Which player deserved to win the slam they lost most? Borg v. Roddick v. Murray

[Mainad]

I doubt anyone tried to win a major more than Ivan Lendl at Wimbledon. It had even his detractors feeling sorry for him.

Losing to defending champion grass goat Becker was one thing but, after Becker got unexpectedly taken out early by Doohan the following year, who could have imagined he would then run into a red hot Cash en route to his one and only Slam title? I guess the stars just would never align for him at Wimbledon. He, together with the 3 "Rs" ie. Rosewall, Rafter and Roddick, were probably the unluckiest losers ever at the grasscourt Slam!

 

[Waspsting]

@abmk

Roddick is 3-21 vs Federer

Murray is 11-25 vs Djokovic

Guess which is getting "obliterated" ? (and I didn't say anything about finals)

Federer's never beaten Fabrice Santoro in a final - does that mean a Federer-Santoro final would start a 50-50 match?

 

[abmk]

@abmk

Roddick is 3-21 vs Federer

Murray is 11-25 vs Djokovic

Guess which is getting "obliterated" ? (and I didn't say anything about finals)

Federer's never beaten Fabrice Santoro in a final - does that mean a Federer-Santoro final would start a 50-50 match?

we're talking about Roddick at Wimbledon and Murray at AO.

what does last statement have to do with anything ?

this part is correct : "the logical conclusion is he played above himself"

which means Roddick deserves credit .

also throw in that Murray wasn't great in slam finals before Wim 12 (that included two finals at the AO - 10,11)

 

[Waspsting]

we're talking about Roddick at Wimbledon and Murray at AO.

Exactly, we're NOT talking about Roddick at Wimbledon and Murray at AO in the final, are we?

The final is a big part of the whole of what we're talking - but not bigger than the rest put together.

If this isn't the case, the norm would be -

ratio of finals reached/Slams played > ratio of finals won/finals reached

.... which obviously isn't true

With that in mind -

Murray is 48-12 @ Aus
Roddick is 41-12 @ Wimby

Murray has 5 finals @ Aus
Roddick has 3 @ Wimby

Murray lost 11 sets in reaching his 5 finals (2.5 sets per trip) @ Aus
Roddick lost 12 sets in reaching his 3 finals (4 sets per trip) @ Wimby

what does last statement have to do with anything ?

The Santoro statement?

It's a thought experiment indicating overall h2h is a better indicator of likely outcome than finals h2h (which your earlier post seemed to dispute)

this part is correct : "the logical conclusion is he played above himself"

which means Roddick deserves credit .

I wish you wouldn't cherry pick statements like this... I expect it from many here, but not you

The second part of the statement was "or Federer played below himself"

Roddick deserves credit either way, that's not the point - the point is does he deserve more than Murray does at AO?

There are no question marks over the performances of Murray's opponents in Aus finals, including (maybe even 'especially') Federer's in 2010 - one of his best performances

I think if Fed had played that well against Roddick @ Wim 09, it'd have been a routine straight set affair

also throw in that Murray wasn't great in slam finals before Wim 12 (that included two finals at the AO - 10,11)

True

He still gets credit for reaching those finals though, especially considering he came up against GOAT-ing levels at both Aus finals

----

The only area Roddick > Murray is in 2009 final and how close Roddick got to winning

Every other area, it seems to me Murray > Roddick

I disagree with Roddick > Murray, think the arguments a bit shallow, but don't have a problem with it. They both deserve a lot of credit

But 39 votes to 5 votes better?

That ain't kosher

 

[abmk]

Exactly, we're NOT talking about Roddick at Wimbledon and Murray at AO in the final, are we?

The final is a big part of the whole of what we're talking - but not bigger than the rest put together.

If this isn't the case, the norm would be -

ratio of finals reached/Slams played > ratio of finals won/finals reached

.... which obviously isn't true

With that in mind -

Murray is 48-12 @ Aus
Roddick is 41-12 @ Wimby

Murray has 5 finals @ Aus
Roddick has 3 @ Wimby

Murray lost 11 sets in reaching his 5 finals (2.5 sets per trip) @ Aus
Roddick lost 12 sets in reaching his 3 finals (4 sets per trip) @ Wimby

Already indicated that Murray has the edge as far as reaching more finals goes.
But he never came close in any of those AO finals.

The Santoro statement?

It's a thought experiment indicating overall h2h is a better indicator of likely outcome than finals h2h (which your earlier post seemed to dispute)

why would look at likely outcome when you have the actual outcomes ?

I wish you wouldn't cherry pick statements like this... I expect it from many here, but not you

The second part of the statement was "or Federer played below himself"

Roddick deserves credit either way, that's not the point - the point is does he deserve more than Murray does at AO?

There are no question marks over the performances of Murray's opponents in Aus finals, including (maybe even 'especially') Federer's in 2010, one of his ver

I think if Fed had played that well against Roddick @ Wim 09, it'd have been the routine straight set affair

I disagree with the 2nd part.
which is why I said I only agree with the 1st part.

Djokovic wasn't great in the AO 13 final. Though he played well in AO 15 final, he wasn't close to his best there either.

There is no question mark over federer's performance in wim 09 final either, just saying. He played well, though obviously not at his best.

Believe it or not, Roddick's play was a major factor in not letting federer play his best in Wim 09 final. Murray's passive game in AO 2010 final allowed him to do so.
Even if federer had played better, it'd be a tight 4-setter at the very least.

Roddick has put in 4 pretty good or better performances vs Federer in slams :
2004 wimby - tight 4-setter
2006 USO - 4 setter - that was close in sets 2 and 3, when Roddick was playing really well. they split those sets.
2007 USO - 3 setter, hardly anything to separate the 2 in the first 2 sets. Federer was returning well, but didn't have a single BP in the first 2 sets.
2009 wimby - went to 16-14 in the 5th set.

He still gets credit for reaching those finals though, especially considering he came up against GOAT-ing levels at both Aus finals

----

The only area Roddick > Murray is in 2009 final and how close Roddick got to winning

Every other area, it seems to me Murray > Roddick

I disagree with Roddick > Murray, think the arguments a bit shallow, but don't have a problem with it. They both deserve a lot of credit

But 39 votes to 5 votes better?

That ain't kosher

no, its not just the 2009 wimby final. Its the wimby 04 final , as well.
Something those arguing against Roddick are completely ignoring.

that's 2 finals worth of arguments in favour of Roddick.

 

[Waspsting]

why would look at likely outcome when you have the actual outcomes ?.

If you're going on actual outcomes, both have 0 titles (Borg too)... why have this thread at all???

As @BeatlesFan said, the concept of "deserve" doesn't come into it than

---

Bottom line -

guy with a 3-21 (Roddick-Federer) record loses 3 times.... what exactly is shocking about this?

Guy with records of 11-25 (Murray-Djokovic) and 11-14 (Murray-Federer) for total 22-39 loses 5 times... that's significantly less probable

And Borg obviously tops them both - very comfortably

---

I think I've said everything I have to on the matter. Thank you for the lively discussion - til next time, than

(On an unrelated note - did you do stats for Federer's 03 Wimby run? I'm interested in the net stats - how often he was approaching and serve-volleying and the success rates

Particularly the semi and the final)

 

[guitarra]

I think it was Roddick for his inhuman effort in 2009. The only time he got broken was actually at match point in the 5th. His level in this match was very high against still in his prime Fed.

For me he deserved it that year as much as Fed did but well... there may only be one winner, there's no draws in tennis.

 

[NoleFam]

I would have to go with Borg or Roddick because they were just a couple of games away from the title at least once in 1980 and 2009. Although Murray made more finals, he was never as close to holding the trophy as they were.

 

[mike danny]

Exactly, we're NOT talking about Roddick at Wimbledon and Murray at AO in the final, are we?

The final is a big part of the whole of what we're talking - but not bigger than the rest put together.

If this isn't the case, the norm would be -

ratio of finals reached/Slams played > ratio of finals won/finals reached

.... which obviously isn't true

With that in mind -

Murray is 48-12 @ Aus
Roddick is 41-12 @ Wimby

Murray has 5 finals @ Aus
Roddick has 3 @ Wimby

Murray lost 11 sets in reaching his 5 finals (2.5 sets per trip) @ Aus
Roddick lost 12 sets in reaching his 3 finals (4 sets per trip) @ Wimby



The Santoro statement?

It's a thought experiment indicating overall h2h is a better indicator of likely outcome than finals h2h (which your earlier post seemed to dispute)



I wish you wouldn't cherry pick statements like this... I expect it from many here, but not you

The second part of the statement was "or Federer played below himself"

Roddick deserves credit either way, that's not the point - the point is does he deserve more than Murray does at AO?

There are no question marks over the performances of Murray's opponents in Aus finals, including (maybe even 'especially') Federer's in 2010 - one of his best performances

I think if Fed had played that well against Roddick @ Wim 09, it'd have been a routine straight set affair



True

He still gets credit for reaching those finals though, especially considering he came up against GOAT-ing levels at both Aus finals

----

The only area Roddick > Murray is in 2009 final and how close Roddick got to winning

Every other area, it seems to me Murray > Roddick

I disagree with Roddick > Murray, think the arguments a bit shallow, but don't have a problem with it. They both deserve a lot of credit

But 39 votes to 5 votes better?

That ain't kosher

Murray was obviously better at AO than Roddick at Wimb due to his extra finals.

But Roddick played better in 2/3 finals than Murray in any of his AO finals. So why should Murray be more deserving if his final efforts are not up to par?

 

[MCallanan]

To be honest, I don't think Murray deserves to have won any of his AO finals. He had real chances to win in 2013 and 2015 (great starts in both) and then either lost focus or choked which is his fault and nobody else's. The rest he just got outplayed by the better player.

2013 was his best chance. He was clearly better than Novak for the first two sets, had the only two break point chances of the set. When he took off his shoes following the second set tiebreak and his feet were bloody messes you knew it was over.

 

[Phoenix1983]

There's no such thing as "deserving" anything in life, but within the parameters of the question, Borg "deserves" the USO. He's an ATG champion of the sport and remains an icon. Roddick is a one-slam winner, Murray has won three. To even mention either of these guys in the same sentence as Borg is cringe worthy. It's like mentioning Courier alongside Federer, though Courier won four slams and was a great player.

I think you're missing the point though.

Roddick was extremely close to winning Wimbledon and was only stopped time and again by the grass GOAT. As I said, to get to 14-15 in the fifth set of a Wimbledon final, not having had your serve broken for the entire match, and still lose, is desperately unfortunate - an agonizingly close defeat. The fact that Borg was a much greater player than Roddick overall doesn't mean he was more deserving of a USO than Roddick was of a Big W title.

 

[Daniel Johnson]

Roddick. Poor guy couldn't catch a break.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[mike danny]

There's no such thing as "deserving" anything in life, but within the parameters of the question, Borg "deserves" the USO. He's an ATG champion of the sport and remains an icon. Roddick is a one-slam winner, Murray has won three. To even mention either of these guys in the same sentence as Borg is cringe worthy. It's like mentioning Courier alongside Federer, though Courier won four slams and was a great player.

To be fair, Borg had a chance to win the USO when it was on clay. It's his fault for not taking advantage.

 

[mavsman149]

Tough between Roddick and Borg, sorry Murray you didn't reach a 5th set in any of your Aussie finals.

 

[Shaolin]

Definitely Roddick.

Because I don't remember Borg's matches and don't really like Murray.

 

[abmk]

If you're going on actual outcomes, both have 0 titles (Borg too)... why have this thread at all???

As @BeatlesFan said, the concept of "deserve" doesn't come into it than

---

Bottom line -

guy with a 3-21 (Roddick-Federer) record loses 3 times.... what exactly is shocking about this?

Guy with records of 11-25 (Murray-Djokovic) and 11-14 (Murray-Federer) for total 22-39 loses 5 times... that's significantly less probable

And Borg obviously tops them both - very comfortably

---

I think I've said everything I have to on the matter. Thank you for the lively discussion - til next time, than

because we're looking at what happened in those slams and deciding who played well enough to win (i.e was deserving to win). that would be roddick in wim 09 and wim 04 more so than any of Murray's runs, even if Murray has been more consistent at the AO.

(On an unrelated note - did you do stats for Federer's 03 Wimby run? I'm interested in the net stats - how often he was approaching and serve-volleying and the success rates

Particularly the semi and the final)

slice serve ace did the stats for the final:

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...in-his-grand-slam-finals.432432/#post-7714712

I'm planning to do for the semi soon.

 

[abmk]

To be fair, Borg had a chance to win the USO when it was on clay. It's his fault for not taking advantage.

75 - still young and Connors was clearly better on har tru (green clay) at that time
76 - close one that turned on the 3rd set TB.
77 - injured and retired mid-way through the 4th round match at 1 set all.

So, honestly , he had just one good shot at it on har tru - 76.

 

[deacsyoga]

Murray was obviously better at AO than Roddick at Wimb due to his extra finals.

But Roddick played better in 2/3 finals than Murray in any of his AO finals. So why should Murray be more deserving if his final efforts are not up to par?

Murray didnt play a single great final which is unfortunate. I would feel better about wuzrobbing him of never winning an Australian if he had delivered a single truly impressive performance in the finals. Some of the finals vs Djokovic he was good for about half the match, but that is it. The final vs Federer he sucked all the way through.

Roddick played a very good final in 2004, even if his play petered off as it went, in 2009 an outstanding match, in 2005 a mediocre one which is pretty similar to all of Murray's AO finals. Overall better than Murray, atleast in the finals.

 

[shankster]

How can anyone even think of voting for Murray? He was listless in each of his AO Finals.

 

[duaneeo]

I pick Roddick. He faced the GOAT at his peak/prime on his favorite surface, but would give his all every time. Murray petered out against Nole.

I wasn't a tennis fan during Borg's time, so didn't include him.