Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by sureshs, Jan 9, 2009.
Murray has become the new Nadal for Federer. He will lose to him every time from now on.
My prediction is :
Murray will need 5 sets to beat Federer in his 1st win at a slam though (unless Federer truely declines).
6-2, 7-5, 6-2 Fed > Murray, tells me otherwise.
Again, Federer is only concentrating most on the Slams (which are the most important tournaments), as he is wanting to surpass Sampras' record. I think a lot of people have said this but he just doesn't seem to put a lot of intensity in to the smaller tournaments, but rather, looks at those as a warm up and preparation for the big ones.
As to your claim, I guess we'll see..
all of a sudden, the prospect of federer reclaiming the world's number 1 ranking is getting a lot tougher.
You could take that and say that, "The prospect of Nadal maintaining his World No. 1 Ranking is getting a lot tougher" as well???? ^^
No, Murray IS the NEW Federer. Let's all jump the bandwagon.
Murray seems a very difficult match up for Federer, but all his losses were very tight, so I wouldn't say that. Federer won their only meeting in a Grand Slam and it's more difficult to beat Federer in a best-of-five-match. They have only played on hardcourt, so I'm very curious to see these two meeting on clay. IMO Federer is still the best claycourt-player after Nadal. I'm sure Murray will be a big contender in the future, but Federer will find a way to beat him now and then.
It was Murray's first GS Final. Look at Djokovic in U.S 07. His first then went on to destroy Fed in the AO 08. Except Djoker dosen't have enough fight and gameplan to consistently take out Fed (e.g US Open 08).
what is this crap about federer concentrating only on the slams? it is as if federer doesn't even try for the smaller tournaments.
federer badly wanted to win today...it was obvious...he tried his best and lost.
this is all bull crap. Federer is So much better than Murray. The only thing Murray is good at is playing a boring strategy against a half hearted Fed in exhibition matches and what are essentially warm up matches before grand slams.
I know, but Murray hasn't proved yet he can Federer beat in a Grand Slam. I'm sure he is able to do it, but as long as he don't beat Federer in a Slam you have to be carefully with predictions like 'Federer will never beat Murray again'. Murray won four times in a row against Federer, but if he loses at the Australian Open to Federer when it really matters, that would be very embarrassing.
you guys have any interview of federere post match??
OP: Even on grass? Doubtful.
Murray continues improving, I would like Murray's chances against Fed on ANY SURFACE. It would be interesting to see how Murray improved on clay and grass.
But to say Fed didnt care about the match today is inaccurate. Fed was sitting there screaming the F words when he messed up on a few points. Thats a pretty good indication Fed wanted this match.
Of course until Murray finally wins a slam and can take Fed down in the process during a 5 set match, Murray is still below Fed at this point. But he does have his number with the 3 set matches
Fed took a dump on murray at the USO so I really doubt that.
I rather see Fed win two more majors than reclaim the number one spot. He's held the #1 spot long enough. What was Sampras' ranking when he won USO for the last time?
yep. to think about a year ago, after borg had predicted that murray could become the next number 1, a number of people in this forum said borg was out of his mind.
Fed was angry for his unforced errors. However it still seems to me that the result of that match never really bothered him. He was too cool in the way he calmly put those points at the net. Looks like someone in control. He has Murray in his pocket.
But enough about murray. He is a gobshite who will always have deep rooted negative sentiments towards England. What he said before was his true reflection. What he said after was what he was trained to say to satisfy the egalitarian norms of the world we live in. Fed drops the lowest strokes to the net I have ever seen. Fed is the best technically by stats and technically by technique. Murray is a lanky choker.
Murray has improved alot since last year.. Federer has lost his confidence and consistency since last year.. it will be tough for Federer to get a few more slams .. I hope he will.. and I pray he will.. but it's very very tough for him now
Federer is still my boy.
If Murray was straight setting Federer then I might wonder. But Federer is still winning sets, and if you can win sets then you can win matches.
Out of the 14 majors Sampras won, he was only seeded #1 at 7 of them.
I doubt Fed, Nadal, etc will remember what days/months they were ranked #1years from now. But they will likely remember what major trophies they won(though Sampras already can't remember what years he won what majors)
Back on topic, Murray is only the 2nd player to win 3 straight matches vs Fed since 2004(Nadal being the other)
And he's the first player to beat him 3 straight times on a hardcourt since Nalbandian in 2003. I don't think these are insignificant stats.
and so the bandwagon rolls into town
just be aware, whenever the Murray bandwagons crashes, you shall jump off ship. [whats the saying about rats aboard a ship?]
he's never won a slam, he's not invincible (like Nadal) on a single surface, his second serve is a liability (and when he gets worried and starts missing his first serve, anyone can beat him), he'll nevr dominate, and most of all... he doesn't have the magic of a true great- however, i expect him to win a few slams for sure
Look at Federer's elegance, look at Murray. Nothing alike. Federer plays like a champion, loses like a champion and wins like a champion. Murray wins and loses like they're the same thing. He is as charismatic as my foot, on a good day.
people aren't saying they're *fans* of the murray ship, just that it's a good ship. when it starts sinking, people will say it's not a good ship any more. and they'll be right.
Maybe Fed is playing the old mind game tactic with Murray.
Murray had the h2h on Fed before the US OPEN and look at how Fed destroyed him.
Until Murray can prove something at the slams against Fed, I wont be totally convinced but he has a darn good chance.
Is it me or did Fed just look like he gave up sometime in the 3rd. Talk about some pathetic tennis Fed was displaying. Or maybe he just though to himself, "Damn I cant beat this kid. No matter what I do, he comes back and gives it to me tenfold."
sad but true
murray is a good player...maybe even a great player but he is uninspiring
He should try losing the first set for a change.
i seem to remember a similar thread was made when nalbandian was routining federer...and then boom...federer starts owning bandy.
I agree with WorldBeater. Roger always finds a way, like he did with Nalbandian although the thing about that is Murray is more consistent then Nalbandian. I have no doubt Roger will turn the H2H around though.
I still prefer Murray, he just feels more real to me.
Agreed. Murray is an exceptional player, but his game isn't all that special. I mean how many players are out there who have a 2 hander along with a solid ground game, a good serve, and ok net play. Sounds like the majority of players doesn't it? Now compare that with Federer who has a liquid-whip forehand, a beautiful one-hander, amazing mental cool, and all court variety to bring to the court. There aren't many players out there like that and that's why he'll always be one of my favorite players. I certainly hope that although his year may not be as successful as lets say 2006, he'll be on at the right times which we'll allow him to win majors and break Pete's record. After that, he should just leave the game. It's always good to retire on a good note.
Consistent ugly two hander is better than erratic beautiful one hander
4 if you also include the exhibtion in Abu-Dhabi.I agree,definitely not insignificant stats.
I don't get what people when they mean Fed is different in slams/only concentrating on slams. why did he enter Doha then? or Kooyong?
if you say it's to get in match practice, well, he lost his match to murray! did he throw it or something? I think not.
Fed needs to forget about the number rankings, he had it for very long time and he is past his prime now. He needs to focus more on slams
Nalbandian and Hewitt used to beat Federer when Federer had not reached his prime. Since Federer reached his prime, Nalbandian only beat Federer on indoors and Hewitt couldn't beat him.
Murray is a totally different case. He is an upcoming player who just arrived and will probably stay in the top for many years whereas Federer will struggle to mantain his level in the next years. Their tendencies are completely opposite.
3 consecutive wins over Federer (not counting the exo from last week) is very impressive. I think only Nadal did it against a prime Federer. Federer, like any other player, has some bad matchups and both Nadal and Murray are not only great players but also bad matchups for Federer. You have to accept that. Although on clay and grass Federer would be the clear favourite against Murray at the moment.
well...lets not forget that nalbandian did come back and take two straight against federer in 2007 only to get owned twice in 2008. so you never know.
also..nadal is a special player on clay...murray is good on hc but i dont know if he is revolutionary like federer or nadal.
Those are match-ups, not stats. Yes Murray has had the edge recently but so did Canas in early '08. I agree with alot of fine points about Feds game. It's fun to watch. Murray is winning more because his fitness has improved and undoubtedly he may win a few like Hewitt did at his fitness prime. But like all retrievers, probably with the exception of Borg, they only as good as their legs.
respectfully disgaree. did you see fed today?
Murray had to run to catch him in front of the ump's chair to shake his hand, Fed didn't give him the time of day and didn't shake the chair ump's hand.
is that how a champion loses? or did he just invest so little emotionally/physically into the match that he thought it didn't warrant the proper etiquette?
Never? We'll see.
Then again, Fed starts the season with a SF and picks up 90 points. He did better than either Nadal or Djokovic. Djoker now needs 110 points, or better than a SF at Sydney, to match Federer. Federer was not defending any points, so it's all to the good. The drama is all Djokovic at this point.
either way i think this will be one of the most entertaining years, we have seen in a while, with lots of people contending for the one ranking.
Is that why he didn't give Andy the time of day at the net?
Roger Federer is a cool champion and a cool guy when winning, when he's up against a lets say troublesome player, Nadal and Murray, his coolness goes away and his real character shows.
again with this now that he has gained a advantage in H2H you assume he will be doing this in a best of 5 set hmm.... does US open final remind you of something
Federer was a tantrum throwing little sket before he started winning, convenient that nobody seems to know that despite the documentaries and books written about him.
Who are you asking? :-?
i was following off of one of gamesampras's points about murray not being able to beat federer in a best of 5 but in a best of 3 he is coming out on top
Separate names with a comma.