Can Murray become a 'great' without a slam?

First topic message reminder :

Despite the fact he has not won a slam, some of his stats are superior to many slam winners.

Will he always be below players like Chang, Roddick, Kalelnikov, Stich, Hewitt, Safin?

Out of the Above, Murray has won more Masters series titles, been in more Grand Slam semi-finals and only the 7th player in history (only Safin of this list can boast this) to reach the semis or better in all 3 major tournaments

Despite these facts, will he always been behind slam winners no matter in terms of greatness?

Personally, I think only Hewitt with his 2 year end Number 1s plus his 2 Masters Cup wins obviously with his two Slams keep him comfortably in front of the Scot, Safins top form was pretty special but is it enough to put him ahead of Murray over a career? I am not so sure, and the others in my opinion are lesser players than Murray, he has a good 4 years of peak play left, even if he does not win a slam I am confident all of his other numbers will be superior to most players with under 5 slams in history, would that be enough for him to be an all-time great?

Or will he never be considered one unless he gets at least one slam?

So if he were to end with 45 titles including 16 Masters, with eight slam finals all lost to all-time greats (roughly doubling his current stats), he wouldn't be regarded as highly as say Cash, Roddick or even Kafelnikov, purely due to the fact slams are the ultimate test? Clearly there would be a gaping hole in his CV but that sort of record, to me, would place him at least on a par with someone like Hewitt or even Courier.

hawkeye wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:If Nadal had only got his Monte Carlo record but no slams then he'd still be a great player.

Take away everything else Nadal has achieved and just leave him with his 8 Monte Carlo titles in a row and he would still be great. It's almost beyond belief to win a tournament in 8 successive years. How impressive was it for him to withstand the pressure and turn around a 7 final loss streak to Djokovic and win it again this year? Nadal with 8 wins in a row like this is breaking records that were set up when tennis still had a challenge round (the winner from previous year went directly to the next years final). Compared with winning a slam this is a much more difficult and hence rarer achievement. When I see things like that to me it is obvious that I'm witnessing greatness.

Of course that is only one of Nadal's many achievements. He has demonstrated his greatness in a variety of ways. Murray by some standards can be described as great. But he is in a whole different category of greatness to Nadal. Anyone trying to compare Murray with Nadal in terms of "greatness" IMO has no respect for what Nadal has achieved.

Sigh... On 606v2 I always feel like I have to say how great Nadal is. I think the same way about Federer but he has plenty of fans here...

If you read my first post hawkeye then you would see that I showered Nadal with compliments and called him 'great'

I responded to a hypothetical situation with my opinion that it is an extraordinary achievement, a great achievement of course in the history of that tournament but for me, if (as posed by bit5th) it represented his only wins then he would fall short of overall greatness.

But we are splitting hairs in a semantic sense. I don't think we disagree about the essentials of the achievement I am just being pedantic about the use of the word 'great' because as bb points out, if you confer 'greatness' for winning 8 MC with no other titles, then what adjective to you apply to Rafa with 11 slams, 8 MCs, 20 (or is it 21) masters, 1 Olympic gold - that is the essence of the argument, if you use 'great' too freely where to you go next because you've devalued 'great'

Born Slippy wrote:So if he were to end with 45 titles including 16 Masters, with eight slam finals all lost to all-time greats (roughly doubling his current stats), he wouldn't be regarded as highly as say Cash, Roddick or even Kafelnikov, purely due to the fact slams are the ultimate test? Clearly there would be a gaping hole in his CV but that sort of record, to me, would place him at least on a par with someone like Hewitt or even Courier.

This is what I was suggesting, Murrays achievements could push him into that tier of player even without a slam

CAS wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:So if he were to end with 45 titles including 16 Masters, with eight slam finals all lost to all-time greats (roughly doubling his current stats), he wouldn't be regarded as highly as say Cash, Roddick or even Kafelnikov, purely due to the fact slams are the ultimate test? Clearly there would be a gaping hole in his CV but that sort of record, to me, would place him at least on a par with someone like Hewitt or even Courier.

This is what I was suggesting, Murrays achievements could push him into that tier of player even without a slam

And the sort of Courier level is around top 25 of all time (at least accordingly to the top 100 list published on here last week). That might not match some people's idea of greatness but it would still seem pretty good to me.

This is all completely hypothetical of course. I can't see Murray getting to that sort of level without winning a slam somewhere but an interesting article nonetheless

Would Murray trade his career with Gaudio, Moya, Johansson, Cash, Stich, Krajieck? I really dont think he would

time please wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:If Nadal had only got his Monte Carlo record but no slams then he'd still be a great player.

Take away everything else Nadal has achieved and just leave him with his 8 Monte Carlo titles in a row and he would still be great. It's almost beyond belief to win a tournament in 8 successive years. How impressive was it for him to withstand the pressure and turn around a 7 final loss streak to Djokovic and win it again this year? Nadal with 8 wins in a row like this is breaking records that were set up when tennis still had a challenge round (the winner from previous year went directly to the next years final). Compared with winning a slam this is a much more difficult and hence rarer achievement. When I see things like that to me it is obvious that I'm witnessing greatness.

Of course that is only one of Nadal's many achievements. He has demonstrated his greatness in a variety of ways. Murray by some standards can be described as great. But he is in a whole different category of greatness to Nadal. Anyone trying to compare Murray with Nadal in terms of "greatness" IMO has no respect for what Nadal has achieved.

Sigh... On 606v2 I always feel like I have to say how great Nadal is. I think the same way about Federer but he has plenty of fans here...

If you read my first post hawkeye then you would see that I showered Nadal with compliments and called him 'great'

I responded to a hypothetical situation with my opinion that it is an extraordinary achievement, a great achievement of course in the history of that tournament but for me, if (as posed by bit5th) it represented his only wins then he would fall short of overall greatness.

But we are splitting hairs in a semantic sense. I don't think we disagree about the essentials of the achievement I am just being pedantic about the use of the word 'great' because as bb points out, if you confer 'greatness' for winning 8 MC with no other titles, then what adjective to you apply to Rafa with 11 slams, 8 MCs, 20 (or is it 21) masters, 1 Olympic gold - that is the essence of the argument, if you use 'great' too freely where to you go next because you've devalued 'great'

Yes it has a lot to do with how freely the word "great" is thrown around. Put another way if you use the word "great" to define Rafa with "11 slams, 8 MCs, 20 (or is it 21) masters, 1 Olympic gold, etc (not to mention a few close slam final losses because isn't it Murray's less than close slam losses that are used as evidence for his greatness) then you can't really use the same word to describe Murray or any other player with similar achievements.

Part of the problem is that today you can't say anyone isn't great let alone Murray. It's not a problem with language more a sort of culture change that is reflected in language. Everyone is a winner. When Murray lost at Wimbledon it was reported that he may have lost the match but that he was really a winner too. That there were two winners. (Not all loses get promoted to winners but that's another story) By that definition Federer, Nadal, Djokovic AND Murray are all "great". It's supposed to make sport more accessible but to me it leaves it meaningless.

hawkeye wrote:When Murray lost at Wimbledon it was reported that he may have lost the match but that he was really a winner too.

Who exactly reported this?
IIRC the media interpretation was that Federer was the better player, and deserved to win; but Murray had shown great heart and been brave even in defeat. Spot on really.

If the media is really getting to pro-Murray etc. for you and is getting on your nerves you can dump your local newspapers, cancel your Times subscription, throw your Daily Mails into a fire and take 'BBC Sport' off your favourites/bookmarked lists. Instead read my weekly series which are devoid of any bias and hyperbole

It Must Be Love.

Ok before I ditch my trust in the worlds media and place my trust in your unbiased view I need to check that you are not really as biased as the rest of us. I await your comment on how you describe Murray on the newly calibrated scale of greatness.

https://www.606v2.com/t33124-where-does-murray-stand-on-the-scale-of-greatness

Oh hawkeye so it is the world media now is it? Hmmm why on Earth would US, Australian etc etc media talk-up Murray unless of course it was really deserved.

If Murray won the Olympics he could be regarded as a Great of sorts. Olympic Gold is a big achievement even in tennis. If Federer flounders I think he'll do it.

Answer to OP - no for the reasons on the other thread. No slams = no greatness. In fact you need multiple slams to be a tennis great.

But barrystar the two topics do offer differing questions so in this topic I would agree with you and say no (hopefully for now). The other topic asks more just about general greatness in terms of the game at the moment as I read it.

Don't need to win any slams to be a great. You just need to do something involving winning that is remarkable. If Murray finishes with the masters record then he is a great. Anyone can win a slam.

He needs to win the Davis Cup to catch up with Victor Troicki first of all!

CaledonianCraig wrote:But barrystar the two topics do offer differing questions so in this topic I would agree with you and say no (hopefully for now). The other topic asks more just about general greatness in terms of the game at the moment as I read it.

The answer is essentially the same. No slams = no greatness.

Murray has none so he can't be considered great now and he can't become great until he has a few slams under his belt. In the context of general greatness in terms of the game at the moment Murray is a very good player, one of the best (No. 4), but he's not great. You can't frame a question to introduce the concept of greatness where it is not appropriate - i.e. I wouldn't talk about my greatest spare button or the greatest British male tennis player since WWII because none of them are great. If the question is "who are the current greats playing men's singles?" the answer is Federer and Nadal for certain with room for debate about Djoko.

Murray and greatness do not yet belong in the same sentence save for the purpose of distingushing them. I'd like that to change, I think there's a chance, but we are a long way away.

Well obviously CC doesn't agree with the no slams = no greatness angle.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Well obviously CC doesn't agree with the no slams = no greatness angle.

Maybe. Can you name a 'great' who never won a slam?

Well if Murray gets to say 12 masters then I think he'd be the first.

At least that's clear - but I can't agree with you. Put the slam point to one side and still:

a. no WTF's
b. no stretch at No. 1
c. there are Masters and Masters - Shanghai and Paris are usually weaker tournaments than IW and Miami

Josiah Maiestas wrote:He needs to win the Davis Cup to catch up with Victor Troicki first of all!

No, he's definitely above Troicki
Sometimes I wonder if you use all your thinking power before posting Josiah.

Andy Murray has the same mindset as Colin Montgomerie, close, but not good enough. Their rivals are just built of stronger stuff than them!

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Andy Murray has the same mindset as Colin Montgomerie, close, but not good enough. Their rivals are just built of stronger stuff than them!

I agree with you here though.

It Must Be Love wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:He needs to win the Davis Cup to catch up with Victor Troicki first of all!

No, he's definitely above Troicki
Sometimes I wonder if you use all your thinking power before posting Josiah.

What would Nadal and Djokovic rather win, Shanghai or Davis Cup?

Case = Rested!

It Must Be Love wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Andy Murray has the same mindset as Colin Montgomerie, close, but not good enough. Their rivals are just built of stronger stuff than them!

I agree with you here though.

I don't agree with that - Murray works his socks off, what I know of Montgomerie suggests he was pretty unprofessional in his attitude towards practice, being ready, and general condition. He relied over-much on his talent doing the rest for him. The result is the same so far though.

It Must Be Love wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Andy Murray has the same mindset as Colin Montgomerie, close, but not good enough. Their rivals are just built of stronger stuff than them!

I agree with you here though.

I don't agree with that - Murray works his socks off, what I know of Montgomerie suggests he was pretty unprofessional in his attitude towards practice, being ready, and general condition. He relied over-much on his talent doing the rest for him. The result is the same so far though.

In my opinion, Andy Murray could be an exception. I dont think he will ever be at a Becker, Edberg, Wilander level but I think even if he doesn't win a slam, he will achieve a lot in the game to put him in the category with Safin, Rafter, Hewitt, Kafelnikov

75 posts and counting .... just thought I'd pop in to see if any verdict reached by the jury.

No ...? Ok, not too surprising I guess ...

I'm off to check the 'scale of greatness' parallel thread (only 58 posts there so far ... .)

lags42 it is all about personal opinion really.

To this question of the original post then I'd say to become an all-time great you definitely need a slam win without a doubt. However, if we are not talking about being an all-time great and just a great player in the context of the sport at this moment in time then he is a great player. Unless people want to call a player No.4 in the world for an extended period out of god knows how many tennis players in the world as being just good. Heck I'd even label those ranked at 100+ as good compared to most people on the planet.

Yep, you're right CC. It does come down to personal opinion in the end, although I would add that a majority (albeit not always unanimous) consensus is invariably made more likely with the perspective of time. In other words I think there tend to be fewer 'disputes' about the status of past biggies like Laver, Borg and their contemporaries than there are about current or more-recently retired players.

And my earlier comment was just light-hearted .... certainly not having a dig at Andy or yourself

CaledonianCraig wrote:lags42 it is all about personal opinion really.

To this question of the original post then I'd say to become an all-time great you definitely need a slam win without a doubt. However, if we are not talking about being an all-time great and just a great player in the context of the sport at this moment in time then he is a great player. Unless people want to call a player No.4 in the world for an extended period out of god knows how many tennis players in the world as being just good. Heck I'd even label those ranked at 100+ as good compared to most people on the planet.

This then becomes a debate about the use and misuse of the word "great" - I'd say your context involves an unnecessary misuse of the word "great".

Well if you feel that a player can achieve what Andy has by being just good or average then that is your opinion and it does a mis-service to him and other players. Also does that make players ranked 50+ in the world as average and people ranked 100+ in the world as poor tennis players in a world containing billions of people?

He's world class. No question about it. When his place in tennis history is assessed at the end of his career, then obviously that will be based on how many slams he manages to win.

It's pointless assessing it now. By some people's reckoning Djokovic was 'average-good' 18 months ago and has leapt up to 'great' in that time.

Anyone associating Murray with the word average is frankly crazy!

Personally I think if you leave your mark on the game, you are a tennis great. Courier is the youngest player ever to reach all four slam finals, Hewitt youngest ever number 1. Murray hasn't quite done anything like that yet, but being in 3 out of the 4 slam finals one of a select few to reach semis or better of all slams, 8 Masters series. He's on the cusp, but not quite there yet.

I think to be considered a tennis great you need at least 2 slams. That doesn't mean if you have 2 slams you are automatically great but that you have one of the key qualifications. Stich would kick murray's ass 8 out of 10 matches on a fast surface, but Murray is better than most one time slam winners. I think clearly murray is by leaps and bounds the best player never to win a slam. I rate him higher than Roddick, Ferrero, Moya, Korda, Johanssen, or Del Potro all relatively recent slam winners; which I think Murray is superior to as a player and as a talent. I would rate murray ahead of kafelnikov and probably kriek for certain in the two slam players as well. But you have to prove yourself in a couple of slams by beating the field and winning as at least an entry point of the discussion of being an all time great of the game. For me I am more expansive in my view greatness than many. But to be a legend you need two slams as the start of the conversation. I actually think Murray will get a slam or two before he is done but we will have to see. Right now his fans will have to be happy with him being the best player to never win a slam but that is the great thing about tennis that hope springs 4 times a year.

socal1976 wrote:I think to be considered a tennis great you need at least 2 slams. That doesn't mean if you have 2 slams you are automatically great but that you have one of the key qualifications. Stich would kick murray's ass 8 out of 10 matches on a fast surface, but Murray is better than most one time slam winners. I think clearly murray is by leaps and bounds the best player never to win a slam. I rate him higher than Roddick, Ferrero, Moya, Korda, Johanssen, or Del Potro all relatively recent slam winners; which I think Murray is superior to as a player and as a talent. I would rate murray ahead of kafelnikov and probably kriek for certain in the two slam players as well. But you have to prove yourself in a couple of slams by beating the field and winning as at least an entry point of the discussion of being an all time great of the game. For me I am more expansive in my view greatness than many. But to be a legend you need two slams as the start of the conversation. I actually think Murray will get a slam or two before he is done but we will have to see. Right now his fans will have to be happy with him being the best player to never win a slam but that is the great thing about tennis that hope springs 4 times a year.

I cannot disagree with any of that. Welcome back socal.

Is their any debate now that Murray is the greatest player never to have won a slam? I can't see how there can be any debate really. After all Andy is one of only nine players even to reach all four slam semis in a calendar year (has that been done by any non-slam winners I'd say not). Also four slam finals has any other non-slam winner have that record plus those are at three different slams. A few months ago people argued that Nalbandian ranks above Andy but sorry no way. As people say that idf Murray wants to be labelled a great he must win slams then if Nalby wants to be greatest player never to have won a slam he needs to match Murray's slam achievements.

CaladonianCraig

I haven't been watching much tennis but had to say something in Nalbandians defence. One of the way's of judging "greatness" is to look at how high the peaks are. Watching the 2012 Nalbandian it's easy to forget just how good he could be.

Of course like Murray his peak doesn't include a slam but it does include the next best thing a masters cup. This involved a final win in a 5 set match over a 2005 Federer (A Federer that was at his almost invincible big match peak... well apart from being able to beat that pesky Nadal).

Murray does have 6 (I think) masters titles but does he have anything to match Nalbandian's back to back wins in the 2007 Madrid indoor and Paris indoor masters? I remember it being impressive and there was talk that he may go onto win a few slams if he could continue at that level. I have just looked and the Madrid masters involved wins over Nadal, Djokovic and Federer. He then went on to beat Federer and Nadal in Paris.

Nalbandian also spent a while ranked at three. Not sure who out of Murray and Nalbandian was ranked highest the longest.

andy needs at least 4 slams to be considered a great player. imo atm he could be arguably be considered the greatest player never to have won a slam given that he has been to 4 finals in the majors. an olympic gold this sunday will hopefully be a catalyst for his first slam

Hawkeye

I think most of us here consider Nalbandian to be a very talented player who perhaps failed to deliver on his potential slightly. However, to claim that Nalbandian has had a better career than Murray does smack somewhat of special pleading and cherry-picking.

Murray spent from May to October 2009 ranked 3 or higher, with three weeks in August 09 ranked #2, and returned to #3 in the rankings for 3 weeks in 2010 and 6 weeks in late 2011. He's also won two Masters series events in each of the last 4 years and reached 4 slam finals. 22 career titles to date since 2006.

Nalbandian - 3 Masters Series titles (2 back to back) and one slam final. He's totalled 19 weeks at number 3, so close but a bit behind Murray there - however, Murray has been at #4 or above almost continuously since 2008 (he's dropped to 5 a couple of times but only for a few weeks) whereas Nalbandian has spent his career rising and falling through the rankings - his best year end seems to have been 6th. 11 career titles since 2002.

Based on this, and the 'leagues' concept mentioned elsewhere, I'd have Nalbandian one league lower than Murray in terms of career achievements. Clearly a very good player, but I'd put his career somewhere between Henman's and Murray's.

dummy_half wrote:Hawkeye

I think most of us here consider Nalbandian to be a very talented player who perhaps failed to deliver on his potential slightly. However, to claim that Nalbandian has had a better career than Murray does smack somewhat of special pleading and cherry-picking.

Murray spent from May to October 2009 ranked 3 or higher, with three weeks in August 09 ranked #2, and returned to #3 in the rankings for 3 weeks in 2010 and 6 weeks in late 2011. He's also won two Masters series events in each of the last 4 years and reached 4 slam finals. 22 career titles to date since 2006.

Nalbandian - 3 Masters Series titles (2 back to back) and one slam final. He's totalled 19 weeks at number 3, so close but a bit behind Murray there - however, Murray has been at #4 or above almost continuously since 2008 (he's dropped to 5 a couple of times but only for a few weeks) whereas Nalbandian has spent his career rising and falling through the rankings - his best year end seems to have been 6th. 11 career titles since 2002.

Based on this, and the 'leagues' concept mentioned elsewhere, I'd have Nalbandian one league lower than Murray in terms of career achievements. Clearly a very good player, but I'd put his career somewhere between Henman's and Murray's.

what about tim, if he had got to one or two slam finals would be nearer to be considered a great player

Good & balanced analysis dummyhalf.

Nalbandian is a guy who always crops up in those what might/could/should have been debates but the only thing we know for sure is what he actually did achieve and anything over & above that is pure speculation and conjecture.

No harm in speculation per se, it can be interesting (and often entertaining too ...) ; however, the fact remains that records and legacies in sport are ultimately determined by what did happen rather than what might have happened.

lags72

Just to be clear I wasn't talking about what "might" have happened with Nalbandian (Of course that could be a big topic in itself... ) but what he actually did achieve. Of course as far as consistency goes there is no contest as Murray is clearly the more consistent player by far. But I was talking about career peaks.

Any player that has won a slam will have that as their career peak. Many dismiss the likes of Cash but with his Wimbledon win he has experienced the ultimate prize in tennis. If players had to put forward one match as a demonstration of their "greatness" then Cash would triumph over any player no matter how consistent with that one "great" win. Anyone with more than one slam would be in the nice (or tricky) position of being able to choose their greatest.

For players who don't have a slam what match would they put forward to demonstrate their greatness? For Nalbandian it would be easy. It would be that impressive win in a 5 set match over peak Federer to lift the Masters cup. What would Murray's peak match be? His loss to Federer in the Wimbledon final? If so Nalbandian wins...

hawkeye wrote:lags72

Just to be clear I wasn't talking about what "might" have happened with Nalbandian (Of course that could be a big topic in itself... ) but what he actually did achieve. Of course as far as consistency goes there is no contest as Murray is clearly the more consistent player by far. But I was talking about career peaks.

Any player that has won a slam will have that as their career peak. Many dismiss the likes of Cash but with his Wimbledon win he has experienced the ultimate prize in tennis. If players had to put forward one match as a demonstration of their "greatness" then Cash would triumph over any player no matter how consistent with that one "great" win. Anyone with more than one slam would be in the nice (or tricky) position of being able to choose their greatest.

For players who don't have a slam what match would they put forward to demonstrate their greatness? For Nalbandian it would be easy. It would be that impressive win in a 5 set match over peak Federer to lift the Masters cup. What would Murray's peak match be? His loss to Federer in the Wimbledon final? If so Nalbandian wins...

Agree with this. Nalbandian at his best was amazing and that WTF win over Fed at his best was a special achievement. I guess Murray does have those demolitions of Nadal at USO and AO to show his quality.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I think to be considered a tennis great you need at least 2 slams. That doesn't mean if you have 2 slams you are automatically great but that you have one of the key qualifications. Stich would kick murray's ass 8 out of 10 matches on a fast surface, but Murray is better than most one time slam winners. I think clearly murray is by leaps and bounds the best player never to win a slam. I rate him higher than Roddick, Ferrero, Moya, Korda, Johanssen, or Del Potro all relatively recent slam winners; which I think Murray is superior to as a player and as a talent. I would rate murray ahead of kafelnikov and probably kriek for certain in the two slam players as well. But you have to prove yourself in a couple of slams by beating the field and winning as at least an entry point of the discussion of being an all time great of the game. For me I am more expansive in my view greatness than many. But to be a legend you need two slams as the start of the conversation. I actually think Murray will get a slam or two before he is done but we will have to see. Right now his fans will have to be happy with him being the best player to never win a slam but that is the great thing about tennis that hope springs 4 times a year.

I cannot disagree with any of that. Welcome back socal.

Is their any debate now that Murray is the greatest player never to have won a slam? I can't see how there can be any debate really. After all Andy is one of only nine players even to reach all four slam semis in a calendar year (has that been done by any non-slam winners I'd say not). Also four slam finals has any other non-slam winner have that record plus those are at three different slams. A few months ago people argued that Nalbandian ranks above Andy but sorry no way. As people say that idf Murray wants to be labelled a great he must win slams then if Nalby wants to be greatest player never to have won a slam he needs to match Murray's slam achievements.

Thanks Craig always nice to chat with you. Having a good fortnight doesn't necessarily in my mind elevate a player above another player who has had a long run of success at the top but just not had that final breakthrough. Especially considering the death grip 3 players have had on grandslams in the last decade. I think 33 of the last 37 slams have gone to just 3 players with federer winning more than half that total. That really doesn't leave a lot of opportunities for the rest of the tour who maybe is a notch below that kind of level.

Peak Roddick beats Murray to a pulp at W and the USO.

Didn't murray put Roddick out in 2006 at wimby or was it 2007? When was peak roddick that 3 months at the end of 2003? I don't think so outside of that fortnight at New york Murray is the better player.

Erm didn't old Roddick beat Murray at W in 2009?

I actually think Roddick was at his peak in mid 09 and early 2010, he was actually quite a rough grandslam champion in 03 when he got his last chance US open. But Murray has beaten Roddick on grass so it isn't as clear cut as you make that matchup emancipator even on grass. And on a slow hardcourt or clay I would take peak murray over peak Roddick anyday.

How convenient that Roddick should miraculously be at his peak in 09/10 when Djokovic was also playing

Peak Roddick was 03-06, particularly on grass. He gave peak Federer a run for for his money at W during those years.

By 09/10 Roddick had lost the potency of his FH. He didn't know whether to play as an attacker or a retriever.

As for Murray beating him at the USO - it could happen but peak vs peak Roddick would start as favourite. Not only did he win the title in 2003 but he also reached the final in 2006 and iirc took a set of Federer (and that was the best year for Fed on tour).

In addition Roddick has been world number 1 and overall has more titles than Murray. How on earth does Murray get ahead of him?

Laver was at his peak in early 2011 didn't you know?

Emancipator, Roddick in 2003 was not as good as the Roddick that lost to fed in the wimby in final of 09. Not anywhere near as good. By the way from the summer of 09 till the spring of 2010 Roddick had a resurgence under Stefanki and lost about 15 pounds like fish did and moved better than he had the year before. He had the final of wimbeldon to show for it. A title at miami and a final at IWs, he came one match away from pulling the IW and Miami double. If Roddick of 09 wimby final played Roddick of 2003 he probably beats that Roddick in straight sets. His backhand was attrocious in 2003, you had more chance of seeing geese humping than of seeing roddick hit the ball up the line with his topspin backhand back then. Against tougher competition in 09 and early 2010 he had some of the best results of his career and really was a shanked backhand volley away from beating Roger on his favorite surface. Best Roddick I have ever seen wimby final up to the spring of 2010 where he beat Nadal and I think Djoko as well and almost pulled of the coveted IW Miami double.