Would Andy Murray have won as many Grand Slams during Roger Federer's 'weak era' without Federer

[Ganstaz003]

I've been involved in discussions related to this topic many times and many times I've heard / read about the likelihood of Andy Murray winning as much as Roger Federer did during his peak years (2003 - 2007). I believe he won 12 grand slams during that period. In those same discussions, it's been stated many times that Roger Federer isn't even necessarily a better player than Andy Murray. Instead, Roger Federer was lucky to have been playing during such a weak era whilst Andy Murray was unlucky to be born in the era when the likes of Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic have reached their peak. In other words, Roger Federer's greatness is deceptive when compared to Andy Murray and that based on his current performances, Andy Murray would've been good enough to achieve just as much as Roger Federer did from 2003 - 2007 against the same opponents.

Now just to clear things out, I'm not a fan of any specific tennis player. I just simply enjoy watching tennis from time to time, especially good and entertaining matches. So I don't have any bias related to this topic. Thus, I'm not taking any sides here.

Just want the thoughts of you people. What do you think about this?

Thanks!

 

[BurchBeer]

wat

 

[MasterZeb]

A great champion makes his competition look weak. At the time, people were deeming it as an incredibly competitive field of players before Roger came along. It's far more likely that a single talent had surpassed the whole other competition, than 100 other players were worse than ever before. So why can't we praise a player for his dominance, rather than bash 100+ for not being as good as him? Same happened with Djokovic in 2015.

 

[KingKyrgios]

Yah at least as much

 

[NatF]

Murray was a pro from 2005-2007. He won zero majors.

 

[Paul Harman]

Voted yes.

 

[ojo rojo]

 

[MasturB]

Dominates his era = Weak Era
Doesn't dominate his era = He's not dominant.

Stupid logic is stupid. Fed denied multiple slams to Roddick, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Safin, Hewitt. What could have been a golden age of multiple slam winners turned into him absolutely raking for a dominant period.

 

[Sartorius]

 

[Phoenix1983]

Obviously a trollish thread, but I'll bite, assuming "peak Murray" was around in the period 2003-07.

• Wimbledon 2003-2007: Murray would have had to beat Roddick between 2003-05 (and potentially both Hewitt and Roddick in 2004-05), then Nadal in 2006 and 2007. This would be a tough ask for Murray every single year - as we know, Roddick beat him in the semis in 2009, and Nadal beat him in both 2010 and 2011. Admittedly these weren't quite peak Murray - but let's be honest, the Scot would have had it very tough at SW19. I'll grant him one title though.
• Australian Open 2004-2007: Murray isn't getting through Fed's draw in 2004 (Hewitt/Nalbandian/Ferrero/Safin); nor is he beating Safin in 2005. Both Baghdatis and Gonzalez were on fire in 2006 and 2007, so I'm only giving Murray one victory in these two finals.
• US Open 2003-2007: Murray isn't beating peak Roddick in 2003 (in fact he probably wouldn't get through the likes of Nalbandian/Agassi etc. to get to Roddick). He isn't beating a very in-form Hewitt in 2004 (remember that Hewitt was on a long unbeaten run going into that US Open, and raced through to the final without dropping a set). Maybe Murray would win one out of three titles against Agassi (2005), Roddick (2006) and young Djokovic (2007).
• French 2004-2007: No titles. Too much depth in 2004, wouldn't have beaten Nadal from 2005 onwards which goes without saying.

So, Murray would IMHO have won precisely three major titles, had he been at peak between 2003-2007. He'd have been a strong player, but one among many - not the supreme dominator that Fed was.

 

[Tennisanity]

Murray had most of his success when Nadal and Djoko were at their peak. Murray's peak is good enough to match Djokodal peak, but not good enough to match Federer peak.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Murray would probably have won more slams in his own era without Roger Federer.

 

[Soul_Evisceration]

 

[mike danny]

Murray isn't and has never been a dominant force. So no, he wouldn't have dominated that era, since therevwere many dangerous players anyway.

As for the people claiming Federer is not any better than Murray (a special group of people), since 2008 Federer has won more than twice the amount of majors Murray has won. So Federer is already a better player than Murray even if you take out his best years.

 

[merlinpinpin]

High-quality Murray thread.












Oh wait, do I get a second chance to rate this?

Alright, then: poor trolling effort, 2/10. See sureshs for lessons in excellence.

 

[Ganstaz003]

Sorry if it seemed like a stupid question. I can understand. I'm not the most knowledgeable user when it comes to tennis. So I'm happy to be educated by more knowledgeable users here. I hope you can understand this.

 

[Dan Huben]

Would Andy beat Roger today is the venue wasn't specifically suited to baseline or opposedly s&v.

Maybe maybe not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KINGROGER]

I'd give him 2-3 majors. 1 AO, 1 Wimbledon and 1 USO (08).

Would have a tough time with likes of Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Safin, Agassi (on HC).

Actually I'm not even sure of a Wimbledon title. 04-05 Roddick and Hewitt would be tough to beat back to back. 06-08 Nadal beats him.

 

[DismalFuture]

Same old same old. Montreal can't come soon enough.

 

[Soul_Evisceration]

I'd give him 2-3 majors. 1 AO, 1 Wimbledon and 1 USO (08).

Would have a tough time with likes of Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Safin, Agassi (on HC).

Actually I'm not even sure of a Wimbledon title. 04-05 Roddick and Hewitt would be tough to beat back to back. 06-08 Nadal beats him.

These are probably the biggest opportunities of Grand Slams for Murray that he can grab:

Wimbledon 2003 (he certainly has a chance vs Philippousis in the Finals but I doubt very much he can beat a Peak aggressive Roddick in 2003 so I say he doesn't even Reach the Finals)
Roland Garros 2004 (possibly the most Wide Open Major in the last 20 years and can beat Gaudio in the Finals but I doubt he can even beat an on fire Kuerten, Nalbandian or Coria in the tournament)
US Open 2005 (Probably a peak Murray could win this one with a awful Nalbandian, A good Murray and very good Agassi in his way)
Australian Open 2006 (Peak Murray would win this one with only a dangerous Davydenko in his way. Baghdatis ran out of gas in the Finals and no one else would stand in his way)
Wimbledon 2006 (A young Ancic, Berdych and Nadal in Murray's path could be problematic but I think Peak Murray could take them all out)
Australian Open 2007 (Onfire Gonzalez, Subpar Roddick and young Djokovic would be too much for Murray I believe)
Us Open 2008 (Assuming Federer fails then it would be 2008 Djokovic in the Finals, I don't think Murray wins that encounter IMO)

So overall I give AO 06, Wimbledon 06, and possibly US Open 2005.

Anything else I didn't mention is because I don't think Murray is good enough to win those Majors IMO.

 

[Phoenix1983]

These are probably the biggest opportunities of Grand Slams for Murray that he can grab:

Wimbledon 2003 (he certainly has a chance vs Philippousis in the Finals but I doubt very much he can beat a Peak aggressive Roddick in 2003 so I say he doesn't even Reach the Finals)
Roland Garros 2004 (possibly the most Wide Open Major in the last 20 years and can beat Gaudio in the Finals but I doubt he can even beat an on fire Kuerten, Nalbandian or Coria in the tournament)
US Open 2005 (Probably a peak Murray could win this one with a awful Nalbandian, A good Murray and very good Agassi in his way)
Australian Open 2006 (Peak Murray would win this one with only a dangerous Davydenko in his way. Baghdatis ran out of gas in the Finals and no one else would stand in his way)
Wimbledon 2006 (A young Ancic, Berdych and Nadal in Murray's path could be problematic but I think Peak Murray could take them all out)
Australian Open 2007 (Onfire Gonzalez, Subpar Roddick and young Djokovic would be too much for Murray I believe)
Us Open 2008 (Assuming Federer fails then it would be 2008 Djokovic in the Finals, I don't think Murray wins that encounter IMO)

So overall I give AO 06, Wimbledon 06, and possibly US Open 2005.

Anything else I didn't mention is because I don't think Murray is good enough to win those Majors IMO.

Yup, I think most sensible observers think Murray would've won around three majors in the period concerned.

Federer of course regularly won three majors every year...

 

[Soul_Evisceration]

Sorry if it seemed like a stupid question. I can understand. I'm not the most knowledgeable user when it comes to tennis. So I'm happy to be educated by more knowledgeable users here. I hope you can understand this.

Well first of all, Murray would not win 12 Majors in the 2003-2007 era. Second, that era apart from 2006 was not a Weak Era. Third, Federer was not lucky/Murray unlucky but feel free to disagree.

 

[Soul_Evisceration]

Yup, I think most sensible observers think Murray would've won around three majors in the period concerned.

Federer of course regularly won three majors every year...

Exactly. And the way he won those Majors by playing aggressive All Court tennis. Made his opponents looked helpless at times.

 

[tennisaddict]

Easily.All 16 majors.

 

[Guitario]

Federer was and is a one off. Nadal raised his game to compete. Djokovic had to raise his level to match Nadal. Murray had to raise his level to match Djokovic.

None of those guys would be as good without Federer coming along first.. he raised the bar.

So prime Murray in 2003-08 would have probably won a similar number of slams to now.

The peak Murray. The Murray we saw between June and Nov last year would have probably won a few more.. but that Murray wouldn't exist without the other 3 guys.

 

[KINGROGER]

These are probably the biggest opportunities of Grand Slams for Murray that he can grab:

Wimbledon 2003 (he certainly has a chance vs Philippousis in the Finals but I doubt very much he can beat a Peak aggressive Roddick in 2003 so I say he doesn't even Reach the Finals)
Roland Garros 2004 (possibly the most Wide Open Major in the last 20 years and can beat Gaudio in the Finals but I doubt he can even beat an on fire Kuerten, Nalbandian or Coria in the tournament)
US Open 2005 (Probably a peak Murray could win this one with a awful Nalbandian, A good Murray and very good Agassi in his way)
Australian Open 2006 (Peak Murray would win this one with only a dangerous Davydenko in his way. Baghdatis ran out of gas in the Finals and no one else would stand in his way)
Wimbledon 2006 (A young Ancic, Berdych and Nadal in Murray's path could be problematic but I think Peak Murray could take them all out)
Australian Open 2007 (Onfire Gonzalez, Subpar Roddick and young Djokovic would be too much for Murray I believe)
Us Open 2008 (Assuming Federer fails then it would be 2008 Djokovic in the Finals, I don't think Murray wins that encounter IMO)

So overall I give AO 06, Wimbledon 06, and possibly US Open 2005.

Anything else I didn't mention is because I don't think Murray is good enough to win those Majors IMO.

I agree with your assessment, except I'd favour 06 Grassdal over Murray due to match up. Also 06 USO as a possible Murray win.

 

[metsman]

I agree with your assessment, except I'd favour 06 Grassdal over Murray due to match up. Also 06 USO as a possible Murray win.

depends which Murray but most versions of USO Murray is losing to Blake in the QF. Davydenko wouldn't even be easy considering he played decent the last two cents and Murray was losing to a slightly lesser version in Nishikori.

 

[Soul_Evisceration]

I agree with your assessment, except I'd favour 06 Grassdal over Murray due to match up. Also 06 USO as a possible Murray win.

The reason why I did not consider US Open 2006 was Peak Davydenko, Blake and Prime Roddick would probably be too much for Murray. I'll have to rewatch Wimbledon 2006 Nadal but I thought since he was heavily pushed by Kendrick, he would be no match vs Murray Wimbledon 2013 IMO.

 

[KINGROGER]

depends which Murray but most versions of USO Murray is losing to Blake in the QF. Davydenko wouldn't even be easy considering he played decent the last two cents and Murray was losing to a slightly lesser version in Nishikori.

The reason why I did not consider US Open 2006 was Peak Davydenko, Blake and Prime Roddick would probably be too much for Murray. I'll have to rewatch Wimbledon 2006 Nadal but I thought since he was heavily pushed by Kendrick, he would be no match vs Murray Wimbledon 2013 IMO.

My bad my memory of that tournament escaped me, I was just thinking of Roddick (even then no guarantee he wins that on USO courts).

 

[wangs78]

Could peak Murray have won as many Slams as RF did in 2003-2007 if he was dropped into that period of time and subtracting Roger? Pure and simple, no. Could he have won multiple Slams? Probably, but even that is not guaranteed. Bear in mind that over his career Murray was forced to elevate his level to be competitive with the Big 3 (a task that he only sometimes was successful at). Similar to how Rafa elevated his level to be competitive with Fed and how Novak elevated to compete with Fed and Rafa. If you drop Murray into that 2003-2007 period with no RF, perhaps he plays on par with the likes of Roddick and Hewitt or perhaps slightly below. It's highly unlikely he would dominate them the way Roger did.

My final point is that comparing Murray to Roger is ridiculous. 19>>>>3. Grandpa Fed has won their last 5 encounters in which Fed won 12 of 13 sets. Credit to Murray for seizing the opportunity to get to #1 when Fed and Nadal were off the tour last year and when Nole was already in his alleged slump. I like the guy a lot but he is not in the same league as those 3. Murray is part of the "Big 4" not because he is as good as the other 3, but because there is a substantial gap, especially in consistency, between him and the rest of the top 10-20.

 

[metsman]

The reason why I did not consider US Open 2006 was Peak Davydenko, Blake and Prime Roddick would probably be too much for Murray. I'll have to rewatch Wimbledon 2006 Nadal but I thought since he was heavily pushed by Kendrick, he would be no match vs Murray Wimbledon 2013 IMO.

he was pushed by Kendrick but that doesn't mean much, it's like saying 2010 Nadal would be no match for Murray. Nadal in 2006 also destroyed everyone else including spectacular performances against Agassi and Baghdatis and played very well against Federer for 2-3 sets. That version of Nadal definitely had the game to boss Murray about the baseline, that was Nadal at his most aggressive on grass, it just depends whether he could maintain his level for longer and not just give away a set or two due to nerves. I think it's very possible he could especially when the opponent is not Federer.

 

[Xavier G]

Andy's a very good/great player. He's just not as great as Nadal, Djokovic, or of course, Federer.
I think he would have three GS as he does now. Probably 1 Wimbledon instead of 2, a USO and an AO. I think he may have got the job done in Australia one year. No French.

 

[shankster]

This is what we have descended to, seriously? Federer in his 30s has won as many slams as Andy has in his career. How can anyone even take a thread like this remotely seriously?

 

[Enga]

I think without Federer, Safin might have had better confidence, and won more. He is the flashy kind of guy similar to Federer, who could have torn up Murray on the slick courts. He is no doubt a huge obstacle for Murray. Then you have the men with the ballistic missile forehands, Blake and Gonzalez, who on any day could upset Murray, not an easy ask Murray.

Then you've got a man known as Nalbandian, who without Federer existing, who knows what kind of heights he could have achieved. That man with higher confidence and a champion's aura is a scary thought.

Hewitt, of course, a slam champion, playing well on fast courts, though not as well during 2003-2007, still a possible upset for Murray.

Then of course young Nadal would easily have Clay on lockdown, and who knows what else, not having competition from Federer on faster courts.

Roddick, likely a dominant Wimbledon champion by 2003.

I think the thing about Federer people don't understand, and this is a guess, he established a daunting aura early in every h2h with his rivals. He made sure that he was on top of his game every time he played them, and he never allowed himself to give them an easy point, not once. Roddick lost 20 times to Federer. How many titles could he have won without Federer preventing this?

Federer's impact on the game was huge. I believe Murray could definitely have won more slams during the 2003 era without Federer, not for lack of competition, but for a lack of a Federer.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Nice thread

 

[killerboi2]

He would have won a lot of slams. Maybe he wouldn't have dominated as much as Federer did but he would definitely have won more than 3 slams.

 

[Daniel Johnson]

I've been involved in discussions related to this topic many times and many times I've heard / read about the likelihood of Andy Murray winning as much as Roger Federer did during his peak years (2003 - 2007). I believe he won 12 grand slams during that period. In those same discussions, it's been stated many times that Roger Federer isn't even necessarily a better player than Andy Murray. Instead, Roger Federer was lucky to have been playing during such a weak era whilst Andy Murray was unlucky to be born in the era when the likes of Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic have reached their peak. In other words, Roger Federer's greatness is deceptive when compared to Andy Murray and that based on his current performances, Andy Murray would've been good enough to achieve just as much as Roger Federer did from 2003 - 2007 against the same opponents.

Now just to clear things out, I'm not a fan of any specific tennis player. I just simply enjoy watching tennis from time to time, especially good and entertaining matches. So I don't have any bias related to this topic. Thus, I'm not taking any sides here.

Just want the thoughts of you people. What do you think about this?

Thanks!

I'm not going to touch the comparisons between the talent of Andy and Fed. There will be plenty of people along to defend Fed.
I will say that Roddick would have snatched AT LEAST one Wimbledon, probably more, from Andy. I would certainly expect Hewitt to steal another major with Murray as the man to beat.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[swordtennis]

Murray has a positive h2h vs Roddick, Hewitt, Bags, etc...
Safin and Gonzalez he played 4 times. 0-1 against Safin and 1-2 against Gonzo.
He would have been the major leader during that time. More than 3 majors that is for sure.

 

[Daniel Johnson]

I'd give him 2-3 majors. 1 AO, 1 Wimbledon and 1 USO (08).

Would have a tough time with likes of Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Safin, Agassi (on HC).

Actually I'm not even sure of a Wimbledon title. 04-05 Roddick and Hewitt would be tough to beat back to back. 06-08 Nadal beats him.

As a Nadal fan, peak Murray beats Nadal in 06. Not the next two years though

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Poisoned Slice]

I can never get into these what would such and such have done if such and such wasn't there. If you mess with the timeline one way then it has the domino effect. Or is it Butterflies? Whatever it is. I just can't imagine it.

You take Man City out of picture and maybe it is Doncaster that gets bought over at that time.Robinho signs and doesn't flop. Billions put into the club. Would Doncaster top the premier league now if Man City were not there? Something to think about. Or not.

Been watching too much sci fi.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

I can never get into these what would such and such have done if such and such wasn't there. If you mess with the timeline one way then it has the domino effect. Or is it Butterflies? Whatever it is. I just can't imagine it.

You take Man City out of picture and maybe it is Doncaster that gets bought over at that time.Robinho signs and doesn't flop. Billions put into the club. Would Doncaster top the premier league now if Man City were not there? Something to think about. Or not.

Been watching too much sci fi.

Whatever the case, Arnie's not gonna take kindly to your return. His word was bond.

 

[swordtennis]

I can never get into these what would such and such have done if such and such wasn't there. If you mess with the timeline one way then it has the domino effect. Or is it Butterflies? Whatever it is. I just can't imagine it.

You take Man City out of picture and maybe it is Doncaster that gets bought over at that time.Robinho signs and doesn't flop. Billions put into the club. Would Doncaster top the premier league now if Man City were not there? Something to think about. Or not.

True. I think the jist here is that Murray really has had problems with the other big 4 for the most part. He has handled most every other player quite well actually. Safin and Gonzo would be tough ones for him tho during that time.

 

[Fedfan34]

Murray was a pro from 2005-2007. He won zero majors.

fed was a pro from 2000-2002, won zero majors too

 

[Fedfan34]

we know fed was first among smurfs, no secret there

 

[NatF]

fed was a pro from 2000-2002, won zero majors too

Yes of course, that was before the weak era.

 

[Fedfan34]

Yes of course, that was before the weak era.

swindlerer couldn't even win a single major in a real era

 

[NatF]

swindlerer couldn't even win a single major in a real era

Hewitt for GOAT.

 

[Paul Harman]

In my fantasy Fed peak era there is a slam played in Dunblane at - 5° sponsored by Irn Bru. Handy Murray wins every year of course. Balls are made from haggis.

 

[Fedfan34]

Hewitt for GOAT.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

He'd win like 2.