Which era would Andrew Murray have won a grand slam?

The esteemed British Broadcasting Corporation have the following article as their lead Sports story:
Andy Murray would have won in another era http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/18507863

Having observed much debate and discussion on this subject in this forum and elsewhere, I think it is time for the esteemed members of 606v2 to put it to a vote.

So which era would Andrew Murray have won a grand slam?

Arguably in 2000-2003, but when you break down the winners it shows how flabby talking about "eras" can be:

He'd be no gimme against this lot of winners during that period:
Agassi x3
Guga x2
Hewitt x2
Safin x1
Sampras x2

Perhaps Sampras's USO 2002 (when he still had to beat a far from past-it Agassi) or Hewitt's two wins are the best chances a time-machine Murray would have had from that lot.

Leaving two 'lesser' winners:

Costa x1 (beating Ferrero)
Johannson x1 (beating a hungover Safin)

He's hardly a cert for RG 2002, so the one truly 'funny' slam even in that 'transitional' era was Aus 2002. As Henman showed in 2002, and Fed at RG 2009, a draw falling well for a 'favourite' can play funny tricks with the mind.

1890-1900.

They never heard of fitness then

I assume the question includes that he is equipped with the racquets of that era, gets that periods fitness and technical training, and plays on it's courts.

In that case I can't see any period where I'd have any more confidence than this one, and a few where I'd have less.

@NS - You've missed the Biblical Era (Judges 15) when Samson beat the Philistines with the jawbone of an ass - Murray with a Head racquet would have been invincible.

barrystar wrote:@NS - You've missed the Biblical Era (Judges 15) when Samson beat the Philistines with the jawbone of an ass - Murray with a Head racquet would have been invincible.

Samson would have slaughtered Murray with his powerful all-court game*. I'd like to see Murray serve competently with an animal jawbone. Actually, I'd like to see him serve competently with a modern racquet, come to think of it....


* assumes he wears a headband for long hair control.

I hadn't thought about Samson

I suppose Moses would have beaten Murray by parting the red clay.

Nore Staat wrote:I hadn't thought about Samson

I suppose Moses would have beaten Murray by parting the red clay.

Moses would not have whined about a bit of rain in the final like wee Nads

Will not comment on any era prior to around 92 as know little about it but I would say that Murray would not have won a slam at any point in the last 20 years.

Someone mentioned Kafelnikov the other day but he had the consistency of a metronome when on form and took both his slams and Olympics very well.

Someone also mentioned that Murray was better than Courier. Again, I disagree. At the time of around 92 Courier was seen as a murderous hitter of the ball so just imagaine what he could do with the racquets of today.

I just don;t think Murray's game is quite there yet.

Given the dearth of realistic challengers to the top 4, or even potential challengers, I would have said the next era, say 2017 onwards would have been his best chance

I've gone Jurassic.

barrystar wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:I hadn't thought about Samson :OK:

I suppose Moses would have beaten Murray by parting the red clay.

Moses would not have whined about a bit of rain in the final like wee Nads

I wouldnt be so sure Moses could be a little basket :D

Murray could have beaten Hewitt in 2001/2002. He was simply born 5 years too late.

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse era - isn't that the current one?

I guess that would mean Murray represents Famine (well he looks like he needs a good meal or, alternatively obviously hasn't won his slam yet either)

I was toying with the Jurassic Era but after much thought I decided the Tyrannosaurus Rex would probably come out on top:

http://fantasticraig.deviantart.com/art/Dinosaur-eating-tennis-player-142641031

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Murray could have beaten Hewitt in 2001/2002. He was simply born 5 years too late.

Rubbish. Hewitt for his limitations had a will of steel back then. Can you seriously think that Murray with his mental lapses could keep up with him over the course of a 5 set match? It took a peak Federer to find out and break Hewitt. Murray doesn't have the game to do it.

i'd have thought it pretty obvious that a guy with the handskills of Murray would have picked up a fair few slams before the current court slow-down. A more interesting question is how many slams Murray and Fed would each have if their ages were reversed.

Born Slippy wrote:i'd have thought it pretty obvious that a guy with the handskills of Murray would have picked up a fair few slams before the current court slow-down. A more interesting question is how many slams Murray and Fed would each have if their ages were reversed.

Or if they were both left-handed?

yes, Fed would probably have had a good few more slams if he were left-handed. One things for sure, if Fed was left-handed Uncle Toni would have been most upset that all his meticulous planning had been wasted!

Born Slippy wrote:i'd have thought it pretty obvious that a guy with the handskills of Murray would have picked up a fair few slams before the current court slow-down. A more interesting question is how many slams Murray and Fed would each have if their ages were reversed.

I think Fed would have won less slams, Murray would still have no slams. To say it's "obvious" Murray would have won slams in a different era is ludicrous. Despite what is said he is by no means "unlucky" in this era. In the final stages of slams his game is way below that of the top 3, he's not even been close to recording a slam win despite 3 finals. I can't see how a guy with a serve and forehand that breaks down under pressure and a guy who has mental lapses for 11/13 games on the trot could win any slam in the last 20 years. Still, the Murray fans can bask in the fanstasy he would have 8 slams now if he was born 10 years earlier, as of course there's no way to prove he wouldn't have.

Born Slippy wrote:yes, Fed would probably have had a good few more slams if he were left-handed. One things for sure, if Fed was left-handed Uncle Toni would have been most upset that all his meticulous planning had been wasted!

Planning (i.e. switching to left-handed) that started before Fed had turned professional. Did he have a crystal ball I wonder?

Perhaps the era of the early 1980's between 1980 and 1985 would have been Murray's best bet as at that time tennis was about having a good mixture of finesse and touchplay combined with the spare use of power which allowed guys like Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Leconte, Wilander to overcome the out-and-out power players at that time such as Lendl, Tanner, Curran.

Super D Boon wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Murray could have beaten Hewitt in 2001/2002. He was simply born 5 years too late.

Rubbish. Hewitt for his limitations had a will of steel back then. Can you seriously think that Murray with his mental lapses could keep up with him over the course of a 5 set match? It took a peak Federer to find out and break Hewitt. Murray doesn't have the game to do it.

Murray is a far better player than Hewitt. Murray's actually mentally strong against anyone but the top 3 who Hewitt would definitely struggle aginst. Mental strength can only take you so far as proven by Nole's ruthless exposure of Nadal's weaknesses last year.

mthierry wrote:

Super D Boon wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Murray could have beaten Hewitt in 2001/2002. He was simply born 5 years too late.

Rubbish. Hewitt for his limitations had a will of steel back then. Can you seriously think that Murray with his mental lapses could keep up with him over the course of a 5 set match? It took a peak Federer to find out and break Hewitt. Murray doesn't have the game to do it.

Murray is a far better player than Hewitt. Murray's actually mentally strong against anyone but the top 3 who Hewitt would definitely struggle aginst. Mental strength can only take you so far as proven by Nole's ruthless exposure of Nadal's weaknesses last year.

You mean he's strong against anyone who doesn't threaten him?

Arent we all?

Of course Leyton was recognised for mental strength against anyone, even against Federer when he was stomping him.

Would have to agree that Murray is a far better player than Hewitt, great fighter that the Australian was/is.
Every so often, a gutsy player (Courier, Hewitt) can get all the way to the top by just being around at the right time.
Just as Murray is probably not around at the right time, Hewitt picked a particularly good time to be at his peak when Sampras was winding down and Federer was merely winding up.
Another who picked his time well was Roddick who got to number one playing, IMHO, not as well as he did later when he was in the top 10 but still some way from the summit.

mthierry wrote:

Super D Boon wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Murray could have beaten Hewitt in 2001/2002. He was simply born 5 years too late.

Rubbish. Hewitt for his limitations had a will of steel back then. Can you seriously think that Murray with his mental lapses could keep up with him over the course of a 5 set match? It took a peak Federer to find out and break Hewitt. Murray doesn't have the game to do it.

Murray is a far better player than Hewitt. Murray's actually mentally strong against anyone but the top 3 who Hewitt would definitely struggle aginst. Mental strength can only take you so far as proven by Nole's ruthless exposure of Nadal's weaknesses last year.

Techinically Murray may be better than Hewitt but in the final stages it's not just about that it's about nerve and concentration and Murray seems to lack these qualities in the final stages, something that Hewitt had in spades when he won both his slams and numerous other titles in his brief period at the top.

Think about Hewitt who showed such nerve as to thrash Pete Sampras in the USO in 2001. Going to a legend's back yard to hand him a three set pasting takes a lot of bottle.

Now think when Murray has home advantage against the likes of Nadal and Roddick at Wimbledon and he doesn't use that advantage and doesn't show that kind of nerve to take on and beat the big, big guns and seems a lot more circumspect than he does against other players. Against Nadal in 2009 he played well within himself and used the excuse that Nadal was too good. Then he plays perfectly against Nadal in Wimbledon 2011 until he fluffs a forehand to take a commanding lead then goes back into his shell.

It's too easy to say Murray would have been successful against Hewitt or in any other era because he's a better player but it's too lazy to assume he would have won slams. I think due to certain weaknesses he wouldn't have done but we can never know.

To put it another way the issues in Murray's game would have been a biggish issue in an era. Agassi would have destroyed his 2nd serve for starters...