Who is more talented: Murray or Safin?

Who is more talented: Murray or Safin?

  • Murray

    Votes: 43 44.8%
  • Safin

    Votes: 53 55.2%

  • Total voters
    96

Madinolf

Rookie
He was lucky he had to go through Sampras and Federer to win his slams. He'd have a hard time against Nishikori and Raonic.
The players I mentioned had wins over Big3 too, but they often had to go through 2 or even 3 of them instead of just one.

For example Berdych at 2010 Wimbledon beat Djokovic and Federer but he had to beat Nadal too. Way harder than any of Safin's draws.
 

nachiket nolefam

Hall of Fame
Place Murray in Safin's era and he wins 0

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


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 would meet 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.
Like this do the simulation for every year, Murray ends up on 0 slams if he was in Federer's generation !!

0 SLAMS
You think Federer and only his rivals were great. That Federer's record will be left in the dust. And what to even say about his rivals lol. Pure weak era muggery
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Again with people prizing the eye test and offence over actual tennis ability. Murray has three slams and was denied 8. His masters record is far superior. His achievements far far dwarf Safin's and the gap can't be simply due to hard work and/ or luck. In fact I think Murray underachieved more than Safin has. Place Murray against Safin's slam final opponents and he'd eat them alive.
So he'd eat primr Sampras and peak Federer alive? That's new.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I'm gonna vote for Safin. He was more imposing than Murray.

But credit has to be fiven to Murray for making the most out of his game. A shame he became a baseline grinder since I enjoyed young Murray more in terms of playing style.
 

Sunny014

Legend
You're right about that fact that we can't just compare slam final opponents we have to take the whole era into account. To me where Murray fails in terms of absolute peak he still makes up for it in terms of consistency. He may not win the match ups you listed but he would get much more opportunities beyond those you listed before Fed's prime (Murray already good in 2008 which would be 2001 if he were Safin's age). Also no reason to assume he can't get good one or two tournaments even during Fedal's era. If he was stopped only by prime Djoko we can't assume he would lose every Fedal match-up.
Only problem is that Fedal actually never allowed Murray to even sniff a win or come close to it when they were at their peak. During Federer's peak the level was so high and Fed was not inconsistent like Novak, in Fed's case every slam he was at a supreme level and to beat him you had to produce a great peak level performance like Safin did. On clay Nadal is even higher, so the level to produce is even higher. There was no room to win for Murray or anyone like that in Fed's peak.

Even if you assume 01-02 was a period when Murray would be good he still won't be winning slams as Murray's level in 08-09 was not slam winning level, he started reaching finals form 10 only and in Fed's peak that would be 03-04 onwards, so he has no chance of winning.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Not peak Fed but likely 2000 Sampras and definitely Johansson and Hewitt. But yeah wasn't a good statement
Hewitt was ranked 1 in 01 and 02 and was a terrific player on fast courts, it would required a Novak Djokovic or peak Nadal level player to beat him in that era.

Sorry, Murray cannot beat him.
 

Sunny014

Legend
You think Federer and only his rivals were great. That Federer's record will be left in the dust. And what to even say about his rivals lol. Pure weak era muggery
Not my problem that you started watching Tennis in 2011 and your fav players are Novak+Medvedev type grinders..... that says a lot buddy
 

Sunny014

Legend
Not in a vacuum tho. He excelled against S&V players in the pre-poly era. Peak Nadal and Djokovic would have proper squashed him. And so would Murray.
A sportscar from 2021 would smash a sportscar from 2001 but that's not how we see things now, right ?

Murray would even bagel bjorrn borg & jimmy connors if we send 2010s murray to 1970s but thats not how we see things ..... we cannot send anyone to the past, consider them born there, then dynamics change

If djkodal + murray born in 1980-81 with Hewitt then djokodal can smash hewitt, but murray would not be doing that, his talent levels are same as hewitt's, matches would all be close and not any certain win for murray
 

Patogen

Rookie
In strictly tennis talent sense, I would take Safin's skillset over Murray's without a doubt. On a good day, Safin was a dynamite. And hey, he actually smoked. He also played a few matches drunk, semi-drunk, hungover, the 2002 AO final included. He could have been so much better.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Peak Lleyton Hewitt's footspeed is probably on par with peak Nadal ..... quicker than Djokovic or Murray

If you think Hewitt at his peak is losing to Murray so easily then you are in for a surprise if they clashed
 

Patogen

Rookie
A sportscar from 2021 would smash a sportscar from 2001 but that's not how we see things now, right ?

Murray would even bagel bjorrn borg & jimmy connors if we send 2010s murray to 1970s but thats not how we see things ..... we cannot send anyone to the past, consider them born there, then dynamics change

If djkodal + murray born in 1980-81 with Hewitt then djokodal can smash hewitt, but murray would not be doing that, his talent levels are same as hewitt's, matches would all be close and not any certain win for murray
Actually, there are sportscars from 2001 that would smoke current sportscars, but I see where you're heading with this semi-fitting analogy, and it still doesn't quite work on Hewitt, because his game was so limited it rightfully had the place only in the brief transformation phase. Even at his best, he could lose to just about anyone.
 

Patogen

Rookie
Peak Lleyton Hewitt's footspeed is probably on par with peak Nadal ..... quicker than Djokovic or Murray

If you think Hewitt at his peak is losing to Murray so easily then you are in for a surprise if they clashed
Yeah. And peak Hewitt's anything else is nowhere close to either of those guys. There is no debate.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Actually, there are sportscars from 2001 that would smoke current sportscars, but I see where you're heading with this semi-fitting analogy, and it still doesn't quite work on Hewitt, because his game was so limited it rightfully had the place only in the brief transformation phase. Even at his best, he could lose to just about anyone.
Ya but that is a transitional phase, right ? Whoeever is in a transitional phase will struggle, this applies to every player who is at his peak even then, it is easy to look at 2010-2014 and then say ohh this guy would win the same 10 years back in 00-04 but thats not the case.
 

Sunny014

Legend
In reality Hewitt = Murray in career as well as in ability, thats why their stats are same

Hewitt has 2 slams, 80 weeks at 1, two YEC Tittles and has lost 13 times in slams to the eventual champion.
Murray has 3 slams, 41 weeks at 1, one YEC title and has lost 13 times in slams to the eventual champion.


Now we can spin it whatever way we like, we can say ohh without big 3 murray would win, however tennis doesn't work that way, if you don't have big 3 then it means tennis as a sport has been boycotted by top young athletes of that era and tennis is dead..... right ?? ..... So talent pool is always distributed across eras, there is never a vacuum as we would like to believe
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I suggest you actually check his W-L stats from his best years, as you very obviously didn't watch back then.
If you're trying to make a point perhaps you should articulate it better. What does Hewitt's W-L record have to do with him excelling against the baseliners of his era and not just the S&V players?
 

Sunny014

Legend
Coming back to topic.

Marat Safin is the player with the highest peak outside the Big 3 in the last 20 years (you could include the big 3 as well and he would still fare pretty well on HCs ...hehe)

With a stronger work ethic he would have been a 5-7 slams winner in any era, even in Djokodal's era he would have won slams that cilic won or potro won or what stan won, there were a few openings for players to win outside the big and he could take them too..... but with a very strong determination + work ethic needed.....
 

Sunny014

Legend
With a stronger worth ethic Safin would have won

3 AOs
2 USOs
1 French
0 wimbledons

A highly motivated Safin can beat everyone on clay except Nadal
A highly motivated Safin can beat everyone on HCs at his peak
A highly motivated Safin might still be a bad player on Grass, so lets ignore that, he isn't beating the Big 3 there

In any era..... he could have done this, he had the built and power to go past anyone, even in 5 set encounters he is one of the 3 players to have 70+% wins (other 2 being pete and novak)
 

Patogen

Rookie
If you're trying to make a point perhaps you should articulate it better. What does Hewitt's W-L record have to do with him excelling against the baseliners of his era and not just the S&V players?
Oh, you said he excelled against anyone. I suppose if your best years are at 61-15 and 81-18, probably not really ANYONE, right. As far as anyone goes... How can anyone dispute that a lob and passing shots artist's chances go down against baseliners compared with S&V players... How? By not knowing what they're talking about, that's how.
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
Going with Safin here but it’s close. Murray had more variety but Safin had really, really good basics. His serve, forehand, backhand, and return of serve were all great while Murray’s game had some obvious limitations with his forehand and second serve. Safin had the higher ceiling imo.

However, Murray is way more talented on grass: the surface suits his game incredibly nicely.

A comment on the Safin/Nalbandian “overrating” and such: I do think Nalbandian’s talent is super overrated because his game also had technical limitations. A very crafty player, yes, but not an insane talent or anything of the sort. Safin doesn’t fall into that category. He had weapons and the shotmaking ability that you would typically find in an ATG type of player. His game didn’t have many such holes, though it clearly never translated well to grass (and clay to a lesser extent). His two problems were injuries and motivation.
Safin

Great return

You can pick one.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Top player Outside Big 3 in last 22 years

Top player on HCs - Safin
Top player on Grass - Roddick
Top player on Clay - Kuerten

Murray doesn't have a higher ceiling of play anywhere and yet experts are betting on him to win slams in other eras ...... hehe
 

guga_fan

Semi-Pro
Top player Outside Big 3 in last 22 years

Top player on HCs - Safin
Top player on Grass - Roddick
Top player on Clay - Kuerten

Murray doesn't have a higher ceiling of play anywhere and experts are betting on him to win slams in other eras ...... hehe
The marvelous eye-test at work here.

Murray with his 2 Wimbledon titles and wins over Djokovic and Federer in big matches on grass behind Roddick because he was a good runner-up who never beat any of the big 3 on grass, okay. Murray also has more Queens titles.

How often was Safin actually relevant on HC (be it due to commitment or injury)? Having a peak tournament once every 5 years is not gonna matter much against a player like Murray who would often get to SF or F of hardcourt slams and be beat only by the big 3. Although I must say that Safin was on a league of his own for other reasons, yesterday former Brazillian player Melligeni was commentating on the Cincinnati Masters broadcast and recalled being in a nightclub after losing in a tournament, and very late at night Safin and the musician Prince arrived together at the club, the rest he said he shouldn't tell and just said that he left 4:30 AM and Marat was still there. Later that day, Marat won the title in the said tournament (I can't recall which).

Kuerten on clay is obviously much better than Murray, but he is only second to Nadal in these past 22 years. Murray wouldn't win a Roland Garros in any era, I suppose.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Oh, you said he excelled against anyone. I suppose if your best years are at 61-15 and 81-18, probably not really ANYONE, right. As far as anyone goes... How can anyone dispute that a lob and passing shots artist's chances go down against baseliners compared with S&V players... How? By not knowing what they're talking about, that's how.
Comprehension fail, "...excelled against pretty much everyone in his era..." I was obviously talking performance against styles of play on the whole and h2h against the guys in his era. Whether they were baseliners or S&V Hewitt had good records against basically all the best guys he played. General W-L records have nothing to do with it as everyone loses sometimes. He was more dominant against S&V players yes but he also beat the best baseliners of his era enough to say that he excelled there too.

Looking forward to your next obtuse and poorly reasoned post (y)
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Yeah. And peak Hewitt's anything else is nowhere close to either of those guys. There is no debate.
Hewitt's FH is better than Murray's as is mental strength and 2nd serve.
Passing shots/lobs better than Djoko's and similar to Murray's.
Return vs SnVers better than both,
 

InsideOut900

Hall of Fame
Murray with his 2 Wimbledon titles and wins over Djokovic and Federer in big matches on grass behind Roddick because he was a good runner-up who never beat any of the big 3 on grass, okay. Murray also has more Queens titles.
Roddick would have easily gotten those Slams with Wimb 13 and Wimb 16 draws, let's be honest here.

Murray isn't neccesarily behind Roddick because he has better longevity, but Roddick has the higher peak based on 2004 and 2009 finals.
 

guga_fan

Semi-Pro
In reality Hewitt = Murray in career as well as in ability, thats why their stats are same

Hewitt has 2 slams, 80 weeks at 1, two YEC Tittles and has lost 13 times in slams to the eventual champion.
Murray has 3 slams, 41 weeks at 1, one YEC title and has lost 13 times in slams to the eventual champion.


Now we can spin it whatever way we like, we can say ohh without big 3 murray would win, however tennis doesn't work that way, if you don't have big 3 then it means tennis as a sport has been boycotted by top young athletes of that era and tennis is dead..... right ?? ..... So talent pool is always distributed across eras, there is never a vacuum as we would like to believe
Now compare the number for GS QF, SF and F appearances of each of them. Also the number of masters series. Maybe career winning % or % of wins against top 10 and top 20.
 

guga_fan

Semi-Pro
Roddick would have easily gotten those Slams with Wimb 13 and Wimb 16 draws, let's be honest here.

Murray isn't neccesarily behind Roddick because he has better longevity, but Roddick has the higher peak based on 2004 and 2009 finals.
High peak is not only a very subjective notion, but doesn't disagree with what I said in that post. I find Murray beating a red-hot Djokovic at the Olympics in straights the most impressive feat of the two players, though.

I am also not going to just pretend Roddick would beat an ATG in his prime easily as you said. Djokovic played a bad final, but Murray's game had a lot to do with it.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
The marvelous eye-test at work here.

Murray with his 2 Wimbledon titles and wins over Djokovic and Federer in big matches on grass behind Roddick because he was a good runner-up who never beat any of the big 3 on grass, okay. Murray also has more Queens titles.

How often was Safin actually relevant on HC (be it due to commitment or injury)? Having a peak tournament once every 5 years is not gonna matter much against a player like Murray who would often get to SF or F of hardcourt slams and be beat only by the big 3. Although I must say that Safin was on a league of his own for other reasons, yesterday former Brazillian player Melligeni was commentating on the Cincinnati Masters broadcast and recalled being in a nightclub after losing in a tournament, and very late at night Safin and the musician Prince arrived together at the club, the rest he said he shouldn't tell and just said that he left 4:30 AM and Marat was still there. Later that day, Marat won the title in the said tournament (I can't recall which).

Kuerten on clay is obviously much better than Murray, but he is only second to Nadal in these past 22 years. Murray wouldn't win a Roland Garros in any era, I suppose.
Roddick could very well have a better peak level than Murray on grass.

Yes, Murray has 2 Wimb's and has beaten Fedovic, but let's not pretend like Olympic F Fed and Wimb F Nole were super tough opponents that Roddick could not have beaten if at his best.

I mean, Roddick has troubled Fed on grass more than Murray which should tell yiu something.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
High peak is not only a very subjective notion, but doesn't disagree with what I said in that post. I find Murray beating a red-hot Djokovic at the Olympics in straights the most impressive feat of the two players, though.

I am also not going to just pretend Roddick would beat an ATG in his prime easily as you said. Djokovic played a bad final, but Murray's game had a lot to do with it.
If that ATG underpetforms massively, don't see why Roddick wouldn't win. His 2004 and 2009 levels were good enough for that, it's just that he never got a sub par ATG in any of his finals. And if he coukd trouble Fed himself, no reason why he wouldn't beat a bad Djokovic.

The fact that Murray won in straights over someone of Djoker's caliber should tell you that it was more than just Murray's game in action.
 

guga_fan

Semi-Pro
Roddick could very well have a better peak level than Murray on grass.

Yes, Murray has 2 Wimb's and has beaten Fedovic, but let's not pretend like Olympic F Fed and Wimb F Nole were super tough opponents that Roddick could not have beaten if at his best.

I mean, Roddick has troubled Fed on grass more than Murray which should tell yiu something.
Well, in 3 grass matches Murray won one and lost in 3 and 4. Roddick lost two in 3, one in 4 and one in 5. Don't see how he troubled Federer more. Federer was definitely not great at the Olympics F, but he was also very far from his usual level at 2009 as well, awful ground game but his service kept him going.

As I said, Murray beat a great Djokovic at the Olympics, which is the still the best achievement of the two players on grass.

If that ATG underpetforms massively, don't see why Roddick wouldn't win. His 2004 and 2009 levels were good enough for that, it's just that he never got a sub par ATG in any of his finals. And if he coukd trouble Fed himself, no reason why he wouldn't beat a bad Djokovic.

The fact that Murray won in straights over someone of Djoker's caliber should tell you that it was more than just Murray's game in action.
Murray also beat him in straights at the Olympics. Djokovic was subpar, but as I said, Murray's game on grass definitely botters him. I'm not going to just give the win in hypothetical matches to good players against prime ATGs. What we have are the actual results and Murray's are much better. People also forget that Murray had those chances in 2013 and 2016 because he was getting very far in the tournament most of the time before the hip injury, Roddick got to the QF 5 times in his career, Murray got there 10 times. Roddick reached SF 4 times, while Murray did so 7 times, with 2 titles and 4 losses to the big 3 among those. How can they be evenly matched? Does giving Federer a tough battle once when he had a very subpar ground game and winning a set against him the other time make up for all of that?

Roddick might have a higher peak level on grass, but that doesn't count for much if it happens once or twice in a career. And it is obviously very subjective as it doesn't take into account matchups.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Now compare the number for GS QF, SF and F appearances of each of them. Also the number of masters series. Maybe career winning % or % of wins against top 10 and top 20.
According to number of semi finals and final appearances Murray is in the sampras-agassi league but in reality he is at max in jim courier's league and not more

So doesn't matter how many finals/semis he reached, his peak level was POOR and thats why he did not win all those slams....
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Well, in 3 grass matches Murray won one and lost in 3 and 4. Roddick lost two in 3, one in 4 and one in 5. Don't see how he troubled Federer more. Federer was definitely not great at the Olympics F, but he was also very far from his usual level at 2009 as well, awful ground game but his service kept him going.

As I said, Murray beat a great Djokovic at the Olympics, which is the still the best achievement of the two players on grass.



Murray also beat him in straights at the Olympics. Djokovic was subpar, but as I said, Murray's game on grass definitely botters him. I'm not going to just give the win in hypothetical matches to good players against prime ATGs. What we have are the actual results and Murray's are much better. People also forget that Murray had those chances in 2013 and 2016 because he was getting very far in the tournament most of the time before the hip injury, Roddick got to the QF 5 times in his career, Murray got there 10 times. Roddick reached SF 4 times, while Murray did so 7 times, with 2 titles and 4 losses to the big 3 among those. How can they be evenly matched? Does giving Federer a tough battle once when he had a very subpar ground game and winning a set against him the other time make up for all of that?

Roddick might have a higher peak level on grass, but that doesn't count for much if it happens once or twice in a career. And it is obviously very subjective as it doesn't take into account matchups.
Comparing Olympics 2012 F Fed with Wimb 2009 Fed is laughable already. The idea that Fed was sub par to the degree of being trash is also laughable.

The 2004 and 2009 finals are tougher matches on grass from Roddick than Murray has ever gicen Federer, so yes, Roddick has troubled Federer more on grass than Murray. It's not up for debate.

Murray is not an ATG and beat Djokovic, I don't see why Roddick can't do it. Wawrinka also is not an ATG and beat Djokovic. Safin and Delpo are not ATGs and beat Federer, so lesser players beating ATGs in their primes isn't something unfathomable.

And yes, Murray was more consistent than Roddick and took advantage of his opportunities. But for Roddick, these never came because even if he'd reached every semi from 2003 to 2009, in form Fed would have still been there. Murray just received more fortune.
 

InsideOut900

Hall of Fame
High peak is not only a very subjective notion, but doesn't disagree with what I said in that post. I find Murray beating a red-hot Djokovic at the Olympics in straights the most impressive feat of the two players, though.
I am thinking mostly Wimbledon because it's by far the most important of the grass tournaments.

Murray's Olympics run was really good, however, he just lost the Wimbledon final in 4 sets couple of weeks before and that was his highest level run at the tournament.

I am also not going to just pretend Roddick would beat an ATG in his prime easily as you said. Djokovic played a bad final, but Murray's game had a lot to do with it.
Djoko was cooked after the Del Potro semi unfortunately. Murray played well enough, but any good grass-courter would have easily beaten a Djoko hitting UE left and right. You can check match stats or watch the match, there really isn't another conclusion about that final.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Now it's your problem right bro. Roger has retired and you are just salty lol
Why will I be salty even if Roger retires? Am I Uniqlo ? :D
These players are all achievers and I am not their peer to be salty/not salty, tu bhi apne career aur life pe dhyaan de, yeh players ke salty aur non salty nahi hote koi, hamari koi aukaat nahi innke saamne jo salty hoyenge.... samjhhe???
 

Sunny014

Legend
The marvelous eye-test at work here.

Murray with his 2 Wimbledon titles and wins over Djokovic and Federer in big matches on grass behind Roddick because he was a good runner-up who never beat any of the big 3 on grass, okay. Murray also has more Queens titles.

How often was Safin actually relevant on HC (be it due to commitment or injury)? Having a peak tournament once every 5 years is not gonna matter much against a player like Murray who would often get to SF or F of hardcourt slams and be beat only by the big 3. Although I must say that Safin was on a league of his own for other reasons, yesterday former Brazillian player Melligeni was commentating on the Cincinnati Masters broadcast and recalled being in a nightclub after losing in a tournament, and very late at night Safin and the musician Prince arrived together at the club, the rest he said he shouldn't tell and just said that he left 4:30 AM and Marat was still there. Later that day, Marat won the title in the said tournament (I can't recall which).

Kuerten on clay is obviously much better than Murray, but he is only second to Nadal in these past 22 years. Murray wouldn't win a Roland Garros in any era, I suppose.
Roddick has a win over Murray at 2009 wimbledon when both were at thier grass peaks, that is what matters.... hehe
 

guga_fan

Semi-Pro
Comparing Olympics 2012 F Fed with Wimb 2009 Fed is laughable already. The idea that Fed was sub par to the degree of being trash is also laughable.

The 2004 and 2009 finals are tougher matches on grass from Roddick than Murray has ever gicen Federer, so yes, Roddick has troubled Federer more on grass than Murray. It's not up for debate.

Murray is not an ATG and beat Djokovic, I don't see why Roddick can't do it. Wawrinka also is not an ATG and beat Djokovic. Safin and Delpo are not ATGs and beat Federer, so lesser players beating ATGs in their primes isn't something unfathomable.

And yes, Murray was more consistent than Roddick and took advantage of his opportunities. But for Roddick, these never came because even if he'd reached every semi from 2003 to 2009, in form Fed would have still been there. Murray just received more fortune.
I am not comparing them directly. What I am saying is that just as Murray's win can be swept aside, so can Roddick's tough match.

Lesser players can beat ATGs. It happens way less often than not, so suggesting it in a hypothetical context doesn't make much sense. This is what I find so strange here, people like to slam players achievements and elevate others based on hypothetical matches while diminishing results that actually happened. This actually happens for all the fanbases and gets very tiring.

The fact that Roddick wouldn't have won those tournaments doesn't change that he was much less consistent than Murray, Murray had good runs in 2008 and 2016, 8 years apart, if Roddick had that in 2002 and 2010 he might have had a shot at the title. Even if Murray did not have any title he has much better GS results, more Queens titles, and an Olympic GS gold. How is that a contest?
 

guga_fan

Semi-Pro
Roddick has a win over Murray at 2009 wimbledon when both were at thier grass peaks, that is what matters.... hehe
Why was 2009 Murray's grass peak? Did it happen in a year he only reached one GS SF? Didn't teenage Murray beat the previous year's finalist Rodick in 2006 at Wimbledon?

Too much bias here.
 
Top