Who did more damage: Fed to Roddick or Djokovic to Murray?

[Chanwan]

Yeah, I always just thought that Djokovic couldn't read Roddick's serve well, so when Roddick was playing well he had trouble breaking and Djokovic didn't really play agressive enough shred Roddick from the baseline so Roddick basically got to wait for the right shot

exactly. Djokovic is an outstanding returner but against the very best servers, he can sometimes get in trouble - and that includes Roddick

 

[Sysyphus]

I'm sorry. I must have missed the memo where peak was defined as the training a week before a tournament and not the level in the actual match itself.

Nah, Roddick's highest level of consistent play was clearly in 2003/2004, in 2005 he had very good results still but he wasn't that much of a threat in the biggest matches. After that he just got a lot streakier

je répète:

"The American roared through the summer posting a 25-3 record, winning Queen's Club, reaching the Wimbledon final (where he fell to Roger Federer), taking the Washington, D.C. title, and falling to Federer in the Cincinnati final."

Müller just too stronk, sorry. Much like Johansson in 04 and Schüttler in 03.

 

[Towser83]

Roddick has been hurt more. True Murray has lost a lot of big matches to Nole, but he's also beaten him twice in slams! And without Djokovic most times he'd still be facing Fed, Nadal or Wrawinka with whom in slams hes

Fed 1-5
Nadal 2-7
Stan 3-3

 

[Red Rick]

je répète:

"The American roared through the summer posting a 25-3 record, winning Queen's Club, reaching the Wimbledon final (where he fell to Roger Federer), taking the Washington, D.C. title, and falling to Federer in the Cincinnati final."

Müller just too stronk, sorry. Much like Johansson in 04 and Schüttler in 03.

I don't know how they get to 25-3, does it start at Queens? Because I count, starting from Queens.

30-2 for 2003, losses to Federer and Henman, titles in Queens, Indianapolis, Roger's Cup and Cincinnati
27-4 for 2004, losses to Federer, Federer, Agassi, and Gonzalez. Titles in Queens and Indianapolis
23-4 for 2005, losses to Federer, Ginepri, Mathieu, and Federer.

In any case, Roddick was a beast from grass to the USO

And lastly, Roddick never lost to Muller again, losing only a set in their last 4 matches (4-1).

And even more lastly, Mullers hair decline was even worse than Roddick's

Spoiler

Ok, fine

Spoiler

I'll admit

Spoiler

You triggered me

Spoiler

WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS TO ME SYSY

Spoiler

I might just have to lay off the booze

 

[Nadalgaenger]

exactly. Djokovic is an outstanding returner but against the very best servers, he can sometimes get in trouble - and that includes Roddick

Roddick is a tougher matchup for Djokovic but Murray is a tougher matchup for Fed. Agree?

 

[Sysyphus]

I don't know how they get to 25-3, does it start at Queens? Because I count, starting from Queens.

30-2 for 2003, losses to Federer and Henman, titles in Queens, Indianapolis, Roger's Cup and Cincinnati
27-4 for 2004, losses to Federer, Federer, Agassi, and Gonzalez. Titles in Queens and Indianapolis
23-4 for 2005, losses to Federer, Ginepri, Mathieu, and Federer.

In any case, Roddick was a beast from grass to the USO

And lastly, Roddick never lost to Muller again, losing only a set in their last 4 matches (4-1).

And even more lastly, Mullers hair decline was even worse than Roddick's

They subtracted the Mathieu loss in Canada as that was actually Sean William Scott doubling for him to allow Roddick some needed rest.

 

[NatF]

Roddick is a tougher matchup for Djokovic but Murray is a tougher matchup for Fed. Agree?

Indeed, which speaks to how high Roddick's level must have been to give Federer tougher matches than Murray at both the USO and Wimbledon

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Roddick has been hurt more. True Murray has lost a lot of big matches to Nole, but he's also beaten him twice in slams! And without Djokovic most times he'd still be facing Fed, Nadal or Wrawinka with whom in slams hes

Fed 1-5
Nadal 2-7
Stan 3-3

So Murray has lost a total of 20 matches in slams to the Big 3. Nuts. What an unlucky guy to have to play in the strongest of eras!

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Federer over Roddick has the edge here.

 

[Chanwan]

Roddick is a tougher matchup for Djokovic but Murray is a tougher matchup for Fed. Agree?

Murray used to be a tougher match up for Fed, not sure it's the case post his back surgery. Fed's got the tactics right vs. him now. But over the course of their careers, def. agreed.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Remove Fed from Roddick's era and he wins 3 or more.

Yes, Murray is the better player and the higher ranked player. But the point of this thread is who was hurt the most. And given how much Murray has been able to win against Djokovic and how little Andy was able to win against Fed and how each of them would likely have faired in the 8 slams, where they lost to Djoko and Fed respectively, the point still stands: Roddick was hurt more.

And sure, Novak did get (a lot) better, but Roddick wasn't exactly peak Roddick either, when he beat him. Novak was the higher ranked player in the vast majority of their matches. And if Karlovic and Isner are able to sneak in wins vs. post-2011 Djoko, surely Roddick can too

Remove Djokovic from Murray's era and he is as successful as Edberg or Becker. In other words, also wins 3 or more.

Murray winning two Slam meetings against Djokovic compared to Roddick winning zero against Federer is the only case Roddick has for being hurt more (and it's a good one, don't get me wrong). But taking Djokovic and Federer out of Murray's and Roddick's era respectively, who would take more extra Majors? We could lean either way but I feel this would be a waste of time (not with you) because this madhouse will give poor unlucky Arod all those Wimbledon titles automatically but will make all sorts of arguments that pathetic Murray would lose to every other player as well, not just to Djokovic. /end rant

Peak Roddick, spoooooooky! Sure he would at some Masters or a minor event, but not at a Slam. Or at least he certainly wouldn't lead the H2H when everything is said and done.

 

[MugOpponent]

I'm trying to think of a grand slam final loss that could be more personally devastating than what Roddick went through at Wimbledon 2009. I can't think of anything even close.

 

[Red Rick]

They subtracted the Mathieu loss in Canada as that was actually Sean William Scott doubling for him to allow Roddick some needed rest.

Damn you Matchstat, I trusted you. My life is a lie

 

[Nadalgaenger]

I'm trying to think of a grand slam final loss that could be more personally devastating than what Roddick went through at Wimbledon 2009. I can't think of anything even close.

Not sure. I mean it was devastating for sure, but nobody would have imagined that Roddick would have gotten into the final at the start of the tournament. He never blew a Match Point.

I think if you’d told Roddick before that 2009 final that he would get into an extended fifth set serving contest with Roger, he’d take it either way. He couldn’t have had too much belief going into that matchup.

 

[TheAverageFedererFan]

(Note, these won't change the draw, just theoretical)

If Federer hadn't existed:
Roddick wins WIM 2003, WIM 2004, USO 2006, WIM 2009
He now has 5 slams.

If Djokovic hadn't existed:
Murray wins AO 2013, AO 2015, RG 2016
He now has 6 slams.

I think Federer.

 

[Mainad]

I'm trying to think of a grand slam final loss that could be more personally devastating than what Roddick went through at Wimbledon 2009. I can't think of anything even close.

Coria at 2004 Roland Garros must be the closest.

 

[Roddick85]

With all his losses to Djokovic, Murray still went on to win 3 slams, achieved world #1, won many MS-1000, made finals at all grand slams, I could go on and on... My point is, even though he loss to Djokovic so many times, Murray still had an amazing career.

In Roddick's case, I feel Federer pretty much prevented Roddick from achieving much more then he has. Roddick still had a pretty good career, but one can't help but wonder what he might of achieved had it not been for all those beatings he took from Federer early in his career.

 

[EloQuent]

I'm going with Fed to Rod. Even if on paper Murray would have won more slams, he's already counted as part of the big 4, has 2 Olympic golds too. He's had an impressive career.

Roddick? The only thing he's known for is a sense of humor.

 

[metsman]

that was the peakiest of peak roddicks:

The American roared through the summer posting a 25-3 record, winning Queen's Club, reaching the Wimbledon final (where he fell to Roger Federer), taking the Washington, D.C. title, and falling to Federer in the Cincinnati final. Arriving in New York armed with four titles on the year, a semifinal appearance at the Australian Open, and a serve so big he left a bruise mark when blasting one to the body, most players predicted Roddick was a true contender to regain the title.

Instead, he was reduced to making sense of an excruciating loss. Fighting off five of six break points he faced, Roddick did not play poorly; Muller played a masterful match.

"I don't really remember a loss where I've felt this bad afterward," Roddick said. "I love playing here. I've probably had the best practice week I've had in lead-up and it just didn't translate tonight. I thought he played very well tonight. I just felt like the whole time I was trying to find something as opposed to just having it. I normally take control of the situation a little bit more than that whereas he was taking the first strike tonight."​

He hurt his foot at the end of the Cincy final. Not sure how much that still affected him at the USO, but he wasn't quite himself in that match. He was seriously struggling to read Muller's serve, but he also blew the first set from a break up and didn't play the big points too well in those breakers. Similar kind of loss as the 04 one, but that one at least went 5 and Johansson has a much bigger game than Muller. Both were missed chances to get to the semis/finals, moreso the 04 one. Either way, that USO loss kicked off the start of an awful 12 months for Roddick

 

[metsman]

(Note, these won't change the draw, just theoretical)

If Federer hadn't existed:
Roddick wins WIM 2003, WIM 2004, USO 2006, WIM 2009
He now has 5 slams.

If Djokovic hadn't existed:
Murray wins AO 2013, AO 2015, RG 2016
He now has 6 slams.

I think Federer.

If we're assuming Murray beats Stan in both 2013 and 2015 then you might as well add 07 USO, 07 AO, and 05 Wimby onto Roddick's ledger. 07 USO he'd probably be the favorite anyways with the form he showed in that tournament, Djokovic's nerves, and the crowd. 07 AO would probably be 50/50, but Roddick usually had a good beat on Gonzo's game.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

If we're assuming Murray beats Stan in both 2013 and 2015 then you might as well add 07 USO, 07 AO, and 05 Wimby onto Roddick's ledger. 07 USO he'd probably be the favorite anyways with the form he showed in that tournament, Djokovic's nerves, and the crowd. 07 AO would probably be 50/50, but Roddick usually had a good beat on Gonzo's game.

How is it even a given Murray wins RG any year? Because he lost to Novak in the final? He draws any good clay courter (even Ferrer when he's on fire) and he loses.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Coria at 2004 Roland Garros must be the closest.

Coria wasn't half the player Roddick was. He also faced a relative nobody in the final, give Roddick that chance and he'd crush them much like Murray did to Raonic at Wimbledon.

 

[Gary Duane]

Coria wasn't half the player Roddick was.

I've lost the plot. What surface are we talking about?

 

[TheAverageFedererFan]

If we're assuming Murray beats Stan in both 2013 and 2015 then you might as well add 07 USO, 07 AO, and 05 Wimby onto Roddick's ledger. 07 USO he'd probably be the favorite anyways with the form he showed in that tournament, Djokovic's nerves, and the crowd. 07 AO would probably be 50/50, but Roddick usually had a good beat on Gonzo's game.

Ill add A0 2007

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I've lost the plot. What surface are we talking about?

Overall. I'm not talking surfaces. I am talking as a player contending on their favorite surface(s).

Roddick would not lose to a Pioline in a Wimbledon final, whereas if Coria was a grasscourter he would have a moderate chance at losing.

Roddick was the more mentally stable player, capable of much more.

 

[Gary Duane]

Overall. I'm not talking surfaces. I am talking as a player contending on their favorite surface(s).

Roddick would not lose to a Pioline in a Wimbledon final, whereas if Coria was a grasscourter he would have a moderate chance at losing.

Roddick was the more mentally stable player, capable of much more.

Got it.

But at least Coria was a clay specialist. Do we have one, other than Nadal, who is capable of some big wins on clay?

 

[metsman]

How is it even a given Murray wins RG any year? Because he lost to Novak in the final? He draws any good clay courter (even Ferrer when he's on fire) and he loses.

Well in that particular year he would have gotten like Berdych or Thiem or something so he could win the final. Although given the way he totally collapsed after the first set, probably because he was fatigued because he made life way too hard on himself the first 5 rounds, it's far from a guarantee.

But even in that RG, the only impressive match he played was the semi vs Stan, and Stan wasn't exactly firing on all cylinders in that match. Got pushed to the brink first two rounds by Borgue and an ancient Stepanek, total nobodies, Gasquet nearly went up 2 sets before doing his usual mug routine. In between he faced the two statues on clay. If he had won it would have been one of the least impressive RG winners ever. People give Gaudio crap, he still destroyed Nalbandian and Hewitt in straights and still did play some great tennis to beat Coria the last 3 sets irregardless of Coria choking.

 

[KINGROGER]

And Novak allowed Murray to become nr.1, no chance in hell prime Fed lets Roddick to do that.

Also, Murray wouldn't win most of those slams anyway, he would still lose to Nadal and Federer. Remember, Murray hasn't won a slam when he had to play them.

Yeah if Murray was around during Fed’s era he would probably still be slamless. Thankfully for him he didn’t have to face peak Fed during his own prime.

 

[Mainad]

And Novak allowed Murray to become nr.1, no chance in hell prime Fed lets Roddick to do that.

Oh yeah, coz Novak just rolled over for Murray like he always does???

 

[Mainad]

Yeah if Murray was around during Fed’s era he would probably still be slamless. Thankfully for him he didn’t have to face peak Fed during his own prime.

Murray has been around in Fed's era for most of his career and he still came away with 3 Slams!

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Murray has been around in Fed's era for most of his career and he still came away with 3 Slams!

And unlike Roddick, Murray had to deal with 3 ATGs on a regular basis. Roddick just had Fed basically.

 

[KINGROGER]

And unlike Roddick, Murray had to deal with 3 ATGs on a regular basis. Roddick just had Fed basically.

Yeah but during 2004-2009 to win any grand slams you had to beat prime Federer, or peak Nadal on clay.

Murray didn’t have to face peak Fed for any of his GS.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Murray has been around in Fed's era for most of his career and he still came away with 3 Slams!

And unlike Roddick, Murray had to deal with 3 ATGs on a regular basis. Roddick just had Fed basically.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Yeah but during 2004-2009 to win any grand slams you had to beat prime Federer, or peak Nadal on clay.

Murray didn’t have to face peak Fed for any of his GS.

Neither task was easy. Safin did it on HC at least.

By 2008, when Murray really broke into the top echelon, you had the Big 3 playing well on all the surfaces. Just more obstacles in the SF really than Roddick had to deal with from 2003-2008.

 

[metsman]

Neither task was easy. Safin did it on HC at least.

By 2008, when Murray really broke into the top echelon, you had the Big 3 playing well on all the surfaces. Just more obstacles in the SF really than Roddick had to deal with from 2003-2008.

Both tasks are impossible for Murray. Beating a fatigued/injured Nadal on HC, out of form 32 year old Federer on molasses slow hard, and drunkovic a couple times aren't nearly so. Ask Ferrer, Seppi/Cilic/Berdych, Nishikori/Stan etc. Hence why in one period, Murray would have zero slams almost guaranteed and in the other period he has 3.

 

[CentreCourt]

Here's my view on things:

Without Federer, Roddick has very high chances of winning Wimb 2003, Wimb 2004, Wimb 2009 and USO 2006. Simply because in those slams there were no opponents you could think would actually have amazing chances to beat Roddick.

There are others too, but Gonzo in AO 2007 was red hot, Djokovic was also playing well at the 2007 USO, Nadal was too good at 2009 AO and Hewitt was also playing well at 2005 Wimb and Roddick wasn't. So these were no guarantees compared to the above 4. Or at least would have been much touhger to win than the above 4.

Murray would have still lost AO 2011 and AO 2016 to Fed. AO 2013 and AO 2015 also wouldn't have been guarantees with the way Wawrinka was playing in those. AO 2012 also wasn't a guarantee with the way Nadal was playing. So that leaves only FO 2016 as pretty much a certainty.

Murray would have won the 2013, 2015 and 2016 AO, IMO - 2011 and 2012 aren't certainties either way but my money would be on Murray in the first three mentioned. He'd have won both the 2015 and 2016 FO's too, IMO. The only reason Wawrinka won against Djokovic in 2015 was because he had to come through a long match with Murray. They've played twice at RG, one a comfortable win for Murray and the other a narrow win for Wawrinka against a one-legged Murray in a 5-setter.

 

[AiRFederer]

Remove Djokovic from Murray's era and he is as successful as Edberg or Becker. In other words, also wins 3 or more.

Murray winning two Slam meetings against Djokovic compared to Roddick winning zero against Federer is the only case Roddick has for being hurt more (and it's a good one, don't get me wrong). But taking Djokovic and Federer out of Murray's and Roddick's era respectively, who would take more extra Majors? We could lean either way but I feel this would be a waste of time (not with you) because this madhouse will give poor unlucky Arod all those Wimbledon titles automatically but will make all sorts of arguments that pathetic Murray would lose to every other player as well, not just to Djokovic. /end rant

Peak Roddick, spoooooooky! Sure he would at some Masters or a minor event, but not at a Slam. Or at least he certainly wouldn't lead the H2H when everything is said and done.

Lol at the Roddick hate on this forum smh. Why do you suddenly bring up roger for murray, OP asked for Djokoray. If Novak didnt exist Murray still had to beat Fed/Nadal/Wawrinka.

 

[mike danny]

Murray would have won the 2013, 2015 and 2016 AO, IMO - 2011 and 2012 aren't certainties either way but my money would be on Murray in the first three mentioned. He'd have won both the 2015 and 2016 FO's too, IMO. The only reason Wawrinka won against Djokovic in 2015 was because he had to come through a long match with Murray. They've played twice at RG, one a comfortable win for Murray and the other a narrow win for Wawrinka against a one-legged Murray in a 5-setter.

I'm not going to gift Murray slams if he plays against Stan given that in terms of ability they are nearly even. And Murray has failed to dominate Stan.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Lol at the Roddick hate on this forum smh.

Why do you suddenly bring up roger for murray, OP asked for Djokoray.

If Novak didnt exist Murray still had to beat Fed/Nadal/Wawrinka.

More like smh at all the Roddick @$$ kissing on this forum for being Fed's punching bag. "At least he showed a lot of fight" said the Arod "fans" after he got stuffed with yet another bakery product from His Royal Goatness Fedr. *insert @Sabratha's signature rolling puking emoji*

Where did I do that? "Taking Djokovic and Federer out of Murray's and Roddick's era respectively" Unless my English is a fail that's sticking to the Djokorray and Feddick topic.

Not in all those particular Majors where Murray lost to Djokovic. And he could definitely score some wins over those three guys apart from taking down inferior opposition as usual. Either way, that last sentence just shows which Andy has had tougher competition throughout the whole career. And still that Andy turned out to be a visibly superior player.

 

[AiRFederer]

More like smh at all the Roddick @$$ kissing on this forum for being Fed's punching bag. "At least he showed a lot of fight" said the Arod "fans" after he got stuffed with yet another bakery product from His Royal Goatness Fedr. *insert @Sabratha's signature rolling puking emoji*

Where did I do that? "Taking Djokovic and Federer out of Murray's and Roddick's era respectively" Unless my English is a fail that's sticking to the Djokorray and Feddick topic.

Not in all those particular Majors where Murray lost to Djokovic. And he could definitely score some wins over those three guys apart from taking down inferior opposition as usual. Either way, that last sentence just shows which Andy has had tougher competition throughout the whole career. And still that Andy turned out to be a visibly superior player.

My bad on that one actually I misread.

Anyway, I was irked by how you make fun of Roddick since if you take Fed and Djoker respectively in both Andys' careers, ARod wouldve been much more of a "shoe in" champ than Mury not just because of Mury having tougher competition but also since prime Roddick was nothing to be made fun of.

Some may see this as an agenda driven move to prop up Fed but in all honesty IMO Roddick wouldve won those slam finals against anyone not named Fed and who knows, may have then won more afterwards since his confidence would be much higher.

 

[fedtennisphan]

More like smh at all the Roddick @$$ kissing on this forum for being Fed's punching bag. "At least he showed a lot of fight" said the Arod "fans" after he got stuffed with yet another bakery product from His Royal Goatness Fedr. *insert @Sabratha's signature rolling puking emoji*

Where did I do that? "Taking Djokovic and Federer out of Murray's and Roddick's era respectively" Unless my English is a fail that's sticking to the Djokorray and Feddick topic.

Not in all those particular Majors where Murray lost to Djokovic. And he could definitely score some wins over those three guys apart from taking down inferior opposition as usual. Either way, that last sentence just shows which Andy has had tougher competition throughout the whole career. And still that Andy turned out to be a visibly superior player.

Roddick is a punching bag for FedHaters who wanted him to help hold Federer down. This Federer fans don’t need to prop up Roddick because there are a lot of players who have lopsided H2H with Federer. Also don’t try to prop up Murray because if Federer was not in the field Djokovic or Nadal fans wouldn’t consider him a threat either.

 

[Deleted member 742196]

No question; Roddick had his career tar and featherered.

People might not remember how good he was in his prime. Prime/Peak Fed needed two extremely tough middle sets to throttle his momentum in Wimby 04.

 

[Phoenix1983]

It's such a shame for Roddick that he played in the era of the GOAT.

Imagine if you were a man who reached 14-15 in the fifth set of a Wimbledon final, without having had your serve broken in the entire match, and still lost.

That is what it feels like to face the GOAT.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

My bad on that one actually I misread.

Anyway, I was irked by how you make fun of Roddick since if you take Fed and Djoker respectively in both Andys' careers, ARod wouldve been much more of a "shoe in" champ than Mury not just because of Mury having tougher competition but also since prime Roddick was nothing to be made fun of.

Some may see this as an agenda driven move to prop up Fed but in all honesty IMO Roddick wouldve won those slam finals against anyone not named Fed and who knows, may have then won more afterwards since his confidence would be much higher.

Actually I think having weaker competition is the sole reason Roddick might be more of a shoe in without Fed in the picture. Surely we can agree that prime Murray is nothing to be made fun of either.

Fair enough, and I said previously that Roddick has a very good case for being hurt more because Federer never "allowed him" to win anything. The main reason I went on for several posts in the first place is to make sure I make my own point, that Roddick wouldn't be as successful or more successful than Murray in some different made up scenario.

Roddick is a punching bag for FedHaters who wanted him to help hold Federer down. This Federer fans don’t need to prop up Roddick because there are a lot of players who have lopsided H2H with Federer. Also don’t try to prop up Murray because if Federer was not in the field Djokovic or Nadal fans wouldn’t consider him a threat either.

You clearly don't know me or are pretending not to know me. I LOVE that Federer owned Roddick every time and kept him on just one Slam. And saying that Murray is better than all of Fed's peers is not an attempt to prop him up. It's a simple fact. You guys always get triggered by this because you think it's all just an attempt to belittle Federer's achievements, and that is not my problem.

 

[fedtennisphan]

Actually I think having weaker competition is the sole reason Roddick might be more of a shoe in without Fed in the picture. Surely we can agree that prime Murray is nothing to be made fun of either.

Fair enough, and I said previously that Roddick has a very good case for being hurt more because Federer never "allowed him" to win anything. The main reason I went on for several posts in the first place is to make sure I make my own point, that Roddick wouldn't be as successful or more successful than Murray in some different made up scenario.

You clearly don't know me or are pretending not to know me. I LOVE that Federer owned Roddick every time and kept him on just one Slam. And saying that Murray is better than all of Fed's peers is not an attempt to prop him up. It's a simple fact. You guys always get triggered by this because you think it's all just an attempt to belittle Federer's achievements, and that is not my problem.

You guys get triggered because you need to prop up Murray as a threat or being better than Fed’s peers due to Djokovic. I know your kind. Oh, I’m pretty sure there is no love lost for Roddick. Did Djokovic ever get over his Bird Flu? I know he is allergic to gluten.

 

[Deleted member 756486]

It's such a shame for Roddick that he played in the era of the GOAT.

Imagine if you were a man who reached 14-15 in the fifth set of a Wimbledon final, without having had your serve broken in the entire match, and still lost.

That is what it feels like to face the GOAT.

I’m a huge Fed fan but I was rooting for Roddick during that final set.
He deserved to win that match and I still feel sorry for him.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

You guys get triggered because you need to prop up Murray as a threat or being better than Fed’s peers due to Djokovic. I know your kind. Oh, I’m pretty sure there is no love lost for Roddick. Did Djokovic ever get over his Bird Flu? I know he is allergic to gluten.

I just correct those who suggest otherwise. Djokovic is awesome with or without wins over Murray. And my kind is awesome as well.

Classy, just like your favorite's pigeon. Pity for him it takes much more than just having a big mouth to become an all time great player.

 

[Legend of Borg]

Federer's 2013 came to an unofficial end after he hurt his back big time in IW in the 4th round. I remember watching the moment it happened and how his level just dropped off from that very instant. He never recovered until the start of the next season.

really, what happened? did he just pull a muscle on some freak shot or did he slip?

 

[Service Ace]

Roddick would be consider a tier 3 ATG if not for Fed. Murray is a tier 3 ATG in spite of the Big 3.

 

[mike danny]

And unlike Roddick, Murray had to deal with 3 ATGs on a regular basis. Roddick just had Fed basically.

Which was enough. Put Murray in Roddick's shoes and he wouldn't have done better.