddick/Hewitt at Wimbledon. Also wins US Open. 2 Slams. Roddick = 0 Slams.
'06 - Murray wins AO. Wimbledon is a toss-up - Nadal owned him on the grass but babydal in '06 wasn't that great. Could win USO but likely doesn't. 2 Slams. Roddick = 1 Slam (USO).
'
07 - Murray doesn't win any Slams. However Roddick comes up short to Gonzo in '07 AO. Roddick's '07 USO QF voted greatest match of the decade as he triple bagels Murray with a golden set, but he comes up short to Djokovic in the final. Murray/Roddick = 0 Slams
'08 - Murray doesn't win anything, '15 AO form loses to '08 Djokovic as well. However he wins Olympic Gold. Murray/Roddick = 0 Slams
'09 - Wins YEC, Wimbledon is toss-up but have to go with Roddick bc he beat real-life Murray in Wimby '09. However he wasn't good enough to beat Nadal/Del Potro in AO/FO/USO.
Murray = 0 Slam, YEC, Roddick = 1 Slam


Murray total - 5 Slams. Roddick total - 5 Slams. Waiting for @NatF to tell me how wrong I am about peak Murray vs. Hewitt ;)
Think AO 2004 and USO 2005 are toss-ups at best. Think theoretical Fedless tour has a much more confident and better Arod at Wimbledon in 2005 as well.

Impossible to say really how this goes. He probably wins a few on consistency but not sure how many.
 

Kralingen

Legend
Think AO 2004 and USO 2005 are toss-ups at best. Think theoretical Fedless tour has a much more confident and better Arod at Wimbledon in 2005 as well.

Impossible to say really how this goes. He probably wins a few on consistency but not sure how many.
yeah this is one where the implications are far more than just a different player in the draw, we're looking at different rankings, probably more diverse challengers, and of course a different Roddick and Hewitt as well.

Another thing to note here is I think Murray's playstyle would be a lot closer to the USO '08 form he had than the slow court stuff he was playing in the mid- '10s. I really don't think any player except maybe Nadal would play the same.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
yeah this is one where the implications are far more than just a different player in the draw, we're looking at different rankings, probably more diverse challengers, and of course a different Roddick and Hewitt as well.

Another thing to note here is I think Murray's playstyle would be a lot closer to the USO '08 form he had than the slow court stuff he was playing in the mid- '10s. I really don't think any player except maybe Nadal would play the same.
I'd like to live in a timeline with uninjured Hewitt.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
The serious answer would be that Murray would be a different player without the battles against Fedalovic.One cannot assume that he would have the same level that he actually had in the actual timeline because things would be much different.Just my 2 cents :D
Basically this.

Also, in a world without Federer, the rest of the players would also gain more confidence seeing only Murray as the main obstacle to overcome.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
yeah this is one where the implications are far more than just a different player in the draw, we're looking at different rankings, probably more diverse challengers, and of course a different Roddick and Hewitt as well.

Another thing to note here is I think Murray's playstyle would be a lot closer to the USO '08 form he had than the slow court stuff he was playing in the mid- '10s. I really don't think any player except maybe Nadal would play the same.
We also have to look at the versions of Murray in question. 2011 Murray wasn't that great, so I'm not sure he beats both Hewitt and Nalbandian at the 2004 AO.
 
D

Deleted member 771911

Guest
He’d be the same Murray. Mentally weak. Then he’d have to face Nadal.
even less slams than he has.
And no no.1 ranking.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
He only has 1 HC slam in his entire career and underperformed at the USO, but sure, he wins most of them :laughing: :laughing: :-D:-D
He is not gonna play Djokovic and Federer now. He is gonna be up against players he is better than, and with his consistency in his prime he will put himself in alot of chances to win. I'm favouring Murray here but like I said I don't see him winning like Federer did but he is gonna win his fair share of slams, in the vicinity of 6-8.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Let's say Murray is born in 1981 like Federer. So it's 2008-2016 Murray in 2002-2010.

2008 in 2002: don't think he's a slam contender before the USO and at the USO he loses to PETE anyway.

2009 in 2003: only chance is at Wimb where I think Roddick beats him.

2010 in 2004:

- AO: 50/50. Does he beat Hewitt and Nalbandian? We'll never know
- FO: nope
- Wimb: loses to Roddick again
- USO: loses to Agassi if he gets that far.

2011 in 2005:

- AO: loses to Safin
- FO: nope
- Wimb: wins it. Hewitt and Roddick were unconvincing.
- USO: doesn't win it, IMO. Probably goes down to Hewitt.

2012 in 2006:

- AO: wins it
- FO: nope
- Wimb: 50/50. Yes, 2006 Nadal wasn't yet that good, but he still gave peak Fed a pretty good challenge and Murray isn't a tougher match-up for Nadal on grass than peak Fed is.
- USO: probably wins it, but if he plays against Blake like he did against Cilic, Blake may make him pay. So he's not a guaranteed winner.

2013 in 2007:
- AO: wins it.
- FO: nope
- Wimb: loses to Nadal
- USO: loses to Roddick

2014 in 2008: wins 0 slams. Murray was horrible that year.

2015 in 2009:
- AO: loses to Nadal
- FO: loses to Delpo, IMO.
- Wimb: loses to Roddick
- USO: loses to someone

2016 in 2010:
- AO: 50/50. Could go down to Davydenko
- FO: nope
- Wimb: loses to Nadal
- USO: loses to someone

So could win up to 5-6 slams, but that's about it.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
He is not gonna play Djokovic and Federer now. He is gonna be up against players he is better than, and with his consistency in his prime he will put himself in alot of chances to win. I'm favouring Murray here but like I said I don't see him winning like Federer did but he is gonna win his fair share of slams, in the vicinity of 6-8.
Other players would also be more confident seeing only Murray as the biggest obstacle instead of Federer. He certainly doesn't won most HC slams, that's just laughable.

Even if he doesn't have to play Federer or Djokovic, sometimes he played poorly enough for other in form players to stop him in his tracks.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
He is not gonna play Djokovic and Federer now. He is gonna be up against players he is better than, and with his consistency in his prime he will put himself in alot of chances to win. I'm favouring Murray here but like I said I don't see him winning like Federer did but he is gonna win his fair share of slams, in the vicinity of 6-8.
you do realise Djokovic was there prominently so in USO 07, AO 08, USO 08 and USO 09 (final, winner, semi, semi)?
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
2011 in 2005:

- Wimb: wins it. Hewitt and Roddick were unconvincing.
murray crumbled vs nadal in 11 Wim after winning a set and then missing an easy FH on BP early in 2nd set. He'd might edge out Roddick of Wim 05, but would lose vs the steadier AND better hewitt of Wim 05. Hewitt was playing fairly well in the semi. I wouldn't call him unconvincing.


2013 in 2007:
- AO: wins it.
not if Murray gets affected by blisters like he was in AO 13 final.
Gonzo would be a tough ask anyways. But if blisters come into picture, Murray loses for sure.
 
Last edited:

Ray Mercer

Hall of Fame
Let's say Murray is born in 1981 like Federer. So it's 2008-2016 Murray in 2002-2010.

2008 in 2002: don't think he's a slam contender before the USO and at the USO he loses to PETE anyway.

2009 in 2003: only chance is at Wimb where I think Roddick beats him.

2010 in 2004:

- AO: 50/50. Does he beat Hewitt and Nalbandian? We'll never know
- FO: nope
- Wimb: loses to Roddick again
- USO: loses to Agassi if he gets that far.

2011 in 2005:

- AO: loses to Safin
- FO: nope
- Wimb: wins it. Hewitt and Roddick were unconvincing.
- USO: doesn't win it, IMO. Probably goes down to Hewitt.

2012 in 2006:

- AO: wins it
- FO: nope
- Wimb: 50/50. Yes, 2006 Nadal wasn't yet that good, but he still gave peak Fed a pretty good challenge and Murray isn't a tougher match-up for Nadal on grass than peak Fed is.
- USO: probably wins it, but if he plays against Blake like he did against Cilic, Blake may make him pay. So he's not a guaranteed winner.

2013 in 2007:
- AO: wins it.
- FO: nope
- Wimb: loses to Nadal
- USO: loses to Roddick

2014 in 2008: wins 0 slams. Murray was horrible that year.

2015 in 2009:
- AO: loses to Nadal
- FO: loses to Delpo, IMO.
- Wimb: loses to Roddick
- USO: loses to someone

2016 in 2010:
- AO: 50/50. Could go down to Davydenko
- FO: nope
- Wimb: loses to Nadal
- USO: loses to someone

So could win up to 5-6 slams, but that's about it.
Gonzo at the 2007 Australian was a monster. I’m not taking Murray in that match.
 

Third Serve

G.O.A.T.
As for me, let's say Sir Andeh is born in a lowly manger within the rolling hills of Scotland in 1981, mirroring JesusFed's birthdate. His development as a player would roughly correlate to something like this:

Let's throw in his 2008 season btw because he had some pretty good results there. I guess we have to stretch the period to 2002-2010 to best reflect Murray's prime years.

2008 season --> 2002
2009 --> 2003
2010 --> 2004
2011 --> 2005
2012 --> 2006
2013 --> 2007
2014 --> 2008
2015 --> 2009
2016 --> 2010

That being said, we have to keep in mind some of the dynamics because taking someone like Federer out of the equation is gonna have some definite repercussions with regards to his generation... specifically Roddick. Do we think Roddick would turn in such mediocre performances like Wimbledon 2005 F or AO 2007 SF if he had to play anyone but Federer? There was a mental aspect there and that would probably be erased in this timeline. Also, the draws would be shuffled around a bit because I think Murray is gonna be fluctuating from #1 to #2 to #3 and back again more than Federer did, but for the sake of readability, let's assume Muzz gets Fed's draws... exactly the way they went. I also think Murray would keep his aggressive playstyle from the 2008-2009 years because it'd benefit him more in this era of relatively quicker courts. Who knows how players would deal with him then?

2002: Murray snags some Masters tournaments and has competent showings at Wimbledon, the US Open, and the Masters Cup, but I don't think he wins any of those. I think we're looking at a top 5-6 kind of season. The same guys win the Slams this year.

Johansson - Costa - Hewitt - Sampras - Hewitt

2003: Like 2002, he grabs some Masters, and he should have a good Wimbledon run though I think his run would end against Roddick in the semifinals. No Slam wins. Without Federer to occupy one of the top spots, I feel pretty confident that Murray would maintain his top 5-6 ranking. Slam and YEC distribution:

Agassi - Ferrero - Roddick - Roddick - Agassi

2004: Basically like 2003. He has some good runs at the AO and Wimbledon (and he even has an outside chance at winning the former should he navigate past Hewitt and Nalbandian in the earlier rounds) Probably maintains his ranking and also poses a definite threat at the YEC and possibly the Olympics as well. Roddick probably ends up being the top dog with Hewitt, Safin, and Agassi occupying the next three slots in some order.

Hewitt (or possibly Nalbandian or Murray but I don't trust Nalby at Slam-level and Murray isn't quite there yet) - Gaudio - Roddick - Agassi - Safin (or Murray or Hewitt)

2005: Murray brings up his Slam performance a good bit and remains pretty consistent across all of them. I don't think he wins any, but his best chance would be at Wimbledon where Roddick wasn't particularly good. However, as I mentioned before, Roddick might go into that final with a different mentality because, y'know, he would likely be the 2-time defending champion with no Federer in the way. I think Murray gets up to about #4 in the ranking and Roddick and Nadal split weeks at #1 throughout the year. If Hewitt wins Wimbledon 2005, though, things become interesting.

Safin - Nadal - Roddick (or Hewitt if Roddick remains exactly like he was in the real 2005 final) - Hewitt - Nalbandian

2006: This would be Murray's real breakout year as well as his absolute best season by my estimate. In his 2012 form, he probably wins the AO with its lackluster draw, has a solid chance at taking Wimbledon, and a decent chance at the US Open. I think he ends the year #1 unless Nadal wins Wimbledon, in which case it'd be pretty close between them. The US Open is interesting because the wind affected much of the 2012 final which made Murray look... not that great, but then again, Roddick only played like a couple of good sets in the 2006 final.

Murray - Nadal - Murray (or Nadal) - Murray (or Roddick) - idk lol... possibly even Nadal

2007: Murray has another solid year here. I'd back him to win the AO again, but this time Nadal in his 2007 form takes Wimbledon and either Roddick or Djokovic win the US Open. Because Nadal seems poised to take the Channel Slam here, I think Murray would slip to #2 in the rankings. YEC is interesting as usual.

Murray - Nadal - Nadal - Djokovic (or Roddick) - idk

2008: Murray declines here, assuming injuries strike him in this universe like they did in 2014 in ours. Nadal has an excellent season, Djokovic breaks through, and Murray gets shifted to the sidelines. He could still reach QFs and possibly SFs at the Slams but he shouldn't be winning anything more than small titles here in his condition. He likely drops to #8-10 in the rankings. The other interesting thing is that the absence of Federer basically clears the way for Djokovic to win the US Open and possibly challenge Nadal for the #1 spot. However, I think Nadal would still rack up enough points to secure the YE-#1.

Djokovic - Nadal - Nadal - Djokovic (or Nadal - not too likely but still) - Djokovic

2009: Murray improves, but I don't think it's enough to win any of the Slams although he could make deep runs at AO, RG, and Wimbledon. He should also be able to snag a Masters or two although that'll be difficult in this strong season. He picks himself back up to like #5 (Delpo and Roddick would greatly benefit from the absence of Federer and I think they - along with Djokovic and Nadal - would occupy the top four spots in the rankings)

Nadal - Del Potro (or Soderling) - Roddick - Del Potro - Davydenko

2010: Murray improves even more (at this point he's in his 2016 form) but Nadal would make it very difficult for him to compete for the #1 ranking. Murray probably takes the AO and the WTF as well as some HC Masters and has an outside shot at Wimbledon (2010 Murray gave Nadal a semi-tough fight) but overall, I see Nadal ending up as the YE-#1 and Murray the #2. But perhaps the YE-#1 will be so far out of reach for Murray that he might not go to such extreme lengths to reach what would be a lost cause. As such, maybe he'll stay clear of the injuries that affected him in 2017.

Murray - Nadal - Nadal (or Murray) - Nadal - Murray

In the end, here's what I think everyone gets here:

Nadal: 3-5 YE-#1s, probably looking at way more weeks, 9-12 Slams, several Masters, a shot at the 2006 YEC
Murray: 1 YE-#1, definitely gets plenty of weeks in 2006 and 2007, 3-6 Slams, 1-2 YECs, several Masters
Roddick: 2 YE-#1s, pretty much spends the last third of 2003, all of 2004, and the first half of 2005 as #1, 4-6 Slams, not too many Masters
Djokovic: Outside chance to get weeks at #1 in 2008, 2 Slams, 1 YEC, a couple of Masters
Hewitt: 1 YE-#1, same weeks as before but he could get some in 2005 depending on Wimbledon, 3-4 Slams, 1-2 YEC, a couple of Masters
Agassi: some weeks in 2002 and 2003, same as usual, 2 Slams, 1 YEC, a couple of Masters
Del Potro: 1-2 Slams which could even net him some weeks at #1 in 2009

Overall, it'd be an interesting time
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
As for me, let's say Sir Andeh is born in a lowly manger within the rolling hills of Scotland in 1981, mirroring JesusFed's birthdate. His development as a player would roughly correlate to something like this:

Let's throw in his 2008 season btw because he had some pretty good results there. I guess we have to stretch the period to 2002-2010 to best reflect Murray's prime years.

2008 season --> 2002
2009 --> 2003
2010 --> 2004
2011 --> 2005
2012 --> 2006
2013 --> 2007
2014 --> 2008
2015 --> 2009
2016 --> 2010

That being said, we have to keep in mind some of the dynamics because taking someone like Federer out of the equation is gonna have some definite repercussions with regards to his generation... specifically Roddick. Do we think Roddick would turn in such mediocre performances like Wimbledon 2005 F or AO 2007 SF if he had to play anyone but Federer? There was a mental aspect there and that would probably be erased in this timeline. Also, the draws would be shuffled around a bit because I think Murray is gonna be fluctuating from #1 to #2 to #3 and back again more than Federer did, but for the sake of readability, let's assume Muzz gets Fed's draws... exactly the way they went. I also think Murray would keep his aggressive playstyle from the 2008-2009 years because it'd benefit him more in this era of relatively quicker courts. Who knows how players would deal with him then?

2002: Murray snags some Masters tournaments and has competent showings at Wimbledon, the US Open, and the Masters Cup, but I don't think he wins any of those. I think we're looking at a top 5-6 kind of season. The same guys win the Slams this year.

Johansson - Costa - Hewitt - Sampras - Hewitt

2003: Like 2002, he grabs some Masters, and he should have a good Wimbledon run though I think his run would end against Roddick in the semifinals. No Slam wins. Without Federer to occupy one of the top spots, I feel pretty confident that Murray would maintain his top 5-6 ranking. Slam and YEC distribution:

Agassi - Ferrero - Roddick - Roddick - Agassi

2004: Basically like 2003. He has some good runs at the AO and Wimbledon (and he even has an outside chance at winning the former should he navigate past Hewitt and Nalbandian in the earlier rounds) Probably maintains his ranking and also poses a definite threat at the YEC and possibly the Olympics as well. Roddick probably ends up being the top dog with Hewitt, Safin, and Agassi occupying the next three slots in some order.

Hewitt (or possibly Nalbandian or Murray but I don't trust Nalby at Slam-level and Murray isn't quite there yet) - Gaudio - Roddick - Agassi - Safin (or Murray or Hewitt)

2005: Murray brings up his Slam performance a good bit and remains pretty consistent across all of them. I don't think he wins any, but his best chance would be at Wimbledon where Roddick wasn't particularly good. However, as I mentioned before, Roddick might go into that final with a different mentality because, y'know, he would likely be the 2-time defending champion with no Federer in the way. I think Murray gets up to about #4 in the ranking and Roddick and Nadal split weeks at #1 throughout the year. If Hewitt wins Wimbledon 2005, though, things become interesting.

Safin - Nadal - Roddick (or Hewitt if Roddick remains exactly like he was in the real 2005 final) - Hewitt - Nalbandian

2006: This would be Murray's real breakout year as well as his absolute best season by my estimate. In his 2012 form, he probably wins the AO with its lackluster draw, has a solid chance at taking Wimbledon, and a decent chance at the US Open. I think he ends the year #1 unless Nadal wins Wimbledon, in which case it'd be pretty close between them. The US Open is interesting because the wind affected much of the 2012 final which made Murray look... not that great, but then again, Roddick only played like a couple of good sets in the 2006 final.

Murray - Nadal - Murray (or Nadal) - Murray (or Roddick) - idk lol... possibly even Nadal

2007: Murray has another solid year here. I'd back him to win the AO again, but this time Nadal in his 2007 form takes Wimbledon and either Roddick or Djokovic win the US Open. Because Nadal seems poised to take the Channel Slam here, I think Murray would slip to #2 in the rankings. YEC is interesting as usual.

Murray - Nadal - Nadal - Djokovic (or Roddick) - idk

2008: Murray declines here, assuming injuries strike him in this universe like they did in 2014 in ours. Nadal has an excellent season, Djokovic breaks through, and Murray gets shifted to the sidelines. He could still reach QFs and possibly SFs at the Slams but he shouldn't be winning anything more than small titles here in his condition. He likely drops to #8-10 in the rankings. The other interesting thing is that the absence of Federer basically clears the way for Djokovic to win the US Open and possibly challenge Nadal for the #1 spot. However, I think Nadal would still rack up enough points to secure the YE-#1.

Djokovic - Nadal - Nadal - Djokovic (or Nadal - not too likely but still) - Djokovic

2009: Murray improves, but I don't think it's enough to win any of the Slams although he could make deep runs at AO, RG, and Wimbledon. He should also be able to snag a Masters or two although that'll be difficult in this strong season. He picks himself back up to like #5 (Delpo and Roddick would greatly benefit from the absence of Federer and I think they - along with Djokovic and Nadal - would occupy the top four spots in the rankings)

Nadal - Del Potro (or Soderling) - Roddick - Del Potro - Davydenko

2010: Murray improves even more (at this point he's in his 2016 form) but Nadal would make it very difficult for him to compete for the #1 ranking. Murray probably takes the AO and the WTF as well as some HC Masters and has an outside shot at Wimbledon (2010 Murray gave Nadal a semi-tough fight) but overall, I see Nadal ending up as the YE-#1 and Murray the #2. But perhaps the YE-#1 will be so far out of reach for Murray that he might not go to such extreme lengths to reach what would be a lost cause. As such, maybe he'll stay clear of the injuries that affected him in 2017.

Murray - Nadal - Nadal (or Murray) - Nadal - Murray

In the end, here's what I think everyone gets here:

Nadal: 3-5 YE-#1s, probably looking at way more weeks, 9-12 Slams, several Masters, a shot at the 2006 YEC
Murray: 1 YE-#1, definitely gets plenty of weeks in 2006 and 2007, 3-6 Slams, 1-2 YECs, several Masters
Roddick: 2 YE-#1s, pretty much spends the last third of 2003, all of 2004, and the first half of 2005 as #1, 4-6 Slams, not too many Masters
Djokovic: Outside chance to get weeks at #1 in 2008, 2 Slams, 1 YEC, a couple of Masters
Hewitt: 1 YE-#1, same weeks as before but he could get some in 2005 depending on Wimbledon, 3-4 Slams, 1-2 YEC, a couple of Masters
Agassi: some weeks in 2002 and 2003, same as usual, 2 Slams, 1 YEC, a couple of Masters
Del Potro: 1-2 Slams which could even net him some weeks at #1 in 2009

Overall, it'd be an interesting time
2016 Murray wasn't convincing at the AO. He could realistically go down to Davydenko if he were in Federer's place assuming Davy doesn't have the same kind of collapse he actually did in reality. Davy probably shouldn't because he mostly had a mental block against Federer.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
You said the period without them.
Mostly, yes, I'm including 2007 even if Djoko was there. 2003-2007. 6-8 slams for murray if we are talking about a prime murray 2011-17ish.

So I'm not saying he will win 8 slams, I'm saying 6-8. He will lose some and win some. Not sure how he'd fare against Nadal at Wimbledon, might lose 2007 encounter, but 2006 he can win. At AO, same there, loses a few and will win some. At USO, will lose some and win some. All this will generate in 6-8 slams.

I think he also would be the #1 player in this period due to Nadal not being that great on HC then. Murrays consistency to go deep in slams will generate alot of points, add to that he will win slams aswell, then you have masters wich mostly are on HCs. Murray can also play on clay and has the ability to go deep in every clay masters aswell as FO. Just look at his FO results and compare it to Roddick, Hewitt and Safin. Different ball game of ability.

Nadal will get most his points on clay, but too few clay masters compared to HCs.

Just look at his career and what he has done on every surface and how consistent he has been, not just in slams but outside slams. He is a great tennis player who competes with the best on every surface the whole calender year year in year out.
 
Last edited:

Third Serve

G.O.A.T.
2016 Murray wasn't convincing at the AO. He could realistically go down to Davydenko if he were in Federer's place assuming Davy doesn't have the same kind of collapse he actually did in reality. Davy probably shouldn't because he mostly had a mental block against Federer.
Davydenko had mental blocks at the Slams in general
 
Top