Is the H2H between Murray and Federer so significant?

[*Sparkle*]

We all know Federer is a great player, which is exactly why it's so cringe-worthy that his fans try to brush these sorts of statistics under the carpet. He's a great player who has dominated almost every player he's come up against, it's just that Murray isn't one of them.

You are complaining that people are using it to "diminish Fed", but it sounds far more like the Fed-fanatics are trying to diminish Murray by finding excuses for why it shouldn't count.

Show a bit more respect for all players and the sport, and accept that some players are a bad match-up for others, and being a really great player doesn't except you from bad match-ups.

They've played each other far too often, and the balance has remained fairly steady, so claims that it's lucky or a fluke just don't wash. I understand that in the early days it was an easy and lazy conclusion to presume Murray just happened to catch Fed on a bad day, and that was fine before Murray fully established himself and the pattern was clear to see, but now it just looks daft.

 

[jg153040]

I've noticed over the months that the revisionists have been gradually changing their perception of what happened during this match. At the time, almost everyone accepted Murray was easily the better player and the score didn't reflect how one-sided it was, and that Murray was foolish/Fed was lucky for it to go to five sets.

As the months have passed, the match has apparently become more even, with Murray being "pushed to five sets", and so it's inevitable that it would eventually become a fluke win.

I don't know how significant the OP means when we are asked if it's "so significant". It is a meaningful H2H, one that has stuck to a similar ratio throughout their shared careers, so cannot be dismissed, and certainly not on the grounds of it being "peak Murray" versus "OAP Fed". (another bit of Fed-fanatic revisionism) However, it doesn't detract from Federer's considerable achievements over the years, including some big wins over Murray.

It shows that Murray is a bad match-up for Federer. Murray doesn't own him, but he does have his number, and he's had it for a long time. It makes the tour far more interesting that we've got an all time great, who is revered by so much of the tour, but who isn't entirely invincible. It makes tennis much more interesting for those of us who aren't glory hunting record obsessives.

Clearly, the Fed-fanatics do think it's significant, or they wouldn't put so much effort into defending it, or claiming it's irrelevant.

This is strange argument. I can say. Clearly Rafa-fanatics do think it's irrelevant, otherwise the wouldn't put so much effort into creating those kind of threads.

 

[jg153040]

We all know Federer is a great player, which is exactly why it's so cringe-worthy that his fans try to brush these sorts of statistics under the carpet. He's a great player who has dominated almost every player he's come up against, it's just that Murray isn't one of them.

You are complaining that people are using it to "diminish Fed", but it sounds far more like the Fed-fanatics are trying to diminish Murray by finding excuses for why it shouldn't count.

Show a bit more respect for all players and the sport, and accept that some players are a bad match-up for others, and being a really great player doesn't except you from bad match-ups.

They've played each other far too often, and the balance has remained fairly steady, so claims that it's lucky or a fluke just don't wash. I understand that in the early days it was an easy and lazy conclusion to presume Murray just happened to catch Fed on a bad day, and that was fine before Murray fully established himself and the pattern was clear to see, but now it just looks daft.

BTW, I don't think Murray is a bad matchup for Fed, since he is a right handed player and doesn't hit with such topspin.

 

[Steve0904]

What happened in this thread? Seriously. Why is every other Federer fan so bent out of shape that Murray has a winning record against him. Murray is a fantastic player who has said numerous times that he enjoys playing Roger, obviously because he plays against him so well. He's always matched up well against Federer at every point in there careers. It is not a shame or a crime that Fed has a slight losing record to a guy like Murray. As I said, Murray is a fantastic player.

Sampras has a losing record against Krajicek and Nadal has a losing record against Davydenko for example, and neither of those guys are anywhere near the caliber of Murray. Of course, I'm talking about Davydenko and Krajicek not Nadal and Sampras.

Point being, a player is never going to have a winning record against everyone else, and isn't it better to have losing records to better players than inferior (for lack of a better word) ones. I actually very much enjoy the on court tactics that play out when Federer does play Murray, as opposed to the rather predictable patterns that play out when Federer plays Nadal or Nadal plays Djokovic for example.

 

[*Sparkle*]

This is strange argument. I can say. Clearly Rafa-fanatics do think it's irrelevant, otherwise the wouldn't put so much effort into creating those kind of threads.

That doesn't even make sense.

BTW, I don't think Murray is a bad matchup for Fed, since he is a right handed player and doesn't hit with such topspin.

Fair enough. If you don't think Murray is a bad match-up for Fed, then what do you attribute his winning H2H? Are you accepting that he's simply better?:shock:

 

[ScottleeSV]

The Murray-Federer h2h is an interesting one.

- Murray led 6-2 early on when Fed was in his prime, but in the years where Fed has been not as good as he was, he's reduced the arrears to, what, 11-9?

- No clay meetings. Not even one. This is very sad, not because I think Fed would have won (although most of his career he would have been favourite), but simply because two great players never meeting on a surface isn't good for the game. Let's hope they get one chance to play next year. It might actually be more possible now that Federer is in the 5-8 ranking bracket.

- Although Murray is 11-9 up, you would still take Federer's '9' by a country mile, wouldn't you? 3 majors to 0 against 1 poxy gold medal at the olympics.

 

[jg153040]

That doesn't even make sense.


Fair enough. If you don't think Murray is a bad match-up for Fed, then what do you attribute his winning H2H? Are you accepting that he's simply better?:shock:

First, Murray doesn't lead in big matches, so your premise is wrong anyway. So, if past prime Fed can defeat prime Murray in majors, Fed is simply better, it's not a bad matchup.

I mean Fed lost to plenty other guys in masters, so what. It matters what you win, not what you lose.

And tennis has a tournament and rankings structure to determine who is better player anyway. They don't have a h2h structure. So your second premise is wrong too.

 

[jg153040]

What happened in this thread? Seriously. Why is every other Federer fan so bent out of shape that Murray has a winning record against him. Murray is a fantastic player who has said numerous times that he enjoys playing Roger, obviously because he plays against him so well. He's always matched up well against Federer at every point in there careers. It is not a shame or a crime that Fed has a slight losing record to a guy like Murray. As I said, Murray is a fantastic player.

Sampras has a losing record against Krajicek and Nadal has a losing record against Davydenko for example, and neither of those guys are anywhere near the caliber of Murray. Of course, I'm talking about Davydenko and Krajicek not Nadal and Sampras.

Point being, a player is never going to have a winning record against everyone else, and isn't it better to have losing records to better players than inferior (for lack of a better word) ones. I actually very much enjoy the on court tactics that play out when Federer does play Murray, as opposed to the rather predictable patterns that play out when Federer plays Nadal or Nadal plays Djokovic for example.

Who is upset? This is a discussion and the guy was asking for opinions. I gave my reasons why I don't think h2h between Murray and Fed takes anything away from Feds legacy.