You may have a point about Roddick. But Murray lost only once to Federer or Sampras in Wimbledon, which was this year.
I can understand your hesitance about Murray, but there are other factors to consider with him.
First, in comparing his stats at Wimbledon to Djokovic, they're not that far off:
Murray, since his breakthrough in '08, has made a QF, 3 semis, and a final. He lost to one of Federer, Nadal, or Roddick in each of those occasions, none of which constitute a bad loss.
Djokovic, since his breakthrough in '07, also has 3 semis and a QF to accompany a win and a second round loss. Outside of last year's win, he's fallen to Federer, Nadal, Berdych, Haas (I think??), and Safin in that time.
Djokovic's Wimbledon last year was a huge addition to what has otherwise been a curious grass resume. Tbh, outside of his performances at the end of last year's Wimbledon, he's never looked convincing on the stuff to me. Again, I believe it was more a product of his generally spectacular level last season. But even as he's established himself as the best player for the past two years, let's not forget that Federer and Murray, between Wimbledon and the Olympics (an invaluable yet neglected aspect of this conversation) firmly established themselves as the best two grass court players this year.
In short, Murray has about as many high notes at Wimbledon as Djokovic, even if the latter's highest note is distinctively higher. That's why Murray's loss to an inspired Federer is something to consider, and why their respective talents on grass is a strong point of discussion for some of us.
Agassi lost easily to Sampras in 99', yes. But he took him to 5 sets in 93' being injured and coming back from two sets down IIRC.
That is correct. As I've mentioned, Agassi's early game was much better suited for grass than that of his late years, not unlike Roddick, actually.
This is (sadly) the truth.
And I say sadly because we all urgently need more grass tournaments.
But today, Wimbledon is the only grass-fact to consider.
If Halle and Queens were taken half as seriously as wimbledon, the first seeds would be always the winners.
How many years in a row did Fed win Halle? Like six? Meanwhile, Queen's has largely been hogged by guys like Mcenroe, Connors, Becker, Hewitt, Roddick, and Murray. Even still, to say that top seeds should win every time is to ignore the potential for upset on fast grass, made easier in a best of three format.
I mean... This year Nadal lost to Kohly at Halle, and Murray lost to Mahut.
And then the wimb final was Federer - Murray, who lost to Mahut?
This proves what exactly?
Murray lost to Chardy in Cincinnati this year.
And then the US Open final was Murray over Djokovic. Who lost to Chardy?
Lol, upsets happen all the time in Masters series to every one
of the big four. Perhaps the biggest difference between Masters and Queens/Halle is the division of labor between the latter tournaments. Meaning when Federer has his Canas/Volandri type losses at Halle, or Murray has his Young/Guillermo Garcia-Lopez type losses at Queen's, the other isn't there to capitalize on the draw as they would be in the uniformal Masters.