Djokovic Murray h2h on medium+ speed HC

[abmk]

At their peaks, at least 7, and maybe even closer to 10 depending on the conditions. Murray gets a lot of balls back but he doesn't do much damage off the return, plain and simple. Setting up serve+1 shop is very easy against Murray, he sweetly times very few returns (or really any shots, period). Murray's returning reputation is built around a bunch of heroics against useless serve bots and consistently winning 45% of return points against Dudi Sela in the 2nd round.

I think you are selling Murray short here.
fed had a clearly easier time vs djoko return in Wim 12 than vs Murray - even if he did serve clearly better in the semi.
murray also had wins vs Nadal in USO 08/AO 10 in part because of aggressive enough returning, wins in Shanghai/Canada 10 vs fedal etc. etc.

Also murray has a 7-3 h2h lead vs Roddick (IIRC), whereas Djoko is 4-5. (3-5 when both were top 10).

the useless servebots in Isner/Karlovic have wins over Djoko, but not over Murray.
also Djoko struggled vs Kyrgios, but not Murray (depends on how you want to classify Kyrgios)
pre-2018 murray is also 9-3 vs Raonic who does have a +1. (obviously djokovic has done better vs him)

 

[StrongRule]

Yeah, I'd say Murray's BH and return are elite, even with respect to the big 3. better BH than fedal and return similar level to Djoko.

Maybe early in his career it was, but at some point he started with these absolutely ridiculous second serve returns inside the court, which failed him time after time against Djokovic in 2014-2016. I mean, any tennis coach will tell you that you should either be behind the baseline, or rush the volley, but never stay at the middle of the court. Even if you get such a return in, a player like Djokovic will then hit the next shot deep, and you are lost.

I remember in some of their 2014-2016 matches I was actually hoping for Djokovic to hit a first serve in some rallies, because I felt more confident in Murray returning it.

 

[Kralingen]

Come again?

Federer was somewhat ok in the QF. He was a level down in movement and consistency in the SF, served like garbage, and then had a negative gas tank in the 5th set. He was somewhat ok in 1 of the 5 sets in the SF, mediocre in 2 of them, mediocre but scrappy in one, and horrendous in 1.

A "somewhat Ok" QF Fed may have beaten Murray in the SF, if he could have brought a high level for long enough in the 5th like he did against Tsonga, which would have been utterly embarrassing, for a post-post prime Fed to beat absolute peak Murray on a slower court. To be honest going 5 sets against that version of Fed is somewhat embarrassing as is, Fed was really only able to play one semi decent set out of 5, and he wasn't dynamic by any means in that set.

It's like saying Murray was "somewhat ok" at 14 AO, and a post-post prime Fed with a new racket basically had him whipped in straights before he eased up the gas. Heck just with serve alone, even if he might have struggled off the ground, 14 AO Fed would have given 13 AO Murray all he could handle. 13 AO served like garbage in the QF/SF, likely his back was bothering him.

Honestly don’t think I’ve watched the match since 2013 itself so I’ll take your word for it. But I thought he was generally good in the match. I think if he’s gotten a look at Nadal during that period he’d have better wins, they didn’t play once from 2012-13. I guess beating FINO (Fed in Name Only) was his best HC Slam win during the period which is kind of sad.

 

[RS]

Honestly don’t think I’ve watched the match since 2013 itself so I’ll take your word for it. But I thought he was generally good in the match. I think if he’s gotten a look at Nadal during that period he’d have better wins, they didn’t play once from 2012-13. I guess beating FINO (Fed in Name Only) was his best HC Slam win during the period which is kind of sad.

Federer was really grinding out the rallies in that match and fighting to stay in but Murray hit 21 aces and won a lot of the shorter points

Enjoyable match funny enough largely because Fed fought hard to stay in it.

 

[TheFifthSet]

At their peaks, at least 7, and maybe even closer to 10 depending on the conditions. Murray gets a lot of balls back but he doesn't do much damage off the return, plain and simple. Setting up serve+1 shop is very easy against Murray, he sweetly times very few returns (or really any shots, period). Murray's returning reputation is built around a bunch of heroics against useless serve bots and consistently winning 45% of return points against Dudi Sela in the 2nd round.

If it’s one of the top 10 returns in the Open Era, it’s an elite shot, even if it’s faultier in certain match-ups. Makes perfect sense that the guy with the best +1 in tennis history would give him issues.

 

[metsman]

If it’s one of the top 10 returns in the Open Era, it’s an elite shot, even if it’s faultier in certain match-ups. Makes perfect sense that the guy with the best +1 in tennis history would give him issues.

It can't be an elite shot if there's multiple guys that are clearly better.

At least when we're talking about comparing to the big 3, and not Ferrer.

Federer's return in many conditions against many opponents is a flat out elite shot that is feared and will change the matchup dynamics his way. You can't say the same about Murray

 

[metsman]

I think you are selling Murray short here.
fed had a clearly easier time vs djoko return in Wim 12 than vs Murray - even if he did serve clearly better in the semi.
murray also had wins vs Nadal in USO 08/AO 10 in part because of aggressive enough returning, wins in Shanghai/Canada 10 vs fedal etc. etc.

Also murray has a 7-3 h2h lead vs Roddick (IIRC), whereas Djoko is 4-5. (3-5 when both were top 10).

the useless servebots in Isner/Karlovic have wins over Djoko, but not over Murray.
also Djoko struggled vs Kyrgios, but not Murray (depends on how you want to classify Kyrgios)
pre-2018 murray is also 9-3 vs Raonic who does have a +1. (obviously djokovic has done better vs him)

Little chance Fed wins 3 straight sets against 12 Djokovic so he'd have to rely on winning a 5th set if he comes out that poorly and spots him a set. Against Murray, a well playing Federer can simply run him over in all departments so winning 3 sets isn't tough once things get going.

Djokovic's return is a bit overrated for the same reasons as Murray, and usually a well serving Fed could readily set up +1 shop, but ultimately he does a lot more damage on his return. Most evident against Nadal, but also Djokovic can usually hurt an average/mediocre serving Fed (e.g. last couple sets of 15 Wimbledon, first couple sets of 16 AO), which Murray can't. Murray is better at returning big serves than Djokovic, but that's more of a knock on Djokovic. Murray still doesn't hit as many tough returns against big servers as Federer or Hewitt do. He usually floats them back to some depth, enough to short circuit Raonic, Isner, or Karlovic, but Roddick, or god forbid Pete, will still get into a very nice rhythm.

 

[Picmun]

They tested all the tennis players reaction times at the US open, guess who was fastest of the big 4 and fastest over all ?

 

[Picmun]

At their peaks, at least 7, and maybe even closer to 10 depending on the conditions. Murray gets a lot of balls back but he doesn't do much damage off the return, plain and simple. Setting up serve+1 shop is very easy against Murray, he sweetly times very few returns (or really any shots, period). Murray's returning reputation is built around a bunch of heroics against useless serve bots and consistently winning 45% of return points against Dudi Sela in the 2nd round.

Yeah serve bots like Djoke you mean? - Yes, straights at the meaningless exho in SW19 ?
-You talk >

 

[RS]

Hewitt is really the winner here as no other parties look good.

 

[WildRevolver]

Healthy Andy Murray and Novak has 14 grand slams at most.

 

[TheFifthSet]

It can't be an elite shot if there's multiple guys that are clearly better.

By that logic, Federer's only elite shots are the forehand and the slice. Maybe the overhead, but the difference between an amazing and merely 'very good' overhead is pretty much academic, so who cares? Becker has none, all of his strokes are clearly bettered by at least several players. On'n'on we go. I'm being flippant for effect, of course, but I take it that you understand what I mean.

At least when we're talking about comparing to the big 3, and not Ferrer.

Murray's return isn't "clearly", if at all, inferior to Federer's.

Federer's return in many conditions against many opponents is a flat out elite shot that is feared and will change the matchup dynamics his way. You can't say the same about Murray

And those conditions are the same ones Murray excelled in. The "fear" stems more so from there being less places to go against Federer. If you give a middling Div 1 player Murray's return, it still wouldn't inspire fear in an ATG-calibre player.

On that note...if you gave Murray Federer's return, what changes? For the good, a big fat nothing. That's instructive enough. Federer's offensive returning has long been one of the (RELATIVELY) weaker parts of his game. It's Murray's rally passivity that's been his undoing, not the return itself.

And an elite defensive return doesn't need to drastically change match-up dynamics in order to be effective. It's an inherently reactive shot, after all. Speaking in generalities, a good server will nearly always want to serve big/offensively provided that there's not a large drop-off in %'s (and with today's strings, there tends not to be). The gameplan, in that regard, will remain roughly the same almost regardless of who they face. It's just that those largely invariable tactics are less effective against returners like Murray. That his return didn't win him a large share of big matches against Federer is no smoking gun any more than Gonzo being almost completely futile against Fed proving his forehand wasn't elite. It's not a panacea. He lost for other reasons. And again, Federer's return is elite in the same way that Murray's is, except it's complemented by a much more robust offensive game.

 

[TheFifthSet]

but Roddick, or god forbid Pete, will still get into a very nice rhythm.

Not the best examples.

Roddick served his worst against Fed and Murray. Even in his wins, he didn't blank Murray's return. Fed had more overall success because he's got the infinitely more secure service game and also because he's the worst possible match-up for Roddick in basically every aspect of the game, not just the return.

On a quick surface, Pete will get into a nice rhythm against every player in tennis history on a normal serving day. Fed's superior third-ball pass would net him more success off the return than Murray...not so much the return itself.

 

[metsman]

By that logic, Federer's only elite shots are the forehand and the slice. Maybe the overhead, but the difference between an amazing and merely 'very good' overhead is pretty much academic, so who cares? Becker has none, all of his strokes are clearly bettered by at least several players. On'n'on we go. I'm being flippant for effect, of course, but I take it that you understand what I mean.




Murray's return isn't "clearly", if at all, inferior to Federer's.



And those conditions are the same ones Murray excelled in. The "fear" stems more so from there being less places to go against Federer. If you give a middling Div 1 player Murray's return, it still wouldn't inspire fear in an ATG-calibre player.

On that note...if you gave Murray Federer's return, what changes? For the good, a big fat nothing. That's instructive enough. Federer's offensive returning has long been one of the (RELATIVELY) weaker parts of his game. It's Murray's rally passivity that's been his undoing, not the return itself.

And an elite defensive return doesn't need to drastically change match-up dynamics in order to be effective. It's an inherently reactive shot, after all. Speaking in generalities, a good server will nearly always want to serve big/offensively provided that there's not a large drop-off in %'s (and with today's strings, there tends not to be). The gameplan, in that regard, will remain roughly the same almost regardless of who they face. It's just that those largely invariable tactics are less effective against returners like Murray. That his return didn't win him a large share of big matches against Federer is no smoking gun any more than Gonzo being almost completely futile against Fed proving his forehand wasn't elite. It's not a panacea. He lost for other reasons. And again, Federer's return is elite in the same way that Murray's is, except it's complemented by a much more robust offensive game.

Federer can consistently cold **** returns if you serve to his FH, he can consistently dip the ball low and block balls low against big servers, Murray can do none of this. Federer's return has weaknesses in specific settings, but you can (pretty easily) argue he has the best return ever against big servers on fast courts, or serve and volleyers.

It's fair to say Federer's serve is not elite, but of course that means very little because Federer's serve alone will win him boatloads of points against any player, and then set him up to win another boatload with his FH. Murray's return alone won't win him very much against elite opponents, and while it's hard to win points with just a return, definitely elite returners could take control of several points with just the return. Another way of putting it is that a sub-GOAT tier serve or FH is still a massive weapon, whereas a sub-elite BH or return geared around defense and not offense moves the needle very little. I would call Safin's return elite, but even if one thinks it's not quite at that overall level, the fact that it's so geared towards offense makes it a far bigger potential asset with the ability to swing key points vs an elite opponent than Murray's.

But on fast courts, Federer's FH, baseline movement, and BH are all in the top tier, probably GOAT at all 3, certainly the first 2. Anyways, tennis is not an isolated set of skills. Murray is not a particularly dangerous returner because he's not a good timer or striker of the ball compared to the big boys (or even people like Nalbandian, Davydenko, or Hewitt), and this is why his ground game is not that potent either. If you give him Federer's return, whatever that means, you also have to give him Federer's ability to time and strike the ball, which makes him a far better player in every area of course.

It's not really a matter of Murray's overall quality as a player. Nalbandian/Davydenko aren't on par with Federer as overall players yet it's easy to watch some matches and see them doing damage off the BH and return vs Federer in a way Murray couldn't.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Little chance Fed wins 3 straight sets against 12 Djokovic so he'd have to rely on winning a 5th set if he comes out that poorly and spots him a set. Against Murray, a well playing Federer can simply run him over in all departments so winning 3 sets isn't tough once things get going.

Federer was a well-hit DTL backhand from Murray (which he flubbed) away from allowing Andeh to serve for the set. He was dangerously close to going down 2-0 and I have reservations about Fed's form holding up in a decider given the stamina disadvantage and his back problems in that tourney. He probably pulls through, but it stretches credulity to think he was in any way comfortable going down a set.

 

[metsman]

Not the best examples.

Roddick served his worst against Fed and Murray. Even in his wins, he didn't blank Murray's return. Fed had more overall success because he's got the infinitely more secure service game and also because he's the worst possible match-up for Roddick in basically every aspect of the game, not just the return.

On a quick surface, Pete will get into a nice rhythm against every player in tennis history on a normal serving day. Fed's superior third-ball pass would net him more success off the return than Murray...not so much the return itself.

Federer's return vs Murray alone absolutely makes a huge difference against Pete. Federer is consistently blocking and dipping balls low, which makes all the difference. A 19 year old Fed was doing this more often to Pete's serve than Murray (or Agassi or a whole host of other top returners) ever would.

For all intents and purposes, Roddick played 1 match vs Murray that matters. Doesn't look like Murray's return made any tangible difference in that match vs a past his prime Hewitt and a Federer whose return was a step or two down from his best.

Point is no one has ever stepped to the line facing Murray thinking "I really have to nail this serve or else my next ball will be very uncomfortable", it's "just get a decent serve in and it'll take care of itself". If you're a serve and volleyer facing Hewitt or Federer, you are thinking the former. If you are facing Safin and don't hit a perfect serve, the reply might very well be behind you. That has a major effect.

 

[metsman]

Federer was a well-hit DTL backhand from Murray (which he flubbed) away from allowing Andeh to serve for the set. He was dangerously close to going down 2-0 and I have reservations about Fed's form holding up in a decider given the stamina disadvantage and his back problems in that tourney. He probably pulls through, but it stretches credulity to think he was in any way comfortable going down a set.

Yeah which further backs up my point that Federer played better in the SF, and if he had started that flat against Djokovic for close to 2 sets, there's very little chance he would have won, much less in what ended up being a comfortable 4.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Less room and scope for improvement on the forehand, to be sure, but his second serve was frankly so horrific that even getting to tour-average (or slightly above, I dare say) would've been monumental. It was so bad that frame-of-reference bias made his Lendlrray second serve seem good, when even the best version of it was mediocre.

I agree and it still puzzles me that a great player and hard worker like Murray never took his second serve to more than that mediocre level. Like with Zverev, was it just a big mental hurdle? Is there any other top player (or otherwise top player) whose second serve has been that unreliable?

 

[Picmun]

 

[abmk]

Yeah which further backs up my point that Federer played better in the SF, and if he had started that flat against Djokovic for close to 2 sets, there's very little chance he would have won, much less in what ended up being a comfortable 4.

Though Federer played better in the semi overall than in the final, he played better in the 2nd set vs Murray than in the 2nd set vs Djokovic.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Federer can consistently cold **** returns if you serve to his FH, he can consistently dip the ball low and block balls low against big servers, Murray can do none of this. Federer's return has weaknesses in specific settings, but you can (pretty easily) argue he has the best return ever against big servers on fast courts, or serve and volleyers.

Disagree. I don't think anyone can consistently rip big serves. It ascribes a level of supremacy to Fed that even I, the guy who believes Fed's peak is the highest of all time, think overrates him.

And Fed isn't nearly battle-tested enough against s+v's to make such a claim, even though I do agree he'd be on the shortlist.

Murray's return alone won't win him very much against elite opponents,

It'll do enough to make it a pretty damn elite return.

Examine some of his high-profile losses more closely: it has consistently been Murray's service game that falters against potent offensive players. Not the return. Take his much-maligned H2H with Wawa...he completely pissed away a bunch of matches in his prime cuz Stan would tee off on Murray's delivery. The only time Wawa's serve +1 (which markedly improved in '13, but had high peaks before then too) shut him out was against a hampered Andeh at the '13 USO. At the '10 USO he broke Stan 5 times but ceded 8 of his own service games. He never had that much difficulty notching breaks against Stan.

Tsonga had one of the best serve + 1's on tour, a good net game and at worst the second best OH...but also a dreadful return (so he couldn't punish one of Murray's real weak points)...and...surprise-surprise, Murray dominated that H2H. Couldn't do the same v Berd, because while Berd was arguably a weaker player than Jo he had a more stable return game.

Roddick? Delpo? A healthy record against both, despite their excellent attacking games and great +1's (well, when Roddick wasn't pushing).

Look past the surface and you'll see that Murray's return and even return game hold up terrifically in isolation. Sure two of the GOAT +1's (Fed, Nadal) made life miserable off the return for him, but they did so with everyone...and again, they destroyed his serve. As did Djoko. The best return in the history of tennis may not even help that much if you're winning 60% of your service points (58% against Djoko, 59.4% against Nadal, 62.6% against Fed).

and while it's hard to win points with just a return, definitely elite returners could take control of several points with just the return. Another way of putting it is that a sub-GOAT tier serve or FH is still a massive weapon, whereas a sub-elite BH or return geared around defense and not offense moves the needle very little.

No problem with weighing fh and serve much higher than other strokes, they're the two most important strokes and they're why Murray's not on the level of the big three. Still clearly has an elite return and bh, not to mention lobs, defence, and even passes at his very best (although they dropped off after '09 to me).

I would call Safin's return elite, but even if one thinks it's not quite at that overall level, the fact that it's so geared towards offense makes it a far bigger potential asset with the ability to swing key points vs an elite opponent than Murray's.

Yeah, plainly disagree on the last part.

But on fast courts, Federer's FH, baseline movement, and BH are all in the top tier, probably GOAT at all 3, certainly the first 2.

Don't see the purpose of narrowing the parameters, clearly you don't give Murray the same luxury when you hand-wave his success against big servers (which is one of the main determinants of returning effectiveness)...off the top of my head though, Edberg just in the last 30 years has a clearly better BH on fast surfaces.

Anyways, tennis is not an isolated set of skills.

Right, which is why Murray not having a good serve +1 himself (the main culprit for his woes) doesn't make his return any less elite trolololol.

Murray is not a particularly dangerous returner because he's not a good timer or striker of the ball compared to the big boys (or even people like Nalbandian, Davydenko, or Hewitt), and this is why his ground game is not that potent either.

Look, I'm no myopic stats-poindexter, I acknowledge that tennis is a game of interdependencies, that we ought to not think linearly about this sort of stuff, blah blah blah...but this just does not compute. Not a particularly damaging returning, not a very potent ground game...but all-time great return stats, even against good opposition (Top 5, Top 10 players), even on a surface like grass where his great D will matter less...??...no, something has to give. Murray is an elite returner and that elite return has paid dividends.

If you give him Federer's return, whatever that means, you also have to give him Federer's ability to time and strike the ball, which makes him a far better player in every area of course.

@ bolded: it wasn't ambiguous. Giving him Federer's return means giving him Federer's return. Nothing else. Just the return, because that's the topic of the discussion. Of course it's impossible to give him Federer's returning mechanics without it affecting the rest of his game, but that's not the point of the counterfactual. Suspend your disbelief and imagine him reverting back to being Murray once the return is made...he certainly doesn't get much better as a player in that scenario.

It's not really a matter of Murray's overall quality as a player. Nalbandian/Davydenko aren't on par with Federer as overall players yet it's easy to watch some matches and see them doing damage off the BH and return vs Federer in a way Murray couldn't.

I've actually long maintained here that Nalby was without question the best -- better than Agassi, Davy, Nadal, Djoko, Hewitt, anyone -- at attacking Fed's second. So ample credit to him there..a case can be made that he's a top 3 second serve returner OAT and one of the GOAT returners full-stop. In fact it's hard to make the case that anyone was definitively better. Still doesn't make Murray's return non-elite. Federer is not the only player with which to gauge success against, and getting returns back is less sexy than punishing them at the expense of accuracy (which is not to say Nalby was a sieve off the return), so Murray ends up looking worse.

More on the rest later.

 

[metsman]

Disagree. I don't think anyone can consistently rip big serves. It ascribes a level of supremacy to Fed that even I, the guy who believes Fed's peak is the highest of all time, think overrates him.

And Fed isn't nearly battle-tested enough against s+v's to make such a claim, even though I do agree he'd be on the shortlist.



It'll do enough to make it a pretty damn elite return.

Examine some of his high-profile losses more closely: it has consistently been Murray's service game that falters against potent offensive players. Not the return. Take his much-maligned H2H with Wawa...he completely pissed away a bunch of matches in his prime cuz Stan would tee off on Murray's delivery. The only time Wawa's serve +1 (which markedly improved in '13, but had high peaks before then too) shut him out was against a hampered Andeh at the '13 USO. At the '10 USO he broke Stan 5 times but ceded 8 of his own service games. He never had that much difficulty notching breaks against Stan.

Tsonga had one of the best serve + 1's on tour, a good net game and at worst the second best OH...but also a dreadful return (so he couldn't punish one of Murray's real weak points)...and...surprise-surprise, Murray dominated that H2H. Couldn't do the same v Berd, because while Berd was arguably a weaker player than Jo he had a more stable return game.

Roddick? Delpo? A healthy record against both, despite their excellent attacking games and great +1's (well, when Roddick wasn't pushing).

Look past the surface and you'll see that Murray's return and even return game hold up terrifically in isolation. Sure two of the GOAT +1's (Fed, Nadal) made life miserable off the return for him, but they did so with everyone...and again, they destroyed his serve. As did Djoko. The best return in the history of tennis may not even help that much if you're winning 60% of your service points (58% against Djoko, 59.4% against Nadal, 62.6% against Fed).



No problem with weighing fh and serve much higher than other strokes, they're the two most important strokes and they're why Murray's not on the level of the big three. Still clearly has an elite return and bh.



Yeah, plainly disagree on the last part.




Don't see the purpose of narrowing the parameters, clearly you don't give Murray the same luxury when you hand-wave his success against big servers (which is one of the main determinants of returning effectiveness)...off the top of my head though, Edberg just in the last 30 years has a clearly better BH on fast surfaces.



Right, which is why Murray not having a good serve +1 himself (the main culprit for his woes) doesn't make his return any less elite trolololol.



Look, I'm no myopic stats-poindexter, I acknowledge that tennis is a game of interdependencies, that we ought to not think linearly about this sort of stuff, blah blah blah...but this just does not compute. Not a particularly damaging returning, not a very potent ground game...but all-time great return stats, even against good opposition (Top 5, Top 10 players), even on a surface like grass where his great D will matter less...??...no, something has to give. Murray is an elite returner and that elite return has paid dividends.



@ bolded: it wasn't ambiguous. Giving him Federer's return means giving him Federer's return. Nothing else. Just the return, because that's the topic of the discussion. Of course it's impossible to give him Federer's returning mechanics without it affecting the rest of his game, but that's not the point of the counterfactual. Suspend your disbelief and imagine him reverting back to being Murray once the return is made...he certainly doesn't get much better as a player in that scenario.



I've actually long maintained here that Nalby was without question the best -- better than Agassi, Davy, Nadal, Djoko, Hewitt, anyone -- at attacking Fed's second. So ample credit to him there..a case can be made that he's a top 3 second serve returner OAT and one of the GOAT returners full-stop. In fact it's hard to make the case that anyone was definitively better. Still doesn't make Murray's return non-elite. Federer is not the only player with which to gauge success against, and getting returns back is less sexy than punishing them at the expense of accuracy (which is not to say Nalby was a sieve off the return), so Murray ends up looking worse.

More on the rest later.

I never said Federer could cold **** big serves consistently, although there are examples of him timing 130+ mph serves sweetly off both wings, more in a block return of course. Safin is probably the only guy who can cold **** 120 mph+ serves with some regularity, maybe Agassi too if it's right to him, but not as well as Safin. But it's not Federer's style to take swings at such serves, instead he blocks him back, which is what makes him a better returner of big serves than those guys. But give Federer an average quality first serve to his FH and he can time it and easily get through the court with it, someone like Agassi can't do that as well.

We're not talking about performance against top 5 or 10 players, we're talking about performance at the level of all time great. And Murray has basically no performances at that level, his best slam win is what exactly? So saying "how could Murray accomplish X with no elite weapons" isn't saying anything, he simply did not accomplish anything that elite. Any player who was a bit better than Berdych, Ferrer, and Tsonga and who was consistent enough for 5-10 years would have put up Murray's career accolades. Of course the 2nd part is no given which is what sets Murray apart, but it also says little about the pure strengths of his game. But against a peak Federer/Sampras Murray is far closer to David Ferrer, a fly to be swatted aside on autopilot, than he is to Marat Safin, or even to a Roddick serving his best. Simply put, no part of his game is relevant to hang at that level of tennis, plain and simple. Which is no shame, but it's also not true of someone like Roddick, Hewitt, even Delpo who had attributes to their game that could hang with anyone, yet are supposedly considered inferior players to Murray, which is quite funny.

Give Murray Safin's return (even without Safin's timing and ballstriking off the ground) and he's a more dangerous player, 100%. Give Murray Federer's return and he definitely does better against Sampras or other top serve and volleyers.

The point about timing and ballstriking is to show that it's basically impossible for Murray to have a truly elite return given how mediocre he is off the ground at those things. They are inextricably linked because it's largely the same skill, the main exceptions being is if someone has longer stroke mechanics, e.g. Stan, but then I also wouldn't call them elite timers because they need extra time and slow courts. Nadal is also another exception due to his more unorthodox stroke mechanics, obviously the one hander also creates a relatively large liability on return to the length of the stroke. Anyways that's in the forward direction, in the reverse direction, it's unheard of for any elite returner to not also be an elite timer and ballstriker.

Federer is the main point of comparison simply because he's faced basically every single important 2HBH and returner of the modern game in big matches, both guys in good form, etc.

 

[metsman]

Though Federer played better in the semi overall than in the final, he played better in the 2nd set vs Murray than in the 2nd set vs Djokovic.

but Djokovic also played far better in that set, and there's little change that Federer can sneak out that set playing at the level of the 2nd set vs Murray.

Federer in the SF played 3 very good sets vs 2 in the F, so that alone puts it above, but the ordering of the sets was also much better in the SF.

 

[abmk]

but Djokovic also played far better in that set, and there's little change that Federer can sneak out that set playing at the level of the 2nd set vs Murray.

Federer in the SF played 3 very good sets vs 2 in the F, so that alone puts it above, but the ordering of the sets was also much better in the SF.

I'd say there is a chance if Fed can keep holding till the business end vs Djoko in the 2nd set semi, like he did in the final. Not like Murray wasn't playing well in that 2nd set in the final.

For fed:

sets 1 and 4 in the semi were excellent
sets 3 and 4 in the final were excellent

set 3 in semi and set 2 in the final were very good, but not excellent - similar overall level wise. set 3 in the semi was good hitting wise, but some UFEs where he was not able to get the break and then to go down BP late in the set. set2 in the final was a little more passive from the ground, but cleaner.

the differences IMO :
1. the 2nd set in the semi was meh while 1st set in final was below par
2. and yes obviously ordering of the sets was better in the SF

 

[abmk]

Little chance Fed wins 3 straight sets against 12 Djokovic so he'd have to rely on winning a 5th set if he comes out that poorly and spots him a set. Against Murray, a well playing Federer can simply run him over in all departments so winning 3 sets isn't tough once things get going.

Djokovic's return is a bit overrated for the same reasons as Murray, and usually a well serving Fed could readily set up +1 shop, but ultimately he does a lot more damage on his return. Most evident against Nadal, but also Djokovic can usually hurt an average/mediocre serving Fed (e.g. last couple sets of 15 Wimbledon, first couple sets of 16 AO), which Murray can't. Murray is better at returning big serves than Djokovic, but that's more of a knock on Djokovic. Murray still doesn't hit as many tough returns against big servers as Federer or Hewitt do. He usually floats them back to some depth, enough to short circuit Raonic, Isner, or Karlovic, but Roddick, or god forbid Pete, will still get into a very nice rhythm.

But that's more to do with djoko's ground game matching up better vs fed and mental strength than returning per se. Point remains that Murray returned Fed's serve clearly better accounting for fed's clearly better serving in the semi. Keeping down fed's unreturned serves to 22% at Wim is no small feat.

I think you are under-estimating frustration that can come when you are not getting enough free points on serve. that is also damage, though not as obvious.
Murray may not get it as deep as Hewitt, but he doesn't exactly offer up lollipops on the return either. its why the likes of delpo, tsonga etc. who do have excellent FHs struggle vs him. federer in slams is a different scenario due to his better all around game and focus.

didn't Murray destroy federer's serve in Shanghai 10 for example? broke him 5 times in Canada 10 as well.
If we're sticking to slams, we have AO 13 where Murray broke fed many times and even breaking him twice in 1st set of Wim 12.

 

[TheFifthSet]

I never said Federer could cold **** big serves consistently, although there are examples of him timing 130+ mph serves sweetly off both wings, more in a block return of course.

Fair enough.

But it's not Federer's style to take swings at such serves, instead he blocks him back, which is what makes him a better returner of big serves than those guys. But give Federer an average quality first serve to his FH and he can time it and easily get through the court with it, someone like Agassi can't do that nearly as well.

While helping him on the first, bolded was one of his flaws on the second serve return, another thing I've droned on about.

We're not talking about performance against top 5 or 10 players, we're talking about performance at the level of all time great.

And Murray has basically no performances at that level, his best slam win is what exactly?

We're talking about returning performance specifically, and he's delivered many fantastic showings off the return.

How many opportunities has he even had to meet your criteria for what qualifies as elite returning against elite (ATG) competition with ATG-level serves on quick surfaces? If you hold Federer to this standard, he's got like 3-4 top returning performances which qualify, tops.

You're disqualifying matches against bots, Roddick, and apparently even ones against those with merely 'great' serve +1's and solid net games (Tsonga) aren't gonna cut it, so......who the heck are we left with?

Really just Fed, the guy with the BEST third-ball fh of all time. And even against him, he wasn't completely feckless. Murray played like trash in the '08 final, a clear step down from his level in the semi's even if it ultimately just converted a would-be close-ish loss to a thumping.

But to answer your Q...he returned fantastically in '12 Wimby, against Karlo (one of only two times in 118 matches that Karlo was broken over three times on grass), Cilic, Tsonga and Fed. It's hard to hand-pick a tougher draw in that field.

Plenty of brilliant other individual returning performances on quicker surfaces...has put on many clinics against Isner and Karlo (Cincy 08 springs to mind, ridiculous stuff after going down an early break), '10 Shanghai against Fed, '11 Queens against Roddick, '12 Olympics against an admittedly tired Fed, '12 USO against Rao...some off the top of my head.

Of course he's also had field days against Djoko and Nadal's serves before, but guessing that doesn't qualify here?

So saying "how could Murray accomplish X with no elite weapons" isn't saying anything, he simply did not accomplish anything that elite. Any player who was a bit better than Berdych, Ferrer, and Tsonga and who was consistent enough for 5-10 years would have put up Murray's career accolades. Of course the 2nd part is no given which is what sets Murray apart, but it also says little about the pure strengths of his game. But against a peak Federer/Sampras Murray is far closer to David Ferrer, a fly to be swatted aside on autopilot, than he is to Marat Safin, or even to a Roddick serving his best. Simply put, no part of his game is relevant to hang at that level of tennis, plain and simple. Which is no shame, but it's also not true of someone like Roddick, Hewitt, even Delpo who had attributes to their game that could hang with anyone, yet are supposedly considered inferior players to Murray, which is quite funny.

I suspect we're talking about different things here. This exchange started with you claiming Murray had no elite strokes. Whether those strokes, elite or not, vault him to Fed, Nadal, Djokovic or whoever levels is another matter altogether. No prob with Murray being well behind them and a fair few other players since '08 wrt one-match peaks, but that's not what I was talking about, and you underrate him.

Or maybe not. A slightly better version of Tsonga, a guy with an astonishingly high peak, whos consistent for 5-10 years? Sign me up.

Never thought I'd defend Murray this much.

Give Murray Safin's return (even without Safin's timing and ballstriking off the ground) and he's a more dangerous player, 100%.

I know Safin's never been known for his consistency, and to measure him by his day-in day-out stats does what he achieved at his best a disservice...but disagree. Murray shades him too much defensively. Safin in his 10 best returning matches might be better, that's the nature of high-variance offensive returning, but I don't think that is suited to Murray's game as much when he's already holding his own off the return in big matches.

Give Murray Federer's return and he definitely does better against Sampras or other top serve and volleyers.

This is what I mean when I bemoan the narrowing of parameters lol. Putting aside the fact that Murray has awesome anticipation and pretty good passing (so even as-is, I don't think he'd be completely helpless against s+v)...there was practically no incentive for Murray to fine-tune his return to be more resistant to s'n'v. Sampras retired before he turned pro. S'n'v had long gone out of vogue by the time Murray won anything of note.

And Fed's offensive movement after the return is in play, as well as his passing shots, and basically everything else on quicker surfaces aside from rally drive bh and lobs...are better. That goes a long way in explaining his superiority against just about ANY type of player, whether they're baseliners, all-courters, s'n'v'ers, pushbots, whatever.

The point about timing and ballstriking is to show that it's basically impossible for Murray to have a truly elite return given how mediocre he is off the ground at those things. They are inextricably linked because it's largely the same skill, the main exceptions being is if someone has longer stroke mechanics, e.g. Stan, but then I also wouldn't call them elite timers because they need extra time and slow courts. Anyways, Murray's strokes are compact enough.

They're not the same skill. First serve returning is more about anticipation, reflexes, reach and control/shot tolerance. Murray gets more balls back on quick surfaces than anyone since the data has started getting tracked. Anyone, and that's without consistently standing obscenely far back like Nadal and many of his present-day returning acolytes do. Now while his second serve return isn't Djoko or Agassi-like, he gets solid depth and his ballstriking is decent enough. A heavier ball would do him well, but even just his offensive return isn't mediocre. It's easy to assume that because Murray's rally ball is too passive that his return is as well, but that's not quite the case.

 

[metsman]

I'd say there is a chance if Fed can keep holding till the business end vs Djoko in the 2nd set semi, like he did in the final. Not like Murray wasn't playing well in that 2nd set in the final.

For fed:

sets 1 and 4 in the semi were excellent
sets 3 and 4 in the final were excellent

set 3 in semi and set 2 in the final were very good, but not excellent - similar overall level wise. set 3 in the semi was good hitting wise, but some UFEs where he was not able to get the break and then to go down BP late in the set. set2 in the final was a little more passive from the ground, but cleaner.

the differences IMO :
1. the 2nd set in the semi was meh while 1st set in final was below par
2. and yes obviously ordering of the sets was better in the SF

set 3 in the semi was far better than set 2 in the final, and I would put it in the great category. Mostly took care of his serve easily, almost generated the early break, and then broke for good with a brilliant game. In set 2 in the final he still didn't have the juice and was hanging on.

 

[abmk]

set 3 in the semi was far better than set 2 in the final, and I would put it in the great category. Mostly took care of his serve easily, almost generated the early break, and then broke for good with a brilliant game. In set 2 in the final he still didn't have the juice and was hanging on.

I'd say it was a little better, but not far better and put in the same category. Murray was playing clearly better than Djokovic in the respective sets. That was Murray's best set of the match.
in the 3rd set of the semi, fed missed his chances to break Djoko. fed had to face BP late in the 3rd set after that. The break in the next game included (needed?) an easy overhead miss from Djokovic, though federer did play well to get the break.

in the 2nd set of the final, Fed did have a chance to break Murray early. did face BPs in 2 seperate games, but when he did break, it was an amazing game

2nd set of the final:
fed with 19 winners to 8 UFEs. 36 winners+errors forced to 8 UFEs
Murray with 14 winners to 4 UFEs. 30 winners+errors forced to 4 UFEs

2012 Wimbledon Championships Website - Official Site by IBM

The official site of the Wimbledon Championships at the All England Club is presented by IBM. Follow The Championships, get live scores and results, and see who will win this grand slam tennis tournament.

web.archive.org

3rd set of the semi:

The UE counts in the semi are off. So I took my own.

fed with 9 UFEs
Djoko with 11 UFEs

fed with 9 winners to 9 UFEs, 26 winners+errors forced to 9 UFEs
djokovic with 5 winners to 11 UFEs, 22 winners+errors forced to 11 UFEs

Peak level of play (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic & Co.)

I have very little for Edberg and Courier. Just these: can't find ue's on Stich & Korda, sounds like Courier could have had great numbers in these matches from '93 AO(and the final as well) Courier, 18-0 in sets so far this tournament and a four-set victor over Edberg in last year's final...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

Official stats are here , but really the UE counting is off

2012 Wimbledon Championships Website - Official Site by IBM

The official site of the Wimbledon Championships at the All England Club is presented by IBM. Follow The Championships, get live scores and results, and see who will win this grand slam tennis tournament.

web.archive.org

Even if you take fed's UEs to be 6 or 7 instead of my 9 (its definitely not 4 UFEs), I don't see much of gap in federer's stats even accounting for more aggressive play from the baseline vs Djoko.

Federer was more aggressive from the baseline vs Djoko, but cleaner/approaching the net more vs Murray.
Of course Murray was clearly better in the set than Djoko was in his.

 

[abmk]

Maybe early in his career it was, but at some point he started with these absolutely ridiculous second serve returns inside the court, which failed him time after time against Djokovic in 2014-2016. I mean, any tennis coach will tell you that you should either be behind the baseline, or rush the volley, but never stay at the middle of the court. Even if you get such a return in, a player like Djokovic will then hit the next shot deep, and you are lost.

I remember in some of their 2014-2016 matches I was actually hoping for Djokovic to hit a first serve in some rallies, because I felt more confident in Murray returning it.

I remember some of those 2nd serve returns from Murray, but not too many.

I checked:

Djoko vs Murray for career: 2nd serve points won = 54.3%
12 matches in 15-16, it went upto 58.6%
ignoring 14 as Murray was coming back from surgery.

don't think one thing against an opponent changes it drastically though. Murray in 15-16 was still returning very well including dissecting very good/excellent servers.