The Murray-Federer rivalry in 2006-10!

[tennis_pro]

That Federer rarely gave a F about matches outside of the Slams in 2008 to 2010.

8 out of 13 ATP finals Federer reached from mid 2008 to early 2010 were Slam finals. The dude was all about the Slams at the time. And the 2006 loss yeah look how dead tired Federer was during that match.

 

[Lew II]

Well, Murray didn't had that luxury to play against Philippoussis, Baghdatis, Roddick, Hewitt or Safin in his first seven slam finals and build his Slam confidence winning Slams against lesser players than Fed and Djoko isn't it.

2010-16 Murray is 10-0 in slam finals and semifinals against non-Big3.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Well, Murray didn't had that luxury to play against Philippoussis, Baghdatis, Roddick, Hewitt or Safin in his first seven slam finals and build his Slam confidence winning Slams against lesser players than Fed and Djoko isn't it.

If Murray had to play against Hewitt peak for peak they are splitting everything.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

2010-16 Murray is 10-0 in slam finals and semifinals against non-Big3.

1-0 in actual finals though.

Great competition, Lew. A guy who is almost a candidate for Jenny Craig.

 

[RF-18]

If Murray had to play against Hewitt peak for peak they are splitting everything.

 

[Nadal_Django]

LOL indeed.

 

[Djokovic2011]

That Federer rarely gave a F about matches outside of the Slams in 2008 to 2010.

8 out of 13 ATP finals Federer reached from mid 2008 to early 2010 were Slam finals. The dude was all about the Slams at the time. And the 2006 loss yeah look how dead tired Federer was during that match.

What happened to your thread t_p?

 

[tennis_pro]

What happened to your thread t_p?

nadal_mango's trolling got it deleted

 

[Eren]

BO5 was the true indicator then, while BO3 became that true indicator instead in a certain period when Fred constantly fell short against a certain someone at Slams.

Not sure what you mean. BO5 was, is and always will be the true indicator. Between 14-16 Federer lost 6/10 times against someone else than that certain someone you mean.

 

[tennis_pro]

Well, Murray didn't had that luxury to play against Philippoussis, Baghdatis, Roddick, Hewitt or Safin in his first seven slam finals and build his Slam confidence winning Slams against lesser players than Fed and Djoko isn't it.

What happened at 2009 Wimbledon, mango?

 

[junior74]

Murray hasn't beaten Federer since 2013.

Will this thread be deleted, too?

 

[Eren]

What happened at 2009 Wimbledon, mango?

Mugray lost to Roddick which automatically means that it was baby Murray. Of course, Murray stopped being a baby right before he lost AO '11 final to Djokovic. How convenient.

Almost as convenient as Nadal's injury excuses, his "not prime on surface X but peak on surface Y and just lost his peak on surface Z" BS.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

No real counter argument I see.

Did Murray play Federer any closer when he was under 30 than Lleyton did here?

Or are you going to throw a bunch of meaningless stats at me?

That's right, you're another one who believes Federer was at his best at 35.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Mugray lost to Roddick which automatically means that it was baby Murray. Of course, Murray stopped being a baby right before he lost AO '11 final to Djokovic. How convenient.

Almost as convenient as Nadal's injury excuses, his "not prime on surface X but peak on surface Y and just lost his peak on surface Z" BS.

Murray stopped being a "baby" when he made it to No. 4. He's just not good enough. End of.

 

[Eren]

Murray stopped being a "baby" when he made it to No. 4. He's just not good enough. End of.

Of course he is not good enough lol. His 3/11 in Slam finals is all you need to know.

 

[RogerFederer007]

No real counter argument I see.

Did Murray play Federer any closer when he was under 30 than Lleyton did here?

Or are you going to throw a bunch of meaningless stats at me?

That's right, you're another one who believes Federer was at his best at 35.

I could see peak for peak they are tie at 5-5 or a slight edge to murray (mostly due to he is much better than Hewitt on Clay). However over the course of their career Murray would eventually have a dominant head to head thanks to his longevity.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I could see peak for peak they are tie at 5-5 or a slight edge to murray (mostly due to he is much better than Hewitt on Clay). However over the course of their career Murray would eventually have a dominant head to head thanks to his longevity.

Well I said peak for peak for a reason.

I don't know if Murray is all THAT much better on clay than Hewitt peak for peak (on a one match only basis). This is a guy that beat Kuerten on clay and pushed Nadal really hard at Hamburg in '07 when he was already past his own peak.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Of course he is not good enough lol. His 3/11 in Slam finals is all you need to know.

"Oh, it's because he had to deal with the three greatest of all time!".



Guy does worse than Roddick against Federer in finals but he's offered excuses. I love it.

 

[NoleFam]

Murray stopped being a "baby" when he made it to No. 4. He's just not good enough. End of.

So if Murray was "just not good enough", what does that mean for Hewitt? I mean he did lose 15 times in a row to Federer, correct?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

So if Murray was "just not good enough", what does that mean for Hewitt? I mean he did lose 15 times in a row to Federer, correct?

Did I say he was good enough?

Murray certainly isn't either. And the same Federer Murray beat in 2013 I'd give Hewitt OR Roddick serious chances against.

That's before you pump up back-brace wearing Federer...

 

[NoleFam]

Did I say he was good enough?

Murray certainly isn't either. And the same Federer Murray beat in 2013 I'd give Hewitt OR Roddick serious chances against.

That's before you pump up back-brace wearing Federer...

Well you are crapping on Murray while you prop up Hewitt. LOL. You do it so often man. He lost 15 times in a row, and got double bageled in a Slam final. Bringing up that final actually makes him look worse so I don't know why you do it so often. It's embarrassing.

Murray may not be good enough but he is at least better than Hewitt, historically. I actually think he deserves a little more respect.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Well you are crapping on Murray while you prop up Hewitt. LOL. You do it so often man. He lost 15 times in a row, and got double bageled in a Slam final. Brining up that final actually makes him look worse so I don't know why you do it so often. It's embarrassing.

Well it's not like Nadal_Django doesn't take pride in lumping Hewitt in with disasters like Baghdatis. So why not?

Murray got beaten 6-0, 6-1 by Federer at the WTF but you guys never bring that up often... wonder why? Guess how old Federer was then? Real embarrassing.

Murray may not be good enough but he is at least better than Hewitt, historically. I actually think he deserves a little more respect.

Hasn't shown it level wise.

I think Lleyton deserves more respect than to be called a weaponless pusher, compared to Ferrer, Baghdatis and a whole slew of mugs and called a "weak era champion".

The second that happens is the second I stop "crapping" (which is really just talking the truth) about Murray.

 

[RogerFederer007]

"Oh, it's because he had to deal with the three greatest of all time!".



Guy does worse than Roddick against Federer in finals but he's offered excuses. I love it.

I don't think peak Murray would have any impact on Federer overall achievements if they are contemporaries. Maybe Murray could take some master tittle away from Fed but Fed could have more GS and WTF. I don't see any version of Murray that could beat Fed at BO5 like Safin at AO 2005 or Nalbandian at TMC 2005 for eg.

 

[Eren]

"Oh, it's because he had to deal with the three greatest of all time!".



Guy does worse than Roddick against Federer in finals but he's offered excuses. I love it.

LOL yes. At least Roddick pushed prime Federer to 5 at Wimbledon and 16-14!

What did Peak Murray do in 2012? Losing in 4 LOL

PS: Don't even bother to lump the Olympics with Slams lol. Slams >>>>>>>>>>...>>>>>>> Olympics

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I don't think peak Murray would have any impact on Federer overall achievements if they are contemporaries. Maybe Murray could take some master tittle away from Fed but Fed could have more GS and WTF. I don't see any version of Murray that could beat Fed at BO5 like Safin at AO 2005 or Nalbandian at TMC 2005 for eg.

I don't even know about MS-1000s. Depends really. Federer's concentration in those events isn't what it is in majors so I would give him a shot and Murray's already done it anyway.

We all know their history in majors...

 

[RogerFederer007]

I don't even know about MS-1000s. Depends really. Federer's concentration in those events isn't what it is in majors so I would give him a shot and Murray's already done it anyway.

We all know their history in majors...

Yeah. Murray won a total of 1 set in 3 of their GS final meeting which is embarrasing, compare to Roddick who won 4 set for Eg. And that is peak vs post-peak Roger. I have nothing against Murray but sometimes people use him and Wawrinka as a tough competition for Fed which is hilarious.

 

[NoleFam]

Well it's not like Nadal_Django doesn't take pride in lumping Hewitt in with disasters like Baghdatis. So why not?

Murray got beaten 6-0, 6-1 by Federer at the WTF but you guys never bring that up often... wonder why? Guess how old Federer was then? Real embarrassing.


Hasn't shown it level wise.

I think Lleyton deserves more respect than to be called a weaponless pusher, compared to Ferrer, Baghdatis and a whole slew of mugs and called a "weak era champion".

The second that happens is the second I stop "crapping" (which is really just talking the truth) about Murray.

What does Nadal_Django have to do with what I said? I'm not talking about Baghdatis.

It was one match in a year when Murray returned from injury and not playing his best. One match does not equal a whole career and it was just a round robin best of 3 match. I'm sorry but getting shut out twice in Slam final is worse.

He may deserve more respect but the fact is, he doesn't deserve more respect than Murray who earned his stripes. You can argue over level or peaks but Murray's records, stats and even his head to heads speak for themselves. He is in a different class than Hewitt.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Yeah. Murray won a total of 1 set in 3 of their GS final meeting which is embarrasing, compare to Roddick who won 4 set for Eg. And that is peak vs post-peak Roger. I have nothing against Murray but something people use him and Wawrinka as a tough competition for Fed which is hilarious.

If Murray was peaking in 04-07 he'd have 0 slams.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

What does Nadal_Django have to do with what I said? I'm not talking about Baghdatis.

He's someone I'm trying take a subtle dig at, nothing to really do w/ our conversation.

It was one match in a year when Murray returned from injury and not playing his best. One match does not equal a whole career and it was just a round robin best of 3 match. I'm sorry but getting shut out twice in Slam final is worse.

I disagree.

And I love how you're offering all the excuses in the world for Murray but ignoring Hewitt played an abysmal match.

He may deserve more respect but the fact is, he doesn't deserve more respect than Murray who earned his stripes. You can argue over level or peaks but Murray's records, stats and even his head to heads speak for themselves. He is a different class than Hewitt.

He hasn't even really separated himself from Hewitt achievement wise. He still leads him in WTF trophies for example... and time at No. 1. But that's chalked up to a "weak era".

Ignoring the fact Murray only had to face the likes of the mighty Cilic and Anderson en route to No. 1.. LOL.

 

[RogerFederer007]

If Murray was peaking in 04-07 he'd have 0 slams.

I would give him a shot at AO 2006, Fed was still not full recovered. However he has to be in 2012 or 2013 form to have a chance.

 

[NoleFam]

LOL yes. At least Roddick pushed prime Federer to 5 at Wimbledon and 16-14!

What did Peak Murray do in 2012? Losing in 4 LOL

PS: Don't even bother to lump the Olympics with Slams lol. Slams >>>>>>>>>>...>>>>>>> Olympics

You guys try your best to brush off that Olympic final but Murray was on fire that day and that was a great victory for him. It happened on Centre Court no less in a BO5. Also, he gave Federer a real scare in that Wimbledon final and he was the better player for almost two sets in that match. The momentum shifted late in the 2nd set, a set where Murray had his chances.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I would give him a shot at AO 2006, Fed was still not full recovered. However he has to be in 2012 or 2013 form to have a chance.

Depends on when he enters the picture... If he has mental fatigue and has taken beating after beating from Federer like his own generation did I give him no hope. And that's not because of his game.. but he'd walk out onto the court already thinking he's lost.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

You guys try your best to brush off that Olympic final but Murray was on fire that day and that was a great victory for him. It happened on Centre Court no less in a BO5. Also, he gave Federer a real scare in that Wimbledon final and he was the better player for almost two sets in that match. The momentum shifted late in the 2nd set, a set where Murray had his chances.

Olympics.

I guess Del Potro is better than Djokovic peak for peak then.

And like Davis Cup doesn't matter... LOL.

 

[NoleFam]

He's someone I'm trying take a subtle dig at, nothing to really do w/ our conversation.


I disagree.

And I love how you're offering all the excuses in the world for Murray but ignoring Hewitt played an abysmal match.


He hasn't even really separated himself from Hewitt achievement wise. He still leads him in WTF trophies for example... and time at No. 1. But that's chalked up to a "weak era".

Ignoring the fact Murray only had to face the likes of the mighty Cilic and Anderson en route to No. 1.. LOL.

Because it was a round robin match and not a Slam final. The level of difference in importance is huge. It's not an excuse but just a reality. They both played terrible matches but Hewitt played 6 matches to get to that final without dropping a set just to be destroyed.

Yes he has. You are just in denial because you're a big Hewitt fan. Murray's consistent high level career dwarfs Hewitt's and Hewitt's one extra WTF does not cover it. Murray has over 400 weeks in the top 5 and Hewitt doesn't even have 200.

 

[NoleFam]

Olympics.

I guess Del Potro is better than Djokovic peak for peak then.

And like Davis Cup doesn't matter... LOL.

Did I say anywhere that Murray was greater than Federer peak to peak? That would be ludicrous and you are reaching. Murray defeated him in a big match, and BO5, and so many of you on here try to downplay it. That was a big victory and actually was his biggest victory until the USO a month or two later.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

One interesting thing about the Fedurray rivalry: Murray fared better in the earlier part when Fed was still playing top or at least prime tennis. In the 2nd half when Fed's level dipped some, the h2h reversed. Seems odd as it is inverse from how the 2 are doing at the time.

On the other hand, Federer has always done well when it counts against Murray at the slams.

Think Murray's game is a bit of a challenge for Fed so if he's not up to going all out he has a higher chance of losing then you might thinkk (a masters, Olympics etc), he's said so himself that Murray's game might match up well. Before people get their panties in a knot, that doesn't mean Murray is anywhere near being better (obviously not overall) but even in a h2h sense....I'm sure Fed would get the best of him peak for peak at any slam.

 

[D.Nalby12]

Murray was like what Coric is for Federer now. It took some time to solve his game. Yet he convincingly won both Slam matches in that period.

 

[Djokovic2011]

NoleFam and Sabratha already showing great promise for one of the best rivalries to come in 2019.

 

[Eren]

You guys try your best to brush off that Olympic final but Murray was on fire that day and that was a great victory for him. It happened on Centre Court no less in a BO5. Also, he gave Federer a real scare in that Wimbledon final and he was the better player for almost two sets in that match. The momentum shifted late in the 2nd set, a set where Murray had his chances.

LOL

If a 4 set vic was a scare then what about Roddick's 5 set loss and he was closer to a 2 set lead than Murray was.

Also, Roddick faced a Fed who came off of a RG victory and was a boss at Wimbledon for years.

Murray encountered a Fed who came off of 2 QF exits at Wimbledon who had not won a slam for more than 2 years.

Need I say more?

 

[NoleFam]

LOL

If a 4 set vic was a scare then what about Roddick's 5 set loss and he was closer to a 2 set lead than Murray was.

Also, Roddick faced a Fed who came off of a RG victory and was a boss at Wimbledon for years.

Murray encountered a Fed who came off of 2 QF exits at Wimbledon who had not won a slam for more than 2 years.

Need I say more?

Why are we talking about Roddick? I thought we were talking about Murray and his record against Federer. Frankly, I think Federer in 2012 Wimbledon played a better tournament than he did in 2009, a least in the last 3 rounds, but that is a topic for another day. The fact is you are laughing at Murray's 4 set loss but I wonder did you have this same laughter when Murray was up a set with a break point at 4 all in the 2nd? He gave Federer a real scare there until the momentum shifted so it wasn't as cut and dry as you are making it out to be.

 

[Eren]

Why are we talking about Roddick? I thought we were talking about Murray and his record against Federer. Frankly, I think Federer in 2012 Wimbledon played a better tournament than he did in 2009 but that is a topic for another day. The fact is you are laughing at Murray's 4 set loss but I wonder did you have this same laughter when Murray was up a set with a break point at 4 all in the 2nd? He gave Federer a real scare there until the momentum shifted so it wasn't as cut and dry as you are making it out to be.

Ooohh...

Fair enough. He obviously is a good player on grass. He's got 2 Wimbledons to show for it.

I was talking about comparative performances of Murray and Roddick in Slam finals against Fed because Roddick is seen as weak competition whereas Murray is seen as strong competition. Just showing that their level of play did not differ much.

 

[NoleFam]

Ooohh...

Fair enough. He obviously is a good player on grass. He's got 2 Wimbledons to show for it.

I was talking about comparative performances of Murray and Roddick in Slam finals against Fed because Roddick is seen as weak competition whereas Murray is seen as strong competition. Just showing that their level of play did not differ much.

I don't see why this is relevant but I will say Roddick performed better against Federer in Slam finals overall compared to Murray, because Murray really underperformed in the 1st few. However, Roddick had a terrible matchup disadvantage against Federer and lost 11 matches in a row and 15/16. He wasn't a real rival to Federer.

 

[Nadal_Django]

So if Murray was "just not good enough", what does that mean for Hewitt? I mean he did lose 15 times in a row to Federer, correct?

That dude is writing stuff that even Becky Cartwright would be ashamed of. Lol

 

[NoleFam]

That dude is writing stuff that even Becky Cartwright would be ashamed of. Lol

Who is Becky Cartwright? LOL. Sabratha is not so bad but he does go into the area of idealism when it comes to Hewitt.

 

[Nadal_Django]

Who is Becky Cartwright? LOL. Sabratha is not so bad but he does go into the area of idealism when it comes to Hewitt.

Naah, he is just another Federer fanboy through and through.
He is just pushing his Fed agenda religiously by proping Feds main 2004-07 competition Hewitt and Roddick.
I suspect he even likes Hewitt that much tbh, but the Myth about the Peak Fed has to be protected by any means, and sometimes in the process you have to swallow some bitter pills I suppose.

 

[Eren]

I don't see why this is relevant but I will say Roddick performed better against Federer in Slam finals overall compared to Murray, because Murray really underperformed in the 1st few. However, Roddick had a terrible matchup disadvantage against Federer and lost 11 matches in a row and 15/16. He wasn't a real rival to Federer.

Read Posts #51 and #61 for the relevance of my posts.

 

[duaneeo]

He is just pushing his Fed agenda religiously by proping Feds main 2004-07 competition Hewitt and Roddick

2004 - 2007 meetings:

Federer/Roddick: 10 (5 slams, 2 TMCs, 2 Masters, 1 250)
Federer/Hewitt: 11 (5 slams, 2 TMCs, 4 Masters)
Federer/Nadal: 14 (5 slams, 2 TMCs, 6 Masters, 1 500)

 

[Shank Volley]

I don't see why this is relevant but I will say Roddick performed better against Federer in Slam finals overall compared to Murray, because Murray really underperformed in the 1st few. However, Roddick had a terrible matchup disadvantage against Federer and lost 11 matches in a row and 15/16. He wasn't a real rival to Federer.

Ignores the fact that Murray has a match up disadvantage against Djokovic because they play the exact same A and B game and Murray does everything worse. He can't even try to win by playing to his strengths because his strengths are just exactly the same as Djokovic's but worse.

It's like Federer having Dimitrov as a main rival. What the f**k do you expect is going to happen when they play?

 

[NoleFam]

Ignores the fact that Murray has a match up disadvantage against Djokovic because they play the exact same A and B game and Murray does everything worse. He can't even try to win by playing to his strengths because his strengths are just exactly the same as Djokovic's but worse.

It's like Federer having Dimitrov as a main rival. What the f**k do you expect is going to happen when they play?

Lol. Is this a joke? Regardless of how Murray matches up with Djokovic, he has beaten him 11 times and twice in Slams. The head to head was 11-8 Djokovic after 2013. Roddick beat Federer 3 times and never in a Slam. It's not comparable.

 

[oldmanfan]

One interesting thing about the Fedurray rivalry: Murray fared better in the earlier part when Fed was still playing top or at least prime tennis. In the 2nd half when Fed's level dipped some, the h2h reversed. Seems odd as it is inverse from how the 2 are doing at the time.

On the other hand, Federer has always done well when it counts against Murray at the slams.

Think Murray's game is a bit of a challenge for Fed so if he's not up to going all out he has a higher chance of losing then you might thinkk (a masters, Olympics etc), he's said so himself that Murray's game might match up well. Before people get their panties in a knot, that doesn't mean Murray is anywhere near being better (obviously not overall) but even in a h2h sense....I'm sure Fed would get the best of him peak for peak at any slam.

Yes, Murray's game brought challenges to Fed, especially early on. Besides injury and poor form, in order to beat a decent Fed, a player needs 3 things:

1) good-to-great serve
2) great consistency
3) be very fast to retrieve/defend

It's possible to beat him with any of those 3 abilities sometimes, but to beat him consistently would require having all 3.

Djokovic and Nadal has all 3, Murry sometimes has all 3. So they beat Fed more often than others. OTOH, it's also why Monfils/Simon/Ferrer/RBA/Nishikori didn't win much against Fed. They usually only have 2 of those 3 abilities when at their best (all lack a good-great-serve, with Monfils having the best serve?).

Naah, he is just another Federer fanboy through and through.
He is just pushing his Fed agenda religiously by proping Feds main 2004-07 competition Hewitt and Roddick.
I suspect he even likes Hewitt that much tbh, but the Myth about the Peak Fed has to be protected by any means, and sometimes in the process you have to swallow some bitter pills I suppose.

Is it so hard to see what @Sabratha is saying?
Ever consider that prime/peak Fed just makes ALL non-ATGs look pedestrian? What do I mean? Well, look at prime-peak Murray since AO2013 (the last time Murray beat Fed, and barely). Murray hasn't managed a win over Fed in 5yrs since, and won 1 set out of 12 sets played (a TB set at that). Fed was 32.5-37.5yrs old from AO2013 to now, a luxury Hewitt/Roddick DIDN'T have.