There was a time...

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#1
There was a long time of about 6 years, when Mury was not a joke for the Big3 as he is considered today.

From 2008 to 2013 he was

8-8 vs Djokovic (2-3 in Slams)
10-8 vs Federer (1-3 in Slams)
5-11 vs Nadal (2-5 in Slams)

Quite close to them, not a big difference. Big3 were at their peak, ending all years in the top-3 position, except for 2013 Federer, whom Murray met only in January by the way.
 

tudwell

Hall of Fame
#7
His ability to beat the big 3 took a big hit after he had surgery in late 2013. Not sure if it was all physical or partly mental or what, but he was just never the same, especially at the slams. Would have been fun to have him even more in the mix than he was in subsequent years – especially 2015!
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#11
His ability to beat the big 3 took a big hit after he had surgery in late 2013. Not sure if it was all physical or partly mental or what, but he was just never the same, especially at the slams. Would have been fun to have him even more in the mix than he was in subsequent years – especially 2015!
Djokovic and Federer improved in 2014-16.

He beat Nadal on clay twice in 2015-16.
 

JMR

Hall of Fame
#12
There was a long time of about 6 years, when Mury was not a joke for the Big3 as he is considered today.
If anyone today considers Murray a "joke" compared to Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic, it's not because of the head-to-head records, past or present, among the quartet. It's because Murray has three slams and one year-end No. 1, and he's being compared to players with 20/5, 17/4, and 15/5.

The "Big Four" label worked when all four players were playing well and were dominating the semifinals and finals of all big tournaments. But in hindsight now, as a total legacy summary, obviously the term is less apt than "Big Three." History has passed it by.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
#17
Fed was fine physically in Australia. Andy just outplayed him. It took everything he had and it drained him for the final, but he beat Fed straight up.

Nothing wrong with a 30+ year old Fed losing to peak Andy on that court.
The only thing Andy didn't do right was allowing that match to become a 5 setter.

Did that make a significant difference in the final? We'll never know.

But yeah, Roger's issues started at IW, he was fine at the AO. Well deserved win by Murray.
 
#20
Don't you know Murray peak was on par with Hewit.
There was a long time of about 6 years, when Mury was not a joke for the Big3 as he is considered today.

From 2008 to 2013 he was

8-8 vs Djokovic (2-3 in Slams)
10-8 vs Federer (1-3 in Slams)
5-11 vs Nadal (2-5 in Slams)

Quite close to them, not a big difference. Big3 were at their peak, ending all years in the top-3 position, except for 2013 Federer, whom Murray met only in January by the way.
 

Towny

Professional
#22
Fed was fine physically in Australia. Andy just outplayed him. It took everything he had and it drained him for the final, but he beat Fed straight up.

Nothing wrong with a 30+ year old Fed losing to peak Andy on that court.
He was physically fine I agree. His back injury wasnt until IW. But I think hed started to lose some of his 'renaissance' level by the back end of 2012. Andy had a really good tournament in 2013. One of his best AO runs IMO
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
#23
He was physically fine I agree. His back injury wasnt until IW. But I think hed started to lose some of his 'renaissance' level by the back end of 2012. Andy had a really good tournament in 2013. One of his best AO runs IMO
We'll never know if him being unable to put Fed away in less than 5 sets made a difference in the final.
 
#27
There was a long time of about 6 years, when Mury was not a joke for the Big3 as he is considered today.

From 2008 to 2013 he was

8-8 vs Djokovic (2-3 in Slams)
About the same age as Novak, but Murray had no health issues in 2008-2010. 2010 was probably Djokovic's weakest year.
10-8 vs Federer (1-3 in Slams)
That throws in 2008 and 2013, two of Fed's weak years along with his worst year since he was very young..
5-11 vs Nadal (2-5 in Slams)
That's a fairer comparison.
Quite close to them, not a big difference. Big3 were at their peak, ending all years in the top-3 position, except for 2013 Federer, whom Murray met only in January by the way.
You've picked the period for Fed when he could no longer dominate the same way with the old racket, and before he changed to the new one.

For sure Murray was a very dangerous opponent, but it was his serve that was always his Achilles Heel. He was always one of the best returners in history, but his serve so many times let him down, worst of all at the end of big events.
 
Last edited:
#29
Funny how yoh
Hewitt 2000-2006;

6-11 versus Federer (0-5 in slams)
4-1 versus Nadal (2-1 in slams)
1-0 versus Djokovic (1-0 in slams)

11-11 and 3-6 in slams, holds up quite well :unsure:
Chose selective dates. 9-18 deal with it. If I select then Murray h2h is way better than Hewitt .
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
#32
Fed was fine physically in Australia. Andy just outplayed him. It took everything he had and it drained him for the final, but he beat Fed straight up.

Nothing wrong with a 30+ year old Fed losing to peak Andy on that court.
He was wearing a back brace and struggled against Tsonga. He wasn't "outplayed" his level was lower than usual. But let's go rewriting history.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#35
He was wearing a back brace and struggled against Tsonga. He wasn't "outplayed" his level was lower than usual. But let's go rewriting history.
MeatTornado falls in the curious category of the Hydro's of this world. He always gives credit to the opponents where there is no credit to be given, but makes for a nice backhanded jab.

;)
 
#36
He was wearing a back brace and struggled against Tsonga. He wasn't "outplayed" his level was lower than usual. But let's go rewriting history.
He was wearing a back brace when he won Wimbledon too. That's not why he lost in Melbourne. His level was consistent with how he was playing at the time. Go back to the 2012 USO and indoor season. AO 13 wasn't an anomaly, he'd simply come back down to earth after his unreal run to the #1 spot at the age of 31.

Melbourne was simply a terrible court for him to play someone like Andy. I think he would've lost if they played in 2012 too.
 
#37
We'll never know if him being unable to put Fed away in less than 5 sets made a difference in the final.
I certainly don't want to sound like Andy would've beaten Djoker. But this was a time when Andy had really closed the gap on Novak.

Playing a 5 set match with Roger Federer certainly didn't do him any favors in the final when his opponent had a 6-2, 6-2, 6-1 romp over David Ferrer and an extra days rest. 2013 was one of Andy's best finals, and the first 2 sets were really tight before Novak started running away with it. I have to think that fatigue at least played into the equation a little.
 
#38
He was wearing a back brace when he won Wimbledon too. That's not why he lost in Melbourne. His level was consistent with how he was playing at the time. Go back to the 2012 USO and indoor season. AO 13 wasn't an anomaly, he'd simply come back down to earth after his unreal run to the #1 spot at the age of 31.

Melbourne was simply a terrible court for him to play someone like Andy. I think he would've lost if they played in 2012 too.
I don't think he was wearing one in the SF or F of Wimbledon. He got very lucky though that the back didn't cost him Wimby because he overplayed (it popped up 3 separate times in 2012 but he was able to recover from it each time), but it finally caught up to him in 2013.

There's a negligible chance that a well playing physically fit Federer in 2012 comes close to losing to Murray. Wimbledon was a best case scenario for Murray with Fed playing a mediocre first set, Murray playing his best, and Murray still got flattened once Fed got his baseline and return game going. Murray is not able to offer much resistance to a well playing Federer on the biggest stages, plain and simple. Their WTF and slam history is ample proof of that.

Do you realize how bad Fed was in that 2013 match? He was even worse than his level at the time due to the Tsonga match. The fact that it still took 5 sets because Murray can't close is hilarious.
 
#39
I certainly don't want to sound like Andy would've beaten Djoker. But this was a time when Andy had really closed the gap on Novak.

Playing a 5 set match with Roger Federer certainly didn't do him any favors in the final when his opponent had a 6-2, 6-2, 6-1 romp over David Ferrer and an extra days rest. 2013 was one of Andy's best finals, and the first 2 sets were really tight before Novak started running away with it. I have to think that fatigue at least played into the equation a little.
Didn't he lose his focus after the feather? The Fed match wasn't really that taxing
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
#40
He was wearing a back brace when he won Wimbledon too. That's not why he lost in Melbourne. His level was consistent with how he was playing at the time. Go back to the 2012 USO and indoor season. AO 13 wasn't an anomaly, he'd simply come back down to earth after his unreal run to the #1 spot at the age of 31.

Melbourne was simply a terrible court for him to play someone like Andy. I think he would've lost if they played in 2012 too.
Nah, in 2012 he was in better form than in 2012. Have to take that into account as well. He played Nadal relatively well in the semis. So I don't see him losing to Murray.

At the 2013 AO, Fed had played a 5 setter against an in-form Tsonga. I think that match played a part in Fed's level dropping a bit against Murray.
 

Towny

Professional
#46
Oh, I don't think Murray would have won. But maybe the match would have still been a tighter affair than 6-3 6-2 in the final 2 sets.
Perhaps. He did seem to fall flat after the second set tiebreaker. But I'm not sure how much difference 1 5-setter makes to an athletic guy like Murray. We'll never know. Suffice it to say, Murray has been very unfortunate at the Australian Open
 

Towny

Professional
#49
So let’s trash the guy unlucky enough to play against the three greatest players of all time?
It's not about trashing him. Murray's a great player who's had a fantastic career. And yes, he's been significantly limited in his achievements by having to face the Big 3. But Lew didn't create this thread to praise Murray, he used it to praise Djokovic by proxy. I was pointing out that Murray was never on the same level as the other 3 (which is to be expected, no one else has been either).
 
#50
Why do Federer fans think anyone has to boost Murray in order to praise Djokovic? I've also just seen this posted over and over in another thread. This would make sense if Djokovic could only and was only winning when Federer was out of the picture but the last time I checked, Djokovic is 5-1 against Fedal at AO, 4-2 against them at Wimbledon, 4-5 against them at the USO. That's a record of 13-8 against them in those 3 Slams and he won 15 Slams while they were playing. At the end of the day, no one has to boost Murray if they want to praise Djokovic.
 
Top