Has Murray eclipsed Roddick yet? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Has Murray eclipsed Roddick yet?

2003
09-11-2012, 05:12 AM
Now I think the comparisons can be made.

Roddick has number 1 in his favour.

Murray has the Oly gold.

Both have lost about the same number of slam finals, Roddick fought a bit more in most of them though. Roddick also played a better version of Fed than what Murray lost to most of the time except 09 SW19.

Murray has a FO semi to his name.

Roddick has a better serve, Murray better backhand.

thegreendestiny
09-11-2012, 05:13 AM
Definitely. He can only go far from here.

Topspindoctor
09-11-2012, 05:19 AM
Roddick played in a mug era and still failed to win more than one slam. Murray as much as I dislike him, played in a very strong era with Nadal and Djokovic in their primes. Plus Mugza has gold, so he is ahead of Monoduck easily.

Tag
09-11-2012, 05:21 AM
Roddick

5 grand slam finals

1 grand slam (US, 3x runner up at WIM, 3x semi finals at AO, 4R at FO)

13 weeks as no 1

3 x semi final at Year End Championship

5 masters series from 9 finals

32 total career titles

1 finish as year end no1


Murray

5 grand slam finals

1 grand slam (US, 1x runner up at WIM, 2x runner up at AO, semi finals at FO)

0 weeks as no1 (peaked at no2)

2x semi finals at Year End Championship

8 masters series from 10 finals

24 total career titles

olympic gold medal

0 finishes as year end no1


roddick still edges it due to the weeks/finish as no1

brithater
09-11-2012, 05:21 AM
Nope. As much as I cant stand Roddick he has been #1 and has a davis cup. Girlfriend is probably better looking and Roddick had better hair at Murray's age. I think both act like a horses arse on court but I call a draw there as while Roddicks antics were more entertaining......Murrays abusive outbursts are probably more interesting.

Hand to hand fight its a toss up. Roddick would probably beat the daylights out of Murray but Murray may beat the hell out of himself first. Murray seams to be in the masicist mode for the most part. Roddick just likes to hit things really hard and then run away. Similar to his game with the whole serve and retreat tactic.

anyways....thats my analysis.

Roddick > Murray

Gabe32
09-11-2012, 05:27 AM
Pretty close at the moment.

- Each have one USO title

- Murray has a gold medal (No medal from Roddick)
- Murray has 8 Masters (compared to Roddick's 5 masters)

-Roddick has 32 titles (compared to Murray's 24)
-Roddick has reached world #1 (compared to Murray's high of of #2)
-Roddick has a Davis Cup title
________________________

Pretty close so far. I'd give the edge to Roddick for obtaining #1, having more titles, and for staying in the top 10 forever.

However, Murray will likely surpass him soon. For sure he will have more titles than Roddick. Maybe even reach the #1 as well. And he is very consistent so is likely to be a staple in the top 10 for a few years more.

Tag
09-11-2012, 05:31 AM
davis cup is irrelevant here

individual achievements that count

if murray takes the clay season seriously next year, defends/gains his indoor points, and wins AO, then he should be no1 at some point next year

that's when this comparison will go in his favour

guga2120
09-11-2012, 05:32 AM
Yes Murray has passed him. Roddick was consistent. He played at the top in a very weak era. Roddick's record against top players throughout his career is a joke, and I am not talking about Federer.

ssj100
09-11-2012, 05:33 AM
Murray played in the muggest eras and still only won 1 slam.

Chase Visa
09-11-2012, 06:39 AM
Not yet. I think Murray will end up with the better career though.

Aloevera
09-11-2012, 07:03 AM
Next year he would probably eclipse Roddick by winning 1 more GS. Again, the question is when for Muzz.

Pirata.
09-11-2012, 07:04 AM
Nope. As much as I cant stand Roddick he has been #1 and has a davis cup. Girlfriend is probably better looking and Roddick had better hair at Murray's age.

:spit:

:superlol:

People using Davis Cup as a mark of individual success :facepalm:

brithater
09-11-2012, 07:20 AM
:spit:

:superlol:

People using Davis Cup as a mark of individual success :facepalm:


Its career achievement silly and yes Davis Cup does matter as it is part of ones career. :eek:

Haelfix
09-11-2012, 07:24 AM
Roddick for sure atm, but probably not for much longer. Another year or two of master titles will tip Murray over. Of course another slam or a number one would instantly do it.

Roddick played in a very tough era and was the 2nd best player for nearly three years before Rafa eclipsed him, at which point he was the third best for another two years.

Allez
09-11-2012, 07:28 AM
The gold breaks the tie in Murray's favour.

shmeeko69
09-11-2012, 07:35 AM
There's nothing in it between the two, but by the time Murray reaches 30, he probably have another 2 or 3 GS victories behind him and his record will then be far superior to Roddick's.

Sombrerero loco
09-11-2012, 08:32 AM
no way, roddick was the number 1, murray was number 2 for just few weeks

Looner
09-11-2012, 08:34 AM
Roddick still has #1 but Murray could get it early next year with a F/W at the AO and a better showing at IW and Miami.

Slade
09-11-2012, 08:35 AM
At worst, Dickrod is in reach for Murray

Zelyony
09-11-2012, 08:39 AM
Roddick's 2003 semi was not convinced. Murray > Roddick

Sophocles
09-11-2012, 09:54 AM
Roddick is still ahead thanks to the No. 1 ranking & the Davis Cup, but Murray is sure to overtake him.

atennisfan
09-11-2012, 09:56 AM
not yet.

but Murray will likely surpass Roddick by the end of his career.

Roy Emerson
09-11-2012, 11:55 AM
Murray. He beat a 5 time slam winner to earn his maiden slam. Eight masters series. #1 will come next year in a tougher era than 2003.

TigerTim
09-11-2012, 12:00 PM
defo Davis Cup breaks it in Roddicks favour

the fact that Murray didn't somehow bend the rules to play in all GB rubbers shows what a mug he is.

SheepleBuster
09-11-2012, 12:43 PM
The gold breaks the tie in Murray's favour.

Gold means nothing. Murray is just a better player than Roddick. The gold means shit though. Stop embarrassing yourself. Murray is a grand slam winner. Be proud of that.

thrust
09-11-2012, 01:04 PM
Roddick

5 grand slam finals

1 grand slam (US, 3x runner up at WIM, 3x semi finals at AO, 4R at FO)

13 weeks as no 1

3 x semi final at Year End Championship

5 masters series from 9 finals

32 total career titles

1 finish as year end no1


Murray

5 grand slam finals

1 grand slam (US, 1x runner up at WIM, 2x runner up at AO, semi finals at FO)

0 weeks as no1 (peaked at no2)

2x semi finals at Year End Championship

8 masters series from 10 finals

24 total career titles

olympic gold medal

0 finishes as year end no1


roddick still edges it due to the weeks/finish as no1

Roddick's #1 is a bit of a fluke, IMO. 2003 was a very weak period for the ATP. Federer had not quite reached his peak, Sampras and Agassi were just past theirs. Murray has had to contend with years of peak Fed, Nadal and Novak piling up points at their peak. Roddick peaked in a weak era, Andy in a srong era.

andylovesaustin
09-11-2012, 01:10 PM
Roddick's #1 is a bit of a fluke, IMO. 2003 was a very weak period for the ATP. Federer had not quite reached his peak, Sampras and Agassi were just past theirs. Murray has had to contend with years of peak Fed, Nadal and Novak piling up points at their peak. Roddick peaked in a weak era, Andy in a srong era.

To me... it's not a good comparison. Andy M is 5 years younger and has already nearly equaled or surpassed.

I think overall--if he keeps playing as well as he has, then Andy M will overtake the duck. I'm NOT sure Andy will make #1 though... he might... anything is possible.


As a tennis player, I just Andy Murray is more well-rounded than Andy Roddick ever was.

Time Violation
09-11-2012, 01:11 PM
no way, roddick was the number 1, murray was number 2 for just few weeks

When Roddick was #1, the only multi-slam winner in top 10 was Agassi aged 33 and a half. Can't be compared with Fed and Nadal (and later Nole) being in front of Murray. Del Potro won USO and was still only #5.

TigerTim
09-11-2012, 01:12 PM
I can't see Andy having consistency to be No.1

Time Violation
09-11-2012, 02:04 PM
I can't see Andy having consistency to be No.1

He would have to improve on clay for that.

hisham70
09-11-2012, 02:07 PM
Why are people comparing Murray with Roddick? Murray is an olympic GOLD medalist, defeating ROGER FEDERER, someone Roddick has for many years having difficulty to deal with.

cardio
09-11-2012, 02:28 PM
I can't see Andy having consistency to be No.1

You dont have to be super consistent to be # 1 for few weeks.You only have to have few very good months and bit of a luck. Just like Muster had. Or Moya .

Being # 1 for a short period is not so important anyway IMO. Stich was never # 1, did he have worse career than Rios ?

If player is # 1 for long period, let`s say year or more, it becomes an achievement. Being # 1 for few weeks or even couple of months is just a trivia fact .

Johnny Groove
09-11-2012, 02:29 PM
Very close. Roddick by a hair at the moment due to his 13 weeks at #1, but I expect Murray to get to #1 at some point for at least 13 weeks, so eventually Murray will pass him.

Bad Religion
09-11-2012, 02:45 PM
Yes and easily. 1 slam + 1 gold > Roddick's achievements a k a wins in American MM tournaments with depleted fields

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
09-11-2012, 03:29 PM
roddick played in a real era

this era is the worst in history
WTA standard really

TigerTim
09-11-2012, 03:33 PM
Very close. Roddick by a hair at the moment due to his 13 weeks at #1, but I expect Murray to get to #1 at some point for at least 13 weeks, so eventually Murray will pass him.

Unfortuante wording Groove. Roddick barely has a hair left!

rocketassist
09-11-2012, 03:34 PM
Only one Andy is allowed to win a slam on tour it seems- once Roddick retired, the gate opened up.

TigerTim
09-11-2012, 03:35 PM
roddick played in a real era

this era is the worst in history
WTA standard really

:spit:

Rewind to early century

Mugpras schooling RodDick
Hewitt slaughtering fat dave at Wimby
Oldassi slaughtering that German fellow
Coria mugging at French 04
Finals as one sided as a bear v rabbit fight
Linesmen cheating left and right
Andre Pavel reaching 1000 finals

Time Violation
09-11-2012, 04:07 PM
Yea, Roddick won a slam and held #1 in strong era and couldn't win a slam nor stay in top 5 in weak era, go figure

Sapeod
09-11-2012, 04:08 PM
Not yet, but he will. Soon. He will definitely eclipse Roddick. He won't stop there either. He'll leapfrog Hewitt, Kafelnikov, Rafter, Safin and Kuerten too.

bizzle
09-11-2012, 04:27 PM
Murray was greater even before his US Open win.

Sanya
09-11-2012, 05:07 PM
He will finish his career with better accomplishments in the bag, but if Murray retires tomorrow, for me Roddick > Murray, the difference is small though.

BroTree123
09-11-2012, 05:09 PM
No. But it's fairly close.

Andi-M
09-11-2012, 05:15 PM
Yea, Roddick won a slam and held #1 in strong era and couldn't win a slam nor stay in top 5 in weak era, go figure

;)

Dead close atm, OG vs no 1 is real issue i suppose because most of roddicks titles are HC MM ones dont really count. When it comes to masters Andy M is far superior, atm prob AM by a hair---by the time he retires probably more like by a country mile.

Paylu2007
09-11-2012, 05:19 PM
Nope. As much as I cant stand Roddick he has been #1 and has a davis cup. Girlfriend is probably better looking and Roddick had better hair at Murray's age. I think both act like a horses arse on court but I call a draw there as while Roddicks antics were more entertaining......Murrays abusive outbursts are probably more interesting.

Hand to hand fight its a toss up. Roddick would probably beat the daylights out of Murray but Murray may beat the hell out of himself first. Murray seams to be in the masicist mode for the most part. Roddick just likes to hit things really hard and then run away. Similar to his game with the whole serve and retreat tactic.

anyways....thats my analysis.

Roddick > Murray

Roddick has a hotter ass, but Murray has a bigger bulge. You missed that :devil:

Sanya
09-11-2012, 05:22 PM
Not yet, but he will. Soon. He will definitely eclipse Roddick. He won't stop there either. He'll leapfrog Hewitt, Kafelnikov, Rafter, Safin and Kuerten too.

I`m completely agree with Safin, Rafter and Kavelnikov, some doubts for Hewitt, but Guga - really? Kuerten maybe hasn`t as much titles, but he was beast, clay legend. And forget results - remember his game, that was true art.

romismak
09-11-2012, 05:26 PM
agree that is is very close, both have 1 slam + slam finals, Murray is better at Masters, Roddick has more tournaments titles. Howewer after Murray is done, he will have much better career, right now it is very close and really just that No.1 is speeking in favour for Roddick, but really 13 weeks isn´t such impressive No.1 resume, but right now it is like by very very small margin in Roddick´s favour.

brithater
09-11-2012, 05:50 PM
LOL....Roddick...the new standard for true greatness in the history of tennis.

If you Murray fanatics want to compare best US players to best British players why dont you compare him to someone like Sampras?

Murray has definitly surpassed Tim Mayotte in terms of greatness now. I will give him that. In a few years he may even be reguarded as highly as Justin Gimelstob! If he ever learns to move forward and take control of the net.

NJ88
09-11-2012, 05:52 PM
Murray has now completely surpassed Roddick. Sure they have one slam each, but Murray is Olympic champion and has won his slam and all his masters titles, and his olympic title is what many consider the greatest era of mens tennis ever. The top four are so far above the rest of the field. Roddick doesn't really come close to Murray in terms of achievement now imo.

Goldenoldie
09-11-2012, 06:10 PM
I don't think Murray has quite got there yet, but I agree with those who think he is certain to by the end of his career.

What is perhaps more to the point is that he has eclipsed Henman and all other British post-war players by a wide margin.

Boris Franz Ecker
09-11-2012, 07:50 PM
No. Murray is the better player.

But Roddick reached no 1, that equals Murrays gold medail and gives him a little bit better career.

jcempire
09-11-2012, 08:00 PM
Roddick played in a mug era and still failed to win more than one slam. Murray as much as I dislike him, played in a very strong era with Nadal and Djokovic in their primes. Plus Mugza has gold, so he is ahead of Monoduck easily.

a mug Era. What's a mug Era. from 2009 - 2012 obviously a complete mug Era

jcempire
09-11-2012, 08:02 PM
Roddick played Peak Federer but Murray has not done it yet.

Federer off peak since 2008. We all seen it happen.... his move, his speed, his forehand

Serverer
09-11-2012, 08:05 PM
Ferrer being world number 5 says everything you need to know about this era. The guy used to lose in round 3-4 of slams.

Andi-M
09-11-2012, 08:10 PM
I don't think Murray has quite got there yet, but I agree with those who think he is certain to by the end of his career.

What is perhaps more to the point is that he has eclipsed Henman and all other British post-war players by a wide margin.

He eclipsed henman in about 2008 with 2 MS titles and a GS final.

TigerTim
09-11-2012, 08:12 PM
He eclipsed henman in about 2008 with 2 MS titles and a GS final.

Exactly

He needs to aim for Virgina Wade now

3GS and tens of titles.

Backhand_Maestro
09-11-2012, 10:05 PM
Ferrer being world number 5 says everything you need to know about this era. The guy used to lose in round 3-4 of slams.
As oposed to him improving and becoming a physical beast ? :confused:

Topspindoctor
09-12-2012, 02:50 AM
Ferrer being world number 5 says everything you need to know about this era. The guy used to lose in round 3-4 of slams.

As opposed to Robredo and Blake in top 5 in mid 2000's? Gtfo Fedtard.

Jimnik
09-12-2012, 03:09 AM
Unfortunately.

But Muzzboy will never win Davis Cup or three Houston titles.

BackhandDTL
09-12-2012, 03:09 AM
Roddick doesn't really come close to Murray in terms of achievement now imo.

Lol! Yes, because 1 is light years ahead of 1, and being number 1 means nothing.







Wait, what?

Zelyony
09-12-2012, 07:11 PM
Roddick's #1 is a bit of a fluke, IMO. 2003 was a very weak period for the ATP. Federer had not quite reached his peak, Sampras and Agassi were just past theirs. Murray has had to contend with years of peak Fed, Nadal and Novak piling up points at their peak. Roddick peaked in a weak era, Andy in a srong era.This.

green25814
09-12-2012, 08:22 PM
Ferrer being world number 5 says everything you need to know about this era. The guy used to lose in round 3-4 of slams.

Ferrer is like an old wine, improves with age and experience. Never stops trying to improve or learn, true professional. Puts 100% into every match. He's basically Nadal without the bizzare topspin.

Federer in 2
09-12-2012, 08:33 PM
Roddick > Murray. For now.

Sapeod
09-12-2012, 08:39 PM
I`m completely agree with Safin, Rafter and Kavelnikov, some doubts for Hewitt, but Guga - really? Kuerten maybe hasn`t as much titles, but he was beast, clay legend. And forget results - remember his game, that was true art.
Kuerten has 3 slams. Murray can eclipse that. Even if Andy only ends with 3 slams, he still has a far better career elsewhere. Apart from his 3 slams, Kuerten didn't do much. Andy will leapfrog him.
LOL....Roddick...the new standard for true greatness in the history of tennis.

If you Murray fanatics want to compare best US players to best British players why dont you compare him to someone like Sampras?

Murray has definitly surpassed Tim Mayotte in terms of greatness now. I will give him that. In a few years he may even be reguarded as highly as Justin Gimelstob! If he ever learns to move forward and take control of the net.
Your username says all we need to know about you.

This has nothing to do with greatness. They both have 1 slam, but we're wondering which one is above the other. Murray will eventually do it.

That said, why don't we compared Murray to Sampras? Because one has 1 slam and the other has 14. Use your head before posting.

The last paragraph is a load of rubbish. Not surprising.

Murray Mint
09-12-2012, 09:01 PM
The second Murray won the US Open, he surpassed Roddick's achievements. People seem to be wildly over-rating Roddick's short time at no.1. Yet Murray winning an Olympic gold, beating Djokovic and Fed on the way is written off as nothing! Even if you look at the slam wins, Murray beating Djokovic is errr... somewhat more impressive than Roddick beating Ferrero. Murray has already reached the semi-finals and beyond in slams more times than Roddick did! More Masters titles against better opposition. When Roddick reached no.1, he'd had a much less impressive year in the slams than Murray has just had. The reason being - far weaker competition. And as discussed, Murray has won more significant tournaments in a much smaller number of years, against better opposition on average!

No debate. It's not even close.

PS. People suggest the Olympic gold singles means nothing but the Davis Cup does?! :lol:

Haven't voted because the poll is ridiculous. I'll cry if it doesn't get changed, we need a 'MURRAY DOMINANCE' option added.

Sanya
09-12-2012, 09:03 PM
Kuerten has 3 slams. Murray can eclipse that. Even if Andy only ends with 3 slams, he still has a far better career elsewhere. Apart from his 3 slams, Kuerten didn't do much. Andy will leapfrog him.

Well, you can say that apart from his 76 titles Federer didn`t do much either. ;) It doesn`t work, everything should count.

Guga was clay King and actually he had very solid play on hard too - even two best hard court players in 90th, Andre and Pete, had troubles to beat him on this surface. Sampras` victory over him in Miami final was miracle.

I feel you just started watching tennis after Guga`s retirement. :) Then I can take it. Hard to understand it if never seeing his game yourself.

Mountaindewslave
09-12-2012, 09:09 PM
Nope. As much as I cant stand Roddick he has been #1 and has a davis cup. Girlfriend is probably better looking and Roddick had better hair at Murray's age. I think both act like a horses arse on court but I call a draw there as while Roddicks antics were more entertaining......Murrays abusive outbursts are probably more interesting.

Hand to hand fight its a toss up. Roddick would probably beat the daylights out of Murray but Murray may beat the hell out of himself first. Murray seams to be in the masicist mode for the most part. Roddick just likes to hit things really hard and then run away. Similar to his game with the whole serve and retreat tactic.

anyways....thats my analysis.

Roddick > Murray

haha I like the bit about better hair. but I do agree Murray is still slighty behind. #1 rank is a pretty big deal

Sapeod
09-12-2012, 09:14 PM
Well, you can say that apart from his 76 titles Federer didn`t do much either. ;) It doesn`t work, everything should count.
Were you not reading correctly? I was talking about if Andy had the same amount of slams as Kuerten. He'd be way ahead. More masters titles, more slam finals, more titles etc.
Guga was clay King and actually he had very solid play on hard too - even two best hard court players in 90th, Andre and Pete, had troubles to beat him on this surface. Sampras` victory over him in Miami final was miracle.
Yes, he was good on hard. That still doesn't change the fact that outside of his 3 RG titles, he did nothing special.
I feel you just started watching tennis after Guga`s retirement. :) Then I can take it. Hard to understand it if never seeing his game yourself.
I have seen Kuerten play. I saw his last match. I've seen youtube highlights.

Since when do we include game styles into achievements? If Andy had 3 slams, he'd be way above Kuerten because he's already done far more outside of slams than Kuerten did in his entire career.

Sanya
09-12-2012, 09:28 PM
Yes, he was good on hard. That still doesn't change the fact that outside of his 3 RG titles, he did nothing special.

He won WTF beating Agassi and Sampras back-to-back. It was impressive.

I have seen Kuerten play. I saw his last match. I've seen youtube highlights.

Since when do we include game styles into achievements? If Andy had 3 slams, he'd be way above Kuerten because he's already done far more outside of slams than Kuerten did in his entire career.

Sorry, but it means you saw almost nothing. Last match, you must be kidding? Did you see Moya`s last match in Madrid with Becker, it wasn`t long ago, or Coria`s. They weren`t the same players already. And youtube highlights - I can make Young to be GOAT including only his best points in highlights. It doesn`t show a lot, really.

About game style - well, it`s debatable. Personally I think it should count as some other things apart from numbers. Correct figures show you right answer in 90% cases, but sometimes it isn`t enough. Fed is GOAT not only because he has 17 Slams, for example. And if someone takes 18 it won`t automatically make this guy new one.

But last passage is my IMO, i won`t insist if you disagree.

brithater
09-12-2012, 10:55 PM
Kuerten has 3 slams. Murray can eclipse that. Even if Andy only ends with 3 slams, he still has a far better career elsewhere. Apart from his 3 slams, Kuerten didn't do much. Andy will leapfrog him.

Your username says all we need to know about you.

This has nothing to do with greatness. They both have 1 slam, but we're wondering which one is above the other. Murray will eventually do it.

That said, why don't we compared Murray to Sampras? Because one has 1 slam and the other has 14. Use your head before posting.

The last paragraph is a load of rubbish. Not surprising.

Ah, I see your a 17 year old know it all fool. Read between the lines you silly dolt. The entire point of this threads is to one up the top American player with the top british player. Its all really quite silly. Even some of the posts here where people are equating the number one ranking to that of a gold medal LOL.

But I am sure you have all this figured out Gandor the Great. Carry on with your silliness now.

Lets talk some more about how Murray is better than Kuerten :rolleyes:.

You fanboy kids crack me up. Your to young to even know anything about Guga. He was a warrior.

Gold medal is really not that big of a deal. Most tennis fans cannot even name the last 3 or 4 gold medal winners. Its a marketing gimic and thats all.

Jimnik
09-12-2012, 10:57 PM
Don't care what the stats say. RAndy was the greatest. :p

The Prince
09-12-2012, 11:00 PM
Murray is just a classier and bigger player than Roddick ever was. No stat has Roddick ahead now, and Murray trumps an already retired Roddick in most areas. I think that's eclipsing.

Ichiban1920
09-12-2012, 11:07 PM
As opposed to Robredo and Blake in top 5 in mid 2000's? Gtfo Fedtard.


Nadull winning hard-court/grass-court slams = fluke era.

GTFO Nadull-tard.

brithater
09-12-2012, 11:29 PM
haha I like the bit about better hair. but I do agree Murray is still slighty behind. #1 rank is a pretty big deal

LOL

Andy Murray > Gene Wilder

ogbg
09-12-2012, 11:36 PM
Titles wise they're a close match-up now, but Murray is currently 56.3% vs top 10 players and Roddick finished at 33.6% so that edges it for me. As an aside, they actually have exactly the same tie-break record (62.2%).

Jimnik
09-13-2012, 06:47 AM
Let's not forget their most important meeting:

CtXeTYk3wGw

Michael Armando
09-13-2012, 07:14 AM
Only if he reach #1.

Sapeod
09-13-2012, 05:52 PM
Ah, I see your a 17 year old know it all fool. Read between the lines you silly dolt. The entire point of this threads is to one up the top American player with the top british player. Its all really quite silly. Even some of the posts here where people are equating the number one ranking to that of a gold medal LOL.

But I am sure you have all this figured out Gandor the Great. Carry on with your silliness now.

Lets talk some more about how Murray is better than Kuerten :rolleyes:.

You fanboy kids crack me up. Your to young to even know anything about Guga. He was a warrior.

Gold medal is really not that big of a deal. Most tennis fans cannot even name the last 3 or 4 gold medal winners. Its a marketing gimic and thats all.
I'll make it very simple for you.

If Andy had 3 slams, he'd be even with Kuerten, right? If this were to happen, he'd most likely have #1 too at some point, like Kuerten did. Kuerten's best slam results aside from his titles are 3 QFs. That is pathetic compared to Murray who has 4 finals and 6 semi-finals. Murray would have more masters titles and already has 4 more overall titles. He'd have at least 26 titles with 2 more slams, meaning he'd have 6 more titles than Kuerten.

Same amount of slams, unknown amount of weeks at #1, more masters, more slam finals/semi-finals = Andy being the far better player if he gets to 3 slams. Very, very simple. Understand?

DDRickyDD
09-13-2012, 09:40 PM
Roddick was the better player in his prime, he was just very unfortunate to have to play a prime Federer in 3 Wimbledon Finals.

LastRocket
09-13-2012, 10:11 PM
Not until he is ranked #1, which he most likely will with momentum on his side... :mad:

stewietennis
09-13-2012, 11:11 PM
If the #1 ranking holds that much weight, does that mean Roddick had a better career than, say, Bruguera?

SetSampras
09-13-2012, 11:17 PM
http://i1168.photobucket.com/albums/r494/MaldwynDyer/the_set_up.gif

Topspindoctor
09-14-2012, 12:43 AM
If Andy had 3 slams,

And if Goatray had 22 slams, he'd be male Graf, no? :cool:

Federer4Everer
09-14-2012, 10:03 AM
I'm goin' with Murray by a whisker. Roddick's record versus top 10 is really quite embarassing, and when he did win big titles, it seems like he managed to avoid the best players in the process. At least in general.

In the early years Roddick's game was always panned for lacking finesse or strategy. Big time. Only in later years did he get respect, IMHO just bacause he hung around so darn long, not because he was that great in the first place.

That said I do think the last wimbledon final between Roddick and Federer was one of the great ones. It seems most people have forgotten it already but for me it was absolutely riveting in that 5th set! For me the most riveting of any slam final I have ever seen.

Sophocles
09-14-2012, 10:22 AM
Let's make it simple. In tennis, the No. 1 ranking and the Davis Cup count for a lot more than the Olympic gold. Get it? So for now, given their slam records and other titles are fairly close, Roddick is a bit ahead of Murray. This is, though, unlikely to last.

bjurra
09-14-2012, 10:30 AM
You dont have to be super consistent to be # 1 for few weeks.You only have to have few very good months and bit of a luck. Just like Muster had. Or Moya .

Being # 1 for a short period is not so important anyway IMO. Stich was never # 1, did he have worse career than Rios ?

If player is # 1 for long period, let`s say year or more, it becomes an achievement. Being # 1 for few weeks or even couple of months is just a trivia fact .

Exactly and I am suprised not more MTF posters realize that. But I guess we are living in a weak MTF era.

bjurra
09-14-2012, 10:31 AM
Murray played in the muggest eras and still only won 1 slam.

You are a muggy poster.

BackhandDTL
09-14-2012, 10:47 AM
Roddick's record versus top 10 is really quite embarassing

It's bad, but not as much when you consider that roughly a third of his losses came from the same guy, and that another chunk of them came at the tail end of his career.

The bigger problem was that he simply seemed couldn't seem to face more top guys at his best, through no fault of his own. Consider his phenomenal record on grass from 03-05 (30-0 against non-Fed opponents), and the fact that, of all the formidable players he beat (Hewitt, Ancic, Philippoussis, etc.), only Agassi was ranked within the top ten. That indicates a failure on his peers' part to make it to him or keep rank.

...and when he did win big titles, it seems like he managed to avoid the best players in the process. At least in general.

This is false, actually. Only his two wins at Cinci came without beating a top ten player (though he still faced #13 Gonzo, Murray, and Ferrero to win his second). Each of his other biggest championships came against one or more top ranked guy.


The more glaring misreport I've seen in this thread is the idea that Murray's already beat out Roddick in late showings at the majors. As of now, their numbers match up as follows:

A Murray W-01 F-04 S-06 Q-03
A Roddick W-01 F-04 S-05 Q-09

As of now, their results are astoundingly close, as is the general comparison between the two.


Like others, I firmly believe Murray's career will eventually go on to surpass Roddick's, but I give the edge to the latter right now based on the #1 ranking. If nothing else, it's a comparison of minute differences. The people who are suggesting otherwise are fanatical.

Cereal Killer
09-14-2012, 10:50 AM
Let's make it simple. In tennis, the No. 1 ranking and the Davis Cup count for a lot more than the Olympic gold. Get it? So for now, given their slam records and other titles are fairly close, Roddick is a bit ahead of Murray. This is, though, unlikely to last.

Winning the Davis Cup is a team achievement. It's not just up to one player to win it, so it doesn't count as a personal achievement in my opinion. You also get more points for an Olympic Gold Medal.

And getting to #1, has a lot to do with your opposition throughout said year. Fact is, Roddick only had to win one slam to get there.

Hian-GOAT
09-14-2012, 10:53 AM
No, he is still irrelevant.

BackhandDTL
09-14-2012, 11:09 AM
Winning the Davis Cup is a team achievement. It's not just up to one player to win it, so it doesn't count as a personal achievement in my opinion. You also get more points for an Olympic Gold Medal.

I think it's more subjective than that. In the year that Roddick--the US--won Davis Cup, wasn't he undefeated? Regardless of the team format, that's a noteworthy personal achievement. Still, like you, I think more of the Olympic Gold.

And getting to #1, has a lot to do with your opposition throughout said year.

Right, and one's ability to overcome that opposition... There were a few strong viable contenders for the crown that year, including Federer. The fact is, Roddick did enough for the year to finish ahead of him each.

You say he won one major, but his summer in general was phenomenal. He went 27-1 for the summer, culminating in wins at Indy, Cinci, Montreal, and the US Open. To put in perspective how hard the Cinci-Montreal double is, neither Fed nor Djokovic have done it, and Andy did it before top seeds received 1st round byes.

All in all, I don't really see any way around it. Roddick was quite fittingly the best player in the world that year.

Sophocles
09-14-2012, 11:22 AM
Winning the Davis Cup is a team achievement. It's not just up to one player to win it, so it doesn't count as a personal achievement in my opinion. You also get more points for an Olympic Gold Medal.

And getting to #1, has a lot to do with your opposition throughout said year. Fact is, Roddick only had to win one slam to get there.

I don't really get this "team" argument. The success of any team requires outstanding individual performances, & Roddick was the linchpin of the winning team. Having said that, a player's individual Davis Cup record arguably counts just as much as whether he's contributed to a winning team, since obviously if your team-mates are rubbish you can't win the competition however great your contribution. For example, Borg won the Davis Cup only once but his record in singles rubbers is impeccable. It would be interesting to compare Roddick & Murray in this respect.

Getting to No. 1 does indeed have a lot to do with your opposition. But so does everything else in sport, so I don't really see your point. If Roddick had to win "only" 1 slam to get there, perhaps that's because there was such intense competition at the top that spoils were relatively evenly distributed.

paseo
09-14-2012, 11:25 AM
Let's not forget their most important meeting:

CtXeTYk3wGw

It's a damn shame that Roddick never won Wimbledon. At his best, Roddick was an excellent grass courter. Better than Djokovic, at least. Yet, Djokovic has a Wimbledon title and Roddick doesn't. Where were the Tsongas or Berdychs when Roddick needed them?

On topic:
No. due to Roddick's #1 ranking.

astafjevs
09-14-2012, 11:38 AM
I can't see that Davis Cup is anything more than a tie-breaker if all other stats are equal, seeing as Murray comes from a country that is never going to win it.

Also comparing their total career records would obviously favour the older player.

I'd say Roddick's No 1 keeps him a nose ahead at the moment, but that isn't to say Murray has to make number 1 to overtake him. A couple more Slam semis, a WTF final, or simply a few more tour titles will see Murray pull clear.

Barring a complete collapse in form or fitness, Murray will eclipse Roddick for sure.

Cereal Killer
09-14-2012, 12:05 PM
I think it's more subjective than that. In the year that Roddick--the US--won Davis Cup, wasn't he undefeated? Regardless of the team format, that's a noteworthy personal achievement. Still, like you, I think more of the Olympic Gold.

I agree with that. My argument was mostly due to the fact that it's quite impossible for Murray to win the Davis Cup, as he can't do it by himself and he is the only British player in the top 100. That's why I think it's unfair to use this as an argument for Roddick and against Murray.

Right, and one's ability to overcome that opposition... There were a few strong viable contenders for the crown that year, including Federer. The fact is, Roddick did enough for the year to finish ahead of him each.

You say he won one major, but his summer in general was phenomenal. He went 27-1 for the summer, culminating in wins at Indy, Cinci, Montreal, and the US Open. To put in perspective how hard the Cinci-Montreal double is, neither Fed nor Djokovic have done it, and Andy did it before top seeds received 1st round byes.

All in all, I don't really see any way around it. Roddick was quite fittingly the best player in the world that year.

Oh, no I didn't mean it like that. Roddick was without a doubt the best player in 2003. I just think it's much harder to get to #1 these days than it was in 2003. Just look at the slam results for example, Murray is 22-3 this year which is a record Roddick never even got close to, not even in 2003.

I'm not saying Murray is the better player or has achieved more, because I hate these kind of discussions. Different era means different circumstances and therefore it's hard to say how it would have turned out if things were reversed. Just as I find the GOAT discussion to be quite dense.

I was merely pointing out that the Davis Cup argument is a weak one. And getting to #1 is more about consistency than anything else. If Murray won 5 slams, one a year, but never got to number #1, everyone would still think of him as more successful than Fererro, Safin or Roddick. I don't think it's fair to pay too much attention to rankings, especially if a player only held the number #1 spot for a few weeks.

Ballbasher
09-14-2012, 02:13 PM
Roddick still has the edge. Number 1 and Davis Cup. Although Murray will surpass him in the next few years.