Were Sir Andy Murray and Mr Stanimal lucky to born in Djokovic's generation instead of 1980-81 with Peak Federer?

[Sunny014]

Let's do a simulation for Sir Andy Murray born In 1981 instead of 1987, i.e. 6 years earlier.

Murray's 2008 Wimbledon Qf would face peak Hewitt in 2002 who was ranked 1 for almost 2 years, a defeat is certain against the Champion!
Murray's 2008 USO Finals would not exist because Pete/Agassi would be too good, he loses in Semis.
Murray's 2009 Wimbledon Semi final run vanishes because Fed/Roddick/Scud were all better in 2003 and Fed would obv win.
Murray 2010 AO final does not exist because Fed/Safin would be too good in 2004 and they would meet each other in finals for sure.
Murray's 2011 AO final would maybe happen if he beats Hewitt to reach final but Safin would CRUSH him.
Murray's 2012 W final also vanishes since Fedal are there in 2006.
Murray's 2012 USO win vanishes because in 2006 USO Federer would crush him in the final i.e if he reached the final because Roddick himself had been broken very less until the final, I remember it was some amazing figure, so Murray might never go past Roddick to reach the final in the first place.
Murray's 2013 AO final will happen as he might replace Baggy in the final but Fed would obviously crush him again!
Murray's 2013 Wimbledon vanishes because both Federer and Nadal were amazing in 2007
Murray's 2015 AO final won't happen because Federer and Nadal were too powerful in 2009.
Murray's 2016 Aus open final vanishes because again Federer of 2010 would be there to beat him
Murray's 2016 FO final won't happen as Soderling and Federer would again reach the finals, I dont him peak either of them to reach the final.
Murray's 2016 Wimbledon vanishes because Nadal was at his best in 2010 yet again, no chance.

0 SLAMS ..... 3-4 finals at best and all of them ending in defeat

In Stanimal's case the simulation is even worse, we are assuming he being born in 1980 instead of 1985 which is Safin's birth year.

Stan's 2013 USO Semi final performance would be in 2008 against Federer (someone whom he hasn't beat even once in 20 HC encounters) - So no chance
Stan's 2014 AO win would be in the year 2009 against Federer and Nadal fighting GOAT level battles - Again no chance
Stan's 2015 AO performance vs Novak would again be up against Federer's 2010 masterclass - No change
Stan's 2015 FO win would be in the year 2010 when Rafa is red hot - No chance
Stan's 2015 USO was anyway straight setted against Federer, this time he would face Federer again or Djokovic in his draw - Even if he beats Novak and avoids Federer then Nadal will finish him in the final, 2010 was Nadal's year
San's 2016 FO defence of his title form would be up against Nadal, Federer, Djokovic all at their peak, even if Stan reaches the final, Nadal is always there !
Stan's 2016 USO win would be in 2011 in an year when Djokovic was red hot and not to mention even Federer could not stop Novak, what chance does Stan have?
Stan's 2017 AO campaign was ended by Federer, so in 2012 he would up against Novak and Rafa at their peak, what chance does he have? He shall have to beat Novak here, herculean task.
Stan's 2017 FO finalist campaign would end same if he faced Nadal in 2012, can't get any tougher.

0 SLAMS and even reaching finals seems impossible.


Looks like Sir Andy Murray and Stanimal Wawrinka were lucky to have been born in an era where their games blended well with Novak Djokovic's game and thus gave them 3 slams each, few years earlier and they would have struggled horribly vs Federer, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Agassi, Teenage Nadal etc etc ...... A very powerful field !

 

[Sunny014]

@TMF @T007 @Nole Slam @D.Nalby12 @abmk @MichaelNadal @Third Serve @duaneeo @BeatlesFan @mike danny @Adv. Edberg

 

[MeatTornado]

None of the Above

 

[Sunny014]

None of the Above

I covered all the 9 possible outcomes in the options.... what did I miss??

 

[Sunny014]

@nachiket nolefam - Please explain how Murray's slam count would be more, I am curious.

Dp you see him beat Federer to take Slams?

Or do you seem him beat Nadal on clay ?

 

[nolefam_2024]

@nachiket nolefam - Please explain how Murray's slam count would be more, I am curious.

Dp you see him beat Federer to take Slams?

Or do you seem him beat Nadal on clay ?

Murray has had great record vs Fed in bo3. I think he would take it to bo5 as well especially if he is already at his physical peak.

 

[Sunny014]

Murray has had great record vs Fed in bo3. I think he would take it to bo5 as well especially if he is already at his physical peak.

What nonsense are you even saying ?

Murray at his physical was impotent against an older Federer and you expect him to take it to peak Federer ? With what will he take it to Federer? What does he have in his arsenal to even hurt Federer? a Nadal's lefty forehand? Nadal's footspeed? Lol, Murray would be crushed brutally, even worse than he was in his peak.

 

[D.Nalby12]

Both would have less Slams in case they peaked in 2004-10.. Djokovic simply gifted Murray two Slams with awful performances which peak Fed would never do. And Wawrinka has no matchup advantage over Fed. Even 38 yo Federer defeated him on clay in bo5 that says all.

 

[Sunny014]

Both would have less Slams in case they peaked in 2004-10.. Djokovic simply gifted Murray two Slams with awful performances which peak Fed would never do. And Wawrinka has no matchup advantage over Fed. Even 38 yo Federer defeated him on clay in bo5 that says all.

Exactly, both these guys were gifted slams by Djokovic.

These fellows would be crushed in the 00s if they peaked then, Fed and Nadal were savages at that time, younger versions of these geniuses would be even hotter to handle.

@nachiket nolefam just doesn't realize how brutal Fedal were in the 00s.

 

[MeatTornado]

I covered all the 9 possible outcomes in the options.... what did I miss??

I need moar options

 

[Sunny014]

Nature created Nadal as the perfect Kyrtonite to Superman Federer.

It is laughable to even think Murray can win slams vs Fed and Nadal in the 00s, the level was too high.

Even Safin, Hewitt, Agassi and Roddick would beat Murray.

 

[Kralingen]

I think the better question would be what if Safin, Hewitt and Anddick were born in 86/87. All 3 had absolutely awful longevity though so maybe they wouldn’t win as many as we think.

 

[D.Nalby12]

Exactly, both these guys were gifted slams by Djokovic.

These fellows would be crushed in the 00s if they peaked then, Fed and Nadal were savages at that time, younger versions of these geniuses would be even hotter to handle.

@nachiket nolefam just doesn't realize how brutal Fedal were in the 00s.

Hard to see lesser players winning Slams during 2004-11 period. It was toughest era. That's why Safin' win is so much significant.

I wouldn't say Djokovic gifted Slams to Wawrinka. He was outplayed fair and square despite being in form. But 2012-14 era was weaker era compared to 8 years before.

 

[Sunny014]

I think the better question would be what if Safin, Hewitt and Anddick were born in 86/87. All 3 had absolutely awful longevity though so maybe they wouldn’t win as many as we think.

Safin would win slams that Cilic and Potro won, he is a genius.

Roddick might win 1 or 0....

Hewitt might also win 1 or 0...

They are all in the same league, put them in other decades and they all fall .... except Marat ... he will win ...

 

[Sunny014]

Hard to see lesser players winning Slams during 2004-11 period. It was toughest era. That's why Safin' win is so much significant.

I wouldn't say Djokovic gifted Slams to Wawrinka. He was outplayed fair and square despite being in form. But 2012-14 era was weaker t

I think Novak was too busy being focussed on Fedal in 2011-2012 that he allowed Murray to surprise him..... he had no business losing to Murray.

Stan's I agree, Stan the man has troubled Novak, it is a bad matchup.

 

[D.Nalby12]

I think Novak was too busy being focussed on Fedal in 2011-2012 that he allowed Murray to surprise him..... he had no business losing to Murray.

Stan's I agree, Stan the man has troubled Novak, it is a bad matchup.

True. Murray has got nothing over Djokovic game wise. Even on Grass Djokovic showed far superior level.

 

[Sunny014]

I think the better question would be what if Safin, Hewitt and Anddick were born in 86/87. All 3 had absolutely awful longevity though so maybe they wouldn’t win as many as we think.

Speaking of longevity it is worth being noted that Federer's entire generation grew up on SNV and their games were not best suited for baseline era, thats why their longevity was also cut short.

If you want to see longevity then see the guys born 86 onwards, even Gael Monfils has great longevity that is never seen before, Stan and so many guys are still playing, so if Fed's generation were in this age groups their longevity would be automatically more.

I see Safin take 4-5 slams in 86/87 age group, if Wawrinka and Murray can win 2 + 1 HC slams and Potro + Cilic can win 1 + 1 then it means at least 5 HC slams were available for the taking along with anything else that he can peak and triumph over, no reason why Safin cannot win them all with a great longevity as I mentioned. He is a better version of Del Potro and we all know Del Potro had the power to beat Big 3, Safin would only look more dangerous. Hewitt and Roddick might struggle, they are no different from Stan and Murray, they struggle in modern era which is more baseline, however this setup favors Safin more.

 

[ChrisRF]

Even if the scenarios you mentioned would all happen, they could create other chances. For example the instances in which they were actually beaten by the Big 3 in their real careers could be the window in which they could win a Slam 4 or 6 years earlier instead.

I mean, if Federer went down from AO 2010 onwards, there would still have been plenty of chances.

And for the early times it’s wrong to just assume losses to players like Hewitt, Roddick, Philippoussis or even 2002 Agassi and Sampras compared to 2008 Murray.

 

[NoleIsBoat]

If Murray peaked between 2001-2006 vacuum era he could win 8+ slams.

 

[Sunny014]

Even if the scenarios you mentioned would all happen, they could create other chances. For example the instances in which they were actually beaten by the Big 3 in their real careers could be the window in which they could win a Slam 4 or 6 years earlier instead.

I mean, if Federer went down from AO 2010 onwards, there would still have been plenty of chances.

And for the early times it’s wrong to just assume losses to players like Hewitt, Roddick, Philippoussis or even 2002 Agassi and Sampras compared to 2008 Murray.

Federer at 40 proceeded farther in wimbledon than a 34 year old Murray.
You expect a same aged Murray to have chances to win slams after 2010 when Fed himself is going down ???
Murray would go down much before Fed if he was in the previous gen.

Secondly, why is it early to assume losses to Hewitt ? Hewitt was ranked 1 in 2002 and zoning, he was darn good. Do you see Murray the Qf in 2008 to win wimbledon in 2002 ? If it was Murray of 2012 then I would have agreed that yes he can beat Hewitt, but Murray of 08 ? Naaa ....

Nd Sampras is a 14 time champion, you think he was gonna let some mug beat him in 02 ? See how Sampras tamed Roddick in 2002 USO, that sort of a champion would stomp young Murray.

 

[Sunny014]

If Murray peaked between 2001-2006 vacuum era he could win 8+ slams.

Explain how .... year by year.

Dont beat the bush, give logical answers.

 

[NoleFam]

Well didn't Federer allow Hewitt and Roddick to win Slams by taking until he was 22 to get it together? Lol. You're ragging on Djokovic in allowing Murray and Wawrinka to win Slams, then what about Federer allowing Hewitt to win a Wimbledon with that pathetic draw and getting thrashed by 32 year old Agassi at 2001 USO after dethroning Sampras at Wimbledon? Put 20 and 21 year old Djokovic and Nadal in those years and they would wreak havoc. That sword cuts both ways buddy.

 

[NoleIsBoat]

Explain how .... year by year.

Dont beat the bush, give logical answers.

If peak Murray was brought up in 2001 era then he can win:

2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006 AO
2003, 2004 RG
2001, 2002 Wimbledon
2001, 2003 USO


Potential 11 slams. Anywhere from 8-12 range I would say. I o

 

[NoleIsBoat]

Agassi expert opinion ->

“He was the person that broke into the Federer-Nadal-Djokovic trio in their prime,” said Agassi, as quoted by Sky Sports.

“He showed that he can play every bit up on their level.

“It is a rough generation to win a lot of Grand Slams.

“If Andy was in my generation he would have had probably three times the career.

“Those guys haven’t left much for others but Andy went in there and took it. I only have respect for him.

“He did, in some cases, against the biggest odds. He is a fighter at heart – you can see it out here, even in pain he is going to fight to the end.

“That is what you want to see. It is never fun to see him suffer on a tennis court, either emotionally or physically, but he never stopped fighting. That is the thing you have to respect.”

 

[Sunny014]

Well didn't Federer allow Hewitt and Roddick to win Slams by taking until he was 22 to get it together? Lol. You're ragging on Djokovic in allowing Murray and Wawrinka to win Slams, then what about Federer allowing Hewitt to win a Wimbledon with that pathetic draw and getting thrashed by 32 year old Agassi at 2001 USO after dethroning Sampras at Wimbledon? Put 20 and 21 year old Djokovic and Nadal in those years and they would wreak havoc. That sword cuts both ways buddy.

Naa, sword doesn't cut both ways.
Federer at his peak arrived at TMC 2003 at 22, so before that he was not an ATG level guy, so he allowed Hewitt and Roddick to win slams before his peak began cannot be equated to Nole allowing Murray and Stan to win 3 slams each after his peak began and when he was in his mid 20s.

 

[Sunny014]

If peak Murray was brought up in 2001 era then he can win:

2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006 AO
2003, 2004 RG
2001, 2002 Wimbledon
2001, 2003 USO


Potential 11 slams. Anywhere from 8-12 range I would say. I o

Safin and Federer are gonna let him win 05 and 06 ?
Are they playing to lose?

Murray made his first slam final in 08 USO and so he is not making any final before 2002 USO, so remove your 2001 and even 2002 from your imaginary calculations.

 

[Sunny014]

If peak Murray was brought up in 2001 era then he can win:

2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006 AO
2003, 2004 RG
2001, 2002 Wimbledon
2001, 2003 USO


Potential 11 slams. Anywhere from 8-12 range I would say. I o

@NoleIsBoat

Murray lost in 1st round of the 2008 AO, what would that fellow do 6 years back in 02, win the open ?

R u trolling?

 

[NoleIsBoat]

Safin and Federer are gonna let him win 05 and 06 ?
Are they playing to lose?

Murray made his first slam final in 08 USO and so he is not making any final before 2002 USO, so remove your 2001 and even 2002 from your imaginary calculations.

Yea 08 was start of the strong era. 01-06 lacked depth and had mugs making SF/F regularly. My point being not the exact same age as Federer but if his prime years began from 01.

Murray would beat Safin. Fed would be favoured though.

 

[Sunny014]

Yea 08 was start of the strong era. 01-06 lacked depth and had mugs making SF/F regularly. My point being not the exact same age as Federer but if his prime years began from 01.

Murray would beat Safin. Fed would be favoured though.

hahahaahh ... murray eat Safin ?????

Safin the alpha male is superior to your weak Murray in every possible way

Safin would crush him, in those days Safin even beat Sampras, someone like Murray would win nothing vs Safin

 

[NoleFam]

Naa, sword doesn't cut both ways.
Federer at his peak arrived at TMC 2003 at 22, so before that he was not an ATG level guy, so he allowed Hewitt and Roddick to win slams before his peak began cannot be equated to Nole allowing Murray and Stan to win 3 slams each after his peak began and when he was in his mid 20s.

The point still stands. Djokovic was making back to back Slam finals at 20 and made all Slam SFs, and Nadal had won multiple majors, and they did it in a more challenging field. Federer was getting shallacked by someone 11 years older than him when he was 20. I thought 31 and 32 was ancient and players were past it? Isn't that what you said about Federer? Then explain that match at the 2001 USO. Djokovic and Nadal would have been contending for multiple Slams in 2001 and 2002 at his age, so you don't have that much room to talk.

 

[ChrisRF]

Federer at 40 proceeded farther in wimbledon than a 34 year old Murray.
You expect a same aged Murray to have chances to win slams after 2010 when Fed himself is going down ???
Murray would go down much before Fed if he was in the previous gen.

Secondly, why is it early to assume losses to Hewitt ? Hewitt was ranked 1 in 2002 and zoning, he was darn good. Do you see Murray the Qf in 2008 to win wimbledon in 2002 ? If it was Murray of 2012 then I would have agreed that yes he can beat Hewitt, but Murray of 08 ? Naaa ....

Nd Sampras is a 14 time champion, you think he was gonna let some mug beat him in 02 ? See how Sampras tamed Roddick in 2002 USO, that sort of a champion would stomp young Murray.

Yes, Federer would come back, especially his 2015 and 2017 version. But I talked about niches or windows in which Murray could have success. For example 2016 Murray would have success in 2010 and could have troubled Nadal at Wimbledon.

Wawrinka was good after age 30 as well and could have won something in 2012 for example. Or since we are talking about being 4 years older for him he could beat 2011 Djokovic at a Slam with a 2015-RG-like performance.

And 2008-09 Murray wasn’t a mug. It was the time when he had a positive record against Federer and for some while seemed to have a better future than Djokovic. He played a great US Open SF against Nadal, who was the #1 back then and won the hardcourt titles in Toronto and at the Olympics. Would this Murray have a chance against 2002 Agassi or Sampras? You better bet he would. Federer was just sublime in the 2008 final, even if his whole season was crap by his standards we knew until 2007.

And yes, the match against Roddick was impressive from Sampras, but this is one match. Look at the matches against Rusedski or even the actual SF against Schalken, and nothing looks so certain anymore.

Also Murray is great against big servers. He could have done much more than Roddick. I guess it would have rather looked like Sampras against Hewitt.

 

[Sunny014]

The point still stands. Djokovic was making back to back Slam finals at 20 and made all Slam SFs, and Nadal had won multiple majors, and they did it in a more challenging field. Federer was getting shallacked by someone 11 years older than him when he was 20. I thought 31 and 32 was ancient and players were past it? Isn't that what you said about Federer? Then explain that match at the 2001 USO. Djokovic and Nadal would have been contending for multiple Slams in 2001 and 2002 at his age, so you don't that much room to talk.

Nole is fine, I am not asking you how Nole would do in Fed's gen, Nole would have some wins, not denying.

Talk of Murray and Wawrinka only, be honest, don't be like this Nole is Boat who is insulting past legends like Becker-Mcenroe-Agassi etc etc by saying Murray will win 8 slams.

I say 0-1 slam for Murray, do you disagree?

 

[Sunny014]

Yes, Federer would come back, especially his 2015 and 2017 version. But I talked about niches or windows in which Murray could have success. For example 2016 Murray would have success in 2010 and could have troubled Nadal at Wimbledon.

Wawrinka was good after age 30 as well and could have won something in 2012 for example. Or since we are talking about being 4 years older for him he could beat 2011 Djokovic at a Slam with a 2015-RG-like performance.

And 2008-09 Murray wasn’t a mug. It was the time when he had a positive record against Federer and for some while seemed to have a better future than Djokovic. He played a great US Open SF against Nadal, who was the #1 back then and won the hardcourt titles in Toronto and at the Olympics. Would this Murray have a chance against 2002 Agassi or Sampras? You better bet he would. Federer was just sublime in the 2008 final, even if his whole season was crap by his standards we knew until 2007.

And yes, the match against Roddick was impressive from Sampras, but this is one match. Look at the matches against Rusedski or even the actual SF against Schalken, and nothing looks so certain anymore.

Also Murray is great against big servers. He could have done much more than Roddick. I guess it would have rather looked like Sampras against Hewitt.

2016 Murray cannot trouble 2010 Nadal, because Murray the grass courter would be beaten to the pulp on grass so many times by Fed between 03-06 that Nadal's rise would mean Nadal cannot be beaten as in realtime Nadal already is 3-0 vs Murray (08, 10 and 11 wimbledons) so how do you see Murray (who would have turned pro in 90s and on old grass) beat NADAL on the new grasss ??? It is even more tough to imagine

Murray vs Sampras is a valid point but in 2002 Andre beat Hewitt on the other side of the draw, what if Andre beat Murray as well ... ? How can you be sure Murray would win 2002 USO ? It is impossible since Hewitt himself was a big player, there are too many people in 02 who can beat a newcomer like Murray.

 

[Sunny014]

Yes, Federer would come back, especially his 2015 and 2017 version. But I talked about niches or windows in which Murray could have success. For example 2016 Murray would have success in 2010 and could have troubled Nadal at Wimbledon.

Wawrinka was good after age 30 as well and could have won something in 2012 for example. Or since we are talking about being 4 years older for him he could beat 2011 Djokovic at a Slam with a 2015-RG-like performance.

And 2008-09 Murray wasn’t a mug. It was the time when he had a positive record against Federer and for some while seemed to have a better future than Djokovic. He played a great US Open SF against Nadal, who was the #1 back then and won the hardcourt titles in Toronto and at the Olympics. Would this Murray have a chance against 2002 Agassi or Sampras? You better bet he would. Federer was just sublime in the 2008 final, even if his whole season was crap by his standards we knew until 2007.

And yes, the match against Roddick was impressive from Sampras, but this is one match. Look at the matches against Rusedski or even the actual SF against Schalken, and nothing looks so certain anymore.

Also Murray is great against big servers. He could have done much more than Roddick. I guess it would have rather looked like Sampras against Hewitt.

Nd Wawrinka cannot win anything in 2012 because Nadal and Djokovic would be even younger to him than they already are, they would crush him.

Do you see Wawrinka of 2016 AO beat Djokovic of 2011 ? or Nadal of 2011 ?

 

[NoleFam]

Nole is fine, I am not asking you how Nole would do in Fed's gen, Nole would have some wins, not denying.

Talk of Murray and Wawrinka only, be honest, don't be like this Nole is Boat who is insulting past legends like Becker-Mcenroe-Agassi etc etc by saying Murray will win 8 slams.

I say 0-1 slam for Murray, do you disagree?

Well even other ATGs have said Murray would have won much more Slams in a different era so how is that insulting them? You're trying to diss Djokovic but Federer is not pristine either, as I've pointed out. Plus he got beaten by way past his prime Kuerten in one of his best seasons, then Safin and Del Potro.

 

[Sunny014]

Well even other ATGs have said Murray would have won much more Slams in a different era so how is that insulting them? You're trying to diss Djokovic but Federer is not pristine either, as I've pointed out. Plus he got beaten by way past his prime Kuerten in one of his best seasons, then Safin and Del Potro.

ATGs say a lot of nonsense, according to McEnroe the commentator djokodal are at their peak .... such comments are made to promote tennis ...... he is a glorified dalaal and we all know it.

What do you think? You think Murray after struggling to Fedal in realtime has a chance vs younger and faster versions ??? lol

 

[ChrisRF]

2016 Murray cannot trouble 2010 Nadal, because Murray the grass courter would be beaten to the pulp on grass so many times by Fed between 03-06 that Nadal's rise would mean Nadal cannot be beaten as in realtime Nadal already is 3-0 vs Murray (08, 10 and 11 wimbledons) so how do you see Murray (who would have turned pro in 90s and on old grass) beat NADAL on the new grasss ??? It is even more tough to imagine

Murray vs Sampras is a valid point but in 2002 Andre beat Hewitt on the other side of the draw, what if Andre beat Murray as well ... ? How can you be sure Murray would win 2002 USO ? It is impossible since Hewitt himself was a big player, there are too many people in 02 who can beat a newcomer like Murray.

Well, he always COULD have been beaten of course. But remember the real Murray only won 3 Slams. And in the other scenario I’m quite sure that also at least 3 times things would have gone right for him. I would even think a very young Murray could have won a Slam title or two in the 2001-2002 vacuum era where Johansson won the AO or when all favourites lost early at the 2002 Wimbledon.

Maybe this Murray then wents on to give an otherwise dominant Federer more mental scares than just beating him in a meaningless match in Cincinnati 2006, who knows?

Things would have gone differently. The lost opportunities would have been compensated by other ones.

And I think one thing is certain: Murray becomes Olympic champion in 2004 in our scenario.

 

[NoleIsBoat]

Nole is fine, I am not asking you how Nole would do in Fed's gen, Nole would have some wins, not denying.

Talk of Murray and Wawrinka only, be honest, don't be like this Nole is Boat who is insulting past legends like Becker-Mcenroe-Agassi etc etc by saying Murray will win 8 slams.

I say 0-1 slam for Murray, do you disagree?

It’s tough to say since he was stopped so often by Federer, Djokovic, Nadal. I can’t see Safin, Hewitt, Sampras, Roddick managing it to the same degree. It’s a matter of timing. If he was born and his peak coincided with years like 1997-2003 then he could have an agassi type career at the slams before Federer hit his peak.

 

[ChrisRF]

Nd Wawrinka cannot win anything in 2012 because Nadal and Djokovic would be even younger to him than they already are, they would crush him.

Do you see Wawrinka of 2016 AO beat Djokovic of 2011 ? or Nadal of 2011 ?

I thought we make him 4 years older, so that’s 2015 compared to 2011. So why not, he beat the absolute peak Djokovic in 2015 and played 5 sets against him at the AO. He had a good matchup against the absolute best Djokovic, which emerged in 2015/16 AND in early 2011 (and now, but that’s not the question here). So I don’t see why this shouldn’t be the same.

 

[Dedans Penthouse]

Thus far:

Meat Tornado: 2 posts
nichiket nolefam: 1 post
D Nalby: 3 posts
Kralingen: 1 post
Chris RF: 2 posts
Niles Boat: 4 posts
Nole Fam: 3 posts
Sunny 014: 20 posts - well done!!

Sunny 014 wins the "Epic Thread Award" (and no you do not have too much time on your hands)

• Murray's slam count would have been same but Stan's slam count would have been lesser
• Murray's slam count would have been same but Stan's slam count would have been more
• Murray's slam count would have been lesser but Stan's slam count would have been more
• Murray's slam count would have been lesser but Stan's slam count would have been same
• Murray's slam count would have been ,more but Stan's slam count would have been lesser
• Murray's slam count would have been more but Stan's slam count would have been same
• Both of them would have had higher slam counts
• Both of them would have had lesser slam counts
• Both of them would have had same slam counts
• Neither one of them would have had higher slams because nobody in their right mind would give a shlt
• LMAO!!!

 

[Sunny014]

It’s tough to say since he was stopped so often by Federer, Djokovic, Nadal. I can’t see Safin, Hewitt, Sampras, Roddick managing it to the same degree. It’s a matter of timing. If he was born and his peak coincided with years like 1997-2003 then he could have an agassi type career at the slams before Federer hit his peak.

Wow, you forcibly put him in Gustavo Kuerten's generation for him to be 24-25 in 2001 and start peaking to win slams till 04?

As if Sampras would give away wimbledons or Agassi would give away USOs to Murray ? Agassi is an ATG, do you even know how good he was at the AO ? He would stomp Murray. Even Goran was gonna win 01 wimbledon anyway, there are not many slams for Murray to win in the set up where you put him.

 

[ConnorH]

This is a bulls**t survey. Marray is 11-14 H2H against Federer, but 11-25 H2H against Djokorvic.

If Murray peaked along with Federer. he would have won about 10 slams, and Federer only about 13 slams.

Federer got those cheap slams when both Nadal and Djokervic were teenagers, and he should not be considered as great as either Nadal or Djokervic.

 

[Sunny014]

Well, he always COULD have been beaten of course. But remember the real Murray only won 3 Slams. And in the other scenario I’m quite sure that also at least 3 times things would have gone right for him. I would even think a very young Murray could have won a Slam title or two in the 2001-2002 vacuum era where Johansson won the AO or when all favourites lost early at the 2002 Wimbledon.

Maybe this Murray then wents on to give an otherwise dominant Federer more mental scares than just beating him in a meaningless match in Cincinnati 2006, who knows?

Things would have gone differently. The lost opportunities would have been compensated by other ones.

And I think one thing is certain: Murray becomes Olympic champion in 2004 in our scenario.

Andre Agassi was the greatest returner on earth before Djokovic and Safin was a brute force baseliner in those years, I dont see Murray beating them. You Sampras argument is valid, Murray could neutralize him maybe but the other baseliners he cannot beat, no chance.

Mental scars to Federer? R u joking? Federer would bury him in straight sets, only scars that Fed got were give by a leftie clay GOAT with a lot of RPMS on his forehand, Murray is trash, he has nothing to give scars Those cincinatti and other 3 sets were useless when he faced Fed at the USO 08, remember? It was a straight sets drubbing.... BO3s have no value. Whatever edge Murray might have in 00-02 over Federer would be no different from what Hewitt or Safin or Nalby had over Fed, scars and such words are laughable .,..... Murray is such a weakling that even Stan has a 5-4 H2H in slams over Murray.... A guy who was Stan's inferior in slams giving scars to the GOAT ??? You must be delusional .... Murray wins nothing more than 1 or 2 slams, thats the same which Hewitt won!

 

[Sunny014]

This is a bulls**t survey. Marray is 11-14 H2H against Federer, but 11-25 H2H against Djokorvic.

If Murray peaked along with Federer. he would have won about 10 slams, and Federer only about 13 slams.

Federer got those cheap slams when both Nadal and Djokervic were teenagers, and he should not be considered as great as either Nadal or Djokervic.

Why only 10 slams? He would win 15 slams you troll.... hehe

Murray at his peak was spanked by an old Federer and you expect him to win while peaking with Fed .... lol

 

[Madinolf]

How many Slams for Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero in 2007-2015?

I'd say a big fat zero.

 

[Sunny014]

How many Slams for Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero in 2007-2015?

I'd say a big fat zero.

Safin takes at least 4-5, remember he has a 2-0 H2H vs Novak, expect him to win all the slams of Wawrinka and also those 2 slams won by Cilic and Potro .... total of 5 minimum

 

[Madinolf]

Safin takes at least 4-5, remember he has a 2-0 H2H vs Novak, expect him to win all the slams of Wawrinka and also those 2 slams won by Cilic and Potro .... total of 5 minimum

You're full of crap. His 2 matches against Novak were 1st/2nd rounds, they mean nothing.

I do think Safin is the one of the four thar could win 1-2 Slams in 2007-15. Similar peak to Stan/Delpo.

 

[ConnorH]

Why only 10 slams? He would win 15 slams you troll.... hehe

Murray may only be in the last place of the Big 4, but his record is clearly telling us Federer is by far the weakest of the Big 3

Murray against Nadal H2H: 7-17
Murray against Djokervic: 11-25
Murray against Federer: 11-14

In other words, Federer is closer to Murray than the BIG TWO. Murray<Federer <<<<<<<<<< Nadal=Djokervic

Your stupidity cannot be cured., troll.

 

[Sunny014]

You're full of crap. His 2 matches against Novak were 1st/2nd rounds, they mean nothing.

I do think Safin is the one of the four thar could win 1-2 Slams in 2007-15.

HIs second match was on Grass (safin's worst surface) and that was after Novak won his 1st slam, so yes buddy, if in the *** end of his career Safin could trouble a slam winner Djokovic then the matchup is very much bad, he would have been more savage than Wawrinka in the h2h

Expect at least 5-6 slams from Safin in this era !

 

[Madinolf]

"Peak Federer" lost 6 of the first 7 matches against Nadal and 6 of the first 8 matches against Murray, but for some reason his fans think he would win every hypothetical match against ATGs...

He was good at beating Roddick and Baghdatis. That's it.