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

D.Nalby12

G.O.A.T.
On a scale of playing gears from 0 to 10 where 10 is the absolute peak level we witnessed in last 20 years (Nadal's 2008 french open can be 10)

This is how the greats of the last 20 years operated ....

01.
Federer IMO is the only Tennis player who regularly/or on most days operates on an avg at 8+ and above with least fluctuations, his highest gear can be 9.8-9.9 touched at Various years between 2004 and 2007.

02. Djokovic operates at 7.5 on an avg, in 1st week he is at 6.5 when he is a little vulnerable, by end of 2nd week he crosses 8.5 and reaches close to 8.8, his highest gear can be 9.8 reached during 2011 Aus Open.

03. Nadal outside clay operates on an avg of 7.0 and his highest gear was 9.0 at 2008 wimbledon & 2009 Aus open........ On clay his avg gear is 9.0, highest is 10.0 at the 2008 French Open and had he been pushed in that tournament then he had a 11th gear as well which we have never seen till date.

04. Safin operates at an avg of 4.5 and his highest gear can be 9.5+ which he attained at the 2000USO and 2005AO. Safin fluctuates a lot between these levels, you never know when he could beat you if in mood. At his best he could be a thorn for even GOATs who are operating at 9+.

05. Murray operates at an avg of 6.0 but his highest gear is only 7.5 (This explains why he reaches semis regularly but surrenders meekly, his ceiling is not high and thats why he is no ATG)

06. Hewitt operates at an avg of 5.5 but his highest gear is 7.5 which is same as Murray, hence they are similar players....

07. Roddick operates at avg of 5.0 but his highest gear is 8.8 which he reached at wimbledon 2009 final

08. Stanimal similar to Safin, has an avg of 5.0 but his highest gear is 8.8 which he reached at Aus open when he thrashed Novak and later took out Nadal in the final.


So kudos to Sir Andrew Barron Murray for having a very consistent level of play which does not dip below 6 but then his top gear is also under 8. :whistle:

Hence his struggles would continue in 2000s as well since semi final opponents and finalist opponents would automatically be operating at a level of 8 or more. This is why Murray has been so impotent vs Fed since Fed's base level itself is higher than Murray's top gear :-D :-D :-D
This pretty much sums up. Murray had solid average level which made him very consistent player for years. But he lacked upper gears - so he could convert very few out many opportunities (20+ semis).
 

Rosstour

Legend
Generally speaking I like the chances of the random hot players du jour beating him more often than Fed (baggy, gonzo, etc)
Those guys aren't "random hot players", they were top-level pros of their day and their rankings reflect that.

Murray is an ATG so I'd expect him to have similar results against them as the Big3 did.
 

Rosstour

Legend
This pretty much sums up. Murray had solid average level which made him very consistent player for years. But he lacked upper gears - so he could convert very few out many opportunities (20+ semis).
Dude literally beat the GOAT in two Slam finals lol.
 

Rosstour

Legend
We all know how bad Djokovic played in those finals. GOAT has strange habit of gifting Slams to lesser players. Medvedev was latest beneficiary.
Or maybe the other player was just better?

Med took the racquet out of Djok's hands in that US final. He didn't blow an easy win or anything.
 

D.Nalby12

G.O.A.T.
Or maybe the other player was just better?

Med took the racquet out of Djok's hands in that US final. He didn't blow an easy win or anything.
I don't believe it. Someone who can pull off 40-15 win against Federer on Grass would lose Murray of all people in straights. That was a freak loss. Medvedev is no better than Murray. Djokovic has become old too. Prime Djokovic would roast him alive.
 

aldeayeah

Legend
Those guys aren't "random hot players", they were top-level pros of their day and their rankings reflect that.

Murray is an ATG so I'd expect him to have similar results against them as the Big3 did.
I'm referring specifically to their mystical slam runs in which they crushed everyone but Fed. I think Mandy would be more vulnerable.
 

ElisRF

Hall of Fame
I will give this a try

09/03
AO - loses to AA
RG - loses
Wim - has a good shot here but Roddick is a tough challenge
USO - loses

10/04
AO - has a shot on the Federer half but the other half I would say no
RG - no
Wim - loses to Roddick/Hewitt
USO - no

11/05
AO - no
RG - no
Wim - probably loses
USO - no

12/06
AO - favourite
RG - no
Wim - 50/50 with Nadal
USO - shot here

13/07
AO - has a shot here but Gonzo is tough
RG - no
Wim - If he gets Nadal before the final 50/50. In it he loses.
USO - no

14/08 - None

15/09
AO - no
RG - loses to Del Potro or Soderling
Wim - loses to Roddick
USO - no

16/10
AO - could to Davydenko? Assuming he doesn’t play 2010 Murray but has a shot.
RG - no
Wim - loses to Nadal
USO - no

I added a extra year to extend it slightly. I would say around 4-5 would be a good number.
 
Last edited:

aldeayeah

Legend
I will give this a try

09/03
AO - loses to AA
RG - loses
Wim - has a good shot here but Roddick is a tough challenge
USO - loses

10/04
AO - has a shot on the Federer half but the other half I would say no
RG - no
Wim - loses to Roddick/Hewitt
USO - no

11/05
AO - no
RG - no
Wim - probably loses
USO - no

12/06
AO - favourite
RG - no
Wim - 50/50 with Nadal
USO - shot here

13/07
AO - has a shot here but Gonzo is tough
RG - no
Wim - If he gets Nadal before the final 50/50. In it he loses.
USO - no

14/08 - None

15/09
AO - no
RG - loses to Del Potro or Soderling
Wim - loses to Roddick
USO - no

16/10
AO - could to Davydenko? Assuming he doesn’t play 2010 Murray but has a shot.
RG - no
Wim - loses to Nadal
USO - no

I added a extra year to extend it slightly. I would say around 4-5 would be a good number.
Add 2008 Murray to 2002, let's pit him against Sampras lol
 

Sunny014

Legend
Murray would be a significantly weaker player if born 6 years earlier, those extra 6 years of better nutrition, modern day training that honed his grinding skills in the baseline would now not exist if he turned pro in the SNV era. He wins a max of 3-4 slams even in this era with 2006 being the year where he can take home 1-2 slams, before that maybe a slam or 2 here nd there. Overall he isn't exceeding 4, pretty sure of it.
 

Sunny014

Legend
put 11-17 murray in 2003-09:

11 AO murray definitely loses to Agassi of AO 03. might lose to el ayanoui or roddick or pre-semi nalby as well
11 RG obviously doesn't win. loses to ferrero at the very least if not someone else
11 Wim murray collapsed vs nadal after a set. mentally wasn't just ready. loses to roddick or scud
11 USO murray went down tamely to nadal. loses to Roddick or ferrero or agassi or nalby in USO 03.

12 AO murray was pretty good. but he'd still lose to safin of QF/SF or agassi. similar level to nalby of AO 04. he'd need considerable luck to win this one
12 RG murray lost to ferrer. would lose to any good CCer in 04 RG
12 Wim - murray - would be up vs 04 Wim roddick. this would be a dogfight. I'd give slight edge to Roddick, but lets see.
12 USO - murray loses to AGassi of USO 04 - agassi ain't gonna choke like Cilic did vs Murray or be affected by wind as much as berdych/Djokovic were. agassi was not only in better form in 04 USO, but also handled wind better than Murray did, not that Murray handled it badly.

13 AO murray - loses to safin of AO 05
13 RG - murray did not play
13 Wim - murray would beat roddick of Wim 05, but it'd be a close contest with hewitt of Wim 05
13 USO murray was taken out by stan. so he loses to blake/hewitt/agassi of USO 05

forget 14 Murray. he's not winning any slams

15 AO murray - dogfight vs gonzo of AO 07. murray wasn't up for a longer battle. collapsed after 2 sets and half. edge to gonzo.
15 RG murray - obviously loses to nadal of RG 07
15 Wim murray - obviously loses to nadal of Wim 07
15 USO murray - was upset by Anderson, so loses to Roddick or Lopez or davy or djoko. take your pick

16 AO murray - loses to djokovic of AO 08 at the very least. tsonga as well
16 RG murray - loses to nadal of RG 08 duh, loses to djoko as well
16 Wim murray - loses to nadal of Wim 08
16 USO murray - lost to nishikori. was actually significantly better in USO 08. loses to djokovic at the very least, if not roddick or delpo.

17 AO murray - upset by Mischa. not gonna win vs nadal/verdasco of AO 09, lol
17 RG murray - will lose to delpo or soderling of RG 09

the end

so that leaves us with 12 Wim Murray in Wim 04, 13 Wim Murray in Wim 05, 15 AO murray in AO 07 as the realistic chances with a shot at 12 AO murray in AO 04 (depending on luck of draw).

4 is max from what I see. 5 is being pretty generous. 6-8 is a vast over-rating.
I agree
 

Sunny014

Legend
Dude literally beat the GOAT in two Slam finals lol.
At the USO and W Novak is far from being GOAT

Yes he is rhe GOAT at AO, who beat him there? It was a certain animal called stanimal, not Murray

Plus stanimal is one of the 3 guys who won the French open in last 16 years without having a surname of Nadal....so that matters too, wonder why Murray wasn't that good?
 

RS

G.O.A.T.
Lol...oh really? Murray is 6-3 v Roddick in 2006-9, only met Hewitt once in 2006 where he beat him for his 1st ever title, never met Agassi who was old and ready for retirement anyway by the time Murray began to peak. Nadal certainly presented problems but Murray still had his moments against him eg. at 2008 US Open.

The utter lack of knowledge and/or respect for Murray's game by his well-known haters on here never ceases to make me wonder........and laugh!
Do you think Murray could get to 6-7 slams in this period?
 

tudwell

Legend
Those guys aren't "random hot players", they were top-level pros of their day and their rankings reflect that.

Murray is an ATG so I'd expect him to have similar results against them as the Big3 did.
That would be a pretty significant improvement considering Murray's IRL results against top-level pros are not on the level of the Big 3.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
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.
I could see him winning 5-6 slams, but not 8.

Sometimes he played poorly enough for other players in good form to beat him.
 

nachiket nolefam

Hall of Fame
He currently has 3 slams, without beating both Federer and Nadal. In 2003-2009 without Federer, he may double the count and become ATG. 6 slams for Murray is too much. Don't think he will win more.
But that will free up around 9 slams not won by Federer. Nadal will most likely win all Wimbledons or Roddick. Even Agassi will win few. Roddick definitely will not be 1 slam champ. Maybe even Nalbandian will win a slam or two but was he really held back by Fed or his own incompetency?
Then there would be many 1 slam wonders out of nowhere.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Certainly less than TTW experts would have you believe. Murray always had clear, objective weaknesses in his game that are way too often brushed aside. It's not that he lost to the big 3 so often, it's that many of his losses were such routine, one-sided affairs. Let's look at slams:

AO - We don't really know he'd do on rebound ace, it's a different surface. I'd expect him to have a good shot at say 2006-2007 regardless but even those I could still see him losing to a zoning attacking player.

FO - Forget about it.

Wimbledon - He'd have to lock horns with Nadal eventually (against whom he's embarrassing 1-9 in sets at Wimbledon) and despite what TTW would have you believe, Roddick and Hewitt weren't chopped liver on grass either.

USO - Has always been very inconsistent here, has lost against a wide variety of players.

I'd say 3-5 slams overall but who knows. Quite a few variables would come into play, not everybody switched to poly and early 2000s still had some leftover variety in terms of surfaces and playing styles which probably played a factor in tour having very good depth at the time.
Wasn't everyone switching to poly back then? Fed didn't have a tech advantage over the field.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Djokovic would make dogs dinner of him in his prime tennis. Guys like Safin/Wawrinka are the real opportunist. Show up once or twice a year, play "goatiest" tennis of their life while their opponent is tired from winning matches 24/7 and having pressure of winning every match they enter 24/7 then escape for the whole year and beat their chest that they beat a great player.
LOL this is such an oversimplification :-D :-D

Literally what you said applies to Murray too.
 

tudwell

Legend
My take on a more detailed level, since I'm really busy at work and doing my best to procrastinate...

At the AO:
2003, 2008, and 2009 are pretty much off the table. He's not reaching the level of the champs that year. 2004 had a ton of top guys in good to great form – it's possible Murray would end up last man standing, but not exactly something I'd bet on. 05 is similar. Fewer guys in good form, but Murray would have to go through two of Safin, Hewitt, and Roddick to win – possible, but not quite the favorite. 06 and 07 he would be the favorite. Given his mentality, I don't see him winning both times he's the clear favorite, but he also might snag one of the earlier ones where he's not a clear favorite.

At the FO:
lol

At W:
07 and 08 are off the table. Roddick in 03, 04, and 09 and Nadal in 06 are basically toss-ups. Murray might grab a couple, but definitely not all of those. 05 he's a clearer favorite. Two, maybe three titles in all.

At the US:
I don't know if there are any years I'd say are outright off the table, but every year had a pretty good cluster of players in good form – no impossible draws, but no easy ones. In real life, Murray only had two, maybe three years where he was a true contender for the US Open – 2008, 2011, 2012. Every other year he lost before the semis and usually to a player he should have beaten. Given that, I'll assume he only has two or three years in this hypothetical where he's really a contender, and as in real life he probably only converts on one of those – pick a year out of a hat, could be any of them.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
I think he pretty much cleans up at AO and has some success but less at the UO. He prolly snags a Wimbledon as well.
he cleans up at the AO vs 2003 Agassi, 2004 deep field of agassi/safin/nalby/roddick/hewitt/ferrero, 2005 safin/hewitt, 2008 djokovic/tsonga, 2009 nadal/verdasco? LOLOLOL.
his realistic shots are in 06/07, that's it (&vs Gonzo, he'd need to be at his best), with 04 needing to get lucky.
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
My take on a more detailed level, since I'm really busy at work and doing my best to procrastinate...

At the AO:
2003, 2008, and 2009 are pretty much off the table. He's not reaching the level of the champs that year. 2004 had a ton of top guys in good to great form – it's possible Murray would end up last man standing, but not exactly something I'd bet on. 05 is similar. Fewer guys in good form, but Murray would have to go through two of Safin, Hewitt, and Roddick to win – possible, but not quite the favorite. 06 and 07 he would be the favorite. Given his mentality, I don't see him winning both times he's the clear favorite, but he also might snag one of the earlier ones where he's not a clear favorite.
AO 05 is off the table vs peak Safin and arguably the best at the AO in 2003-09 (minus fed)
 
Last edited:

Kralingen

Legend
Maybe putting Nadal or Novak in 2003-2009 would have made a better thread.
It really would be tough to choose what is “prime” Nadal come to think of it, tbh. ‘07-13?

Novack replacing Fed would just be Roddick 5-4 memes lmao. Both could be fun though.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
he cleans up at the AO vs 2003 Agassi, 2004 deep field of agassi/safin/nalby/roddick/hewitt/ferrero, 2005 safin/hewitt, 2008 djokovic/tsonga, 2009 nadal/verdasco? LOLOLOL.
his realistic shots are in 06/07, that's it (&vs Gonzo, he'd need to be at his best), with 04 needing to get lucky.
Did you see Agassis draw in 2003 AO? Why wouldn't Murray be able to beat Agassi? Like hus level meant something huge vs these players, what a draw.

2003 AO draw for Agassi

4th R: Coria
QF: Grosjean
SF: Ferreira
F: Schuttler

 

RS

G.O.A.T.
Did you see Agassis draw in 2003 AO? Why wouldn't Murray be able to beat Agassi? Like hus level meant something huge vs these players, what a draw.

2003 AO draw for Agassi

4th R: Coria
QF: Grosjean
SF: Ferreira
F: Schuttler

What did you think of the way Murray played in the AO 11 final?
 

TennisLurker

Semi-Pro
Did you see Agassis draw in 2003 AO? Why wouldn't Murray be able to beat Agassi? Like hus level meant something huge vs these players, what a draw.

2003 AO draw for Agassi

4th R: Coria
QF: Grosjean
SF: Ferreira
F: Schuttler

Agassi of early 2003 was the number 1 player in the world
Ferreira didn't match up badly against Hewitt, who is I guess the player of that age most similar to Murray
Murray isn't a hard hitting punisher like Agassi who stays on the middle of the court trying to move his rival left right left right constantly, he is a counterpuncher-retriever kind, what Agassi did to those players Murray can't do it, he would beat them in another way
 

RS

G.O.A.T.
2-3 AO 1 USO 1 W. USO has the easiest draws but Murray doesn't have many good runs there for whatever reason.
Your first comment made me think in the 6-7 range but really you are in the 4-5 range like most here.
 

Kralingen

Legend
Did you see Agassis draw in 2003 AO? Why wouldn't Murray be able to beat Agassi? Like hus level meant something huge vs these players, what a draw.

2003 AO draw for Agassi

4th R: Coria
QF: Grosjean
SF: Ferreira
F: Schuttler

Dude are you trolling?

Agassi won the 5th highest % of games in any Slam in the entire Open Era in 2003 lol. Yes, wasn't the best competition, but if you watch a match of him from AO '03, it'll make sense.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Dude are you trolling?

Agassi won the 5th highest % of games in any Slam in the entire Open Era in 2003 lol. Yes, wasn't the best competition, but if you watch a match of him from AO '03, it'll make sense.
RF-18 lives in his own world. Total ignorance of tennis before his time.
 

Kralingen

Legend
RF-18 lives in his own world. Total ignorance of tennis before his time.
Why do I have a feeling that if we said peak Murray could beat AO ‘19 Novak and used the same argument about AO '19 Djokovic's competition (Pouille, Retire-ikori were his SF+QF) we would suddenly hear about how the competition isn’t as important and the peak level is what matters? Many sighs.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Dude are you trolling?

Agassi won the 5th highest % of games in any Slam in the entire Open Era in 2003 lol. Yes, wasn't the best competition, but if you watch a match of him from AO '03, it'll make sense.
and when we mention stats of certain players this era to try and show their level its cause the era is bad and stats are inflated. KEKW. But Agassis games won % is a deal breaker against that draw of players. Sure thing.

You sure Agassis stats aren't inflated cause of that draw? 5th highest games won %, but at the same time top 3 weakest draw of all time (since tennis started). That won't tell us Murray wouldn't be able to beat Agassi.
 

RS

G.O.A.T.
and when we mention stats of certain players this era to try and show their level its cause the era is bad and stats are inflated. KEKW. But Agassis games won % is a deal breaker against that draw of players. Sure thing.

You sure Agassis stats aren't inflated cause of that draw? 5th highest games won %, but at the same time top 3 weakest draw of all time (since tennis started). That won't tell us Murray wouldn't be able to beat Agassi.
Agassi AO 03 final vs Djokovic AO 20 final?
 

Kralingen

Legend
and when we mention stats of certain players this era to try and show their level its cause the era is bad and stats are inflated. KEKW. But Agassis games won % is a deal breaker against that draw of players. Sure thing.

You sure Agassis stats aren't inflated cause of that draw? 5th highest games won %, but at the same time top 3 weakest draw of all time (since tennis started). That won't tell us Murray wouldn't be able to beat Agassi.
Here's how Agassi could win: have you ever seen Andy Murray's second serve? And, if you have seen it, have you ever seen Andre Agassi's second serve return?

Agassi would probably win because not only is he better at returning than Murray, he has better groundstrokes off both wings than Murray and despite being 32, was motivated and in probably the best shape of his career.
 
Top