Fed is still the better player, the reason he lost the semis to Murray is....
 

Seriously, the only reason Fed lost this match (and it's only one match after all...) is that his serve was the worst I've seen him in a long long time.
Thinking that he was hitting almost only 2nd serves and managed to push Murray to 5 sets shows all the greatness of the man. On the other hand, Murray was serving very well throughout. Huge difference, right there. Look no further. It was a bad day for Fed, it can happen. It's clear than if Fed had served like he has through the tournament until the semis, he would have had a real chance at winning this.

It's pretty clear that Federer didn't play amazingly well during the match. Murray's play was the overwhelming factor in the match's outcome, however. He did everything he need to in order to win. His serving was downright insane and he was committed to his strategy of exploiting Federer's backhand during the entire match. Federer made some poor tactical errors and Murray capitalized on almost every occasion. Murray played an exceptional match and I cannot take that away from him.

So why did he stop serving like he has when he reached the most crucial matches of the tournament? :confused:

If you could just go out and serve as well as you wanted, then perhaps I would be a professional tennis player by now. :lol:

Fed lives and dies by his serve now more than ever. It used to be his main weapon but now vs top competition, it's dangerously close to becoming his only one.

I really wish the outcome of Federer's matches weren't so dependent upon his serving performance. Unfortunately, at this stage of his career, he needs to serve extremely well to give him a chance at winning these big matches against Djokovic, Murray, and Nadal.

Come on. Fed is a pro. He knows more than anyone else out there just exactly what it takes to win Slams. By the time he reaches the semis he's in cruise control and coming into peak performance. Dodgy serving is for the early rounds against nobodies who would never be able to take much advantage of them anyway.

Might it just be that Murray as an opponent was hitting so well that it made Fed nervous and put him off his serve? If he was serving below par in the semi-final of a Slam, there must have been a good reason and, for my money, the good reason was the guy on the other side of the net!

Well that and 56 enforced errors, something of a record. He played tired, timing was off. But that's not to take anything from Murray, he played great, I pick him over Djoke.

Bingo. If I remember correctly, Fed was actually putting in a decent amount of first serves the first couple of games, but Murray's returning was extraordinary. What would have been an ace (or service winner, at the least) against other opponents was neutralized by Murray. From there on, his chances of winning a point dramatically went up.

Fed was going for better placement on his first serve than previous matches and therefore missed quite a few. Of course, he is usually able to place the serve pretty well, but Murray's great return game surely didn't help.

He'll never play consistently brilliant tennis again. His foot movement is a fraction slower than in his prime, hence the shanks. Still a great player but he's now 3/4 not 1/2, and won't be again.

Nice theory and what is the excuse for his other 10 losses to Murray now?

Murray's a beast now, physically and mentally. It's amazing how many people are desperate to give him no credit at all. I think he's more naturally gifted than lance (he owned him in juniors) and is now catching up physically and mentally.

He also was not serving very well against Tsonga. I don't care who you are or how great you are at something, you aren't always going to play your best. Showing remarkable consistency is usually just a case of having a much higher general level than your opponents.

It isn't taking anything away from Murray to say Fed wasn't at his best. Murray was likely not as his absolute best either. Murray got the win and that is all that matters. I'll be rooting for Murray at 3:30 am my time, by the way. :lol:

Fed was definitely far from his best. Horrendous serving and festival of UEs.

The problem is that Fed is going to have to bring out close to his best for at least two matches in order to win another slam. That is obviously getting difficult for him, not to mention that his current best is no longer going to guarantee a win.

It is still possible, but it would be easier if he could pick up a couple of the better draws. :lol:

This is good news for you, of course, but don't count him out completely.

Ha ha . Fed's draw at AO was tough. I agree that he can still make finals if he gets a bit of a break with the draw. Still, at 32, a top player's days are numbered. That's a law of nature.

Consistency still counts for a lot, and will give Federer a few more chances at a Slam. It is only January and Federer has played well after an amazing run last year. You can't play your best tennis all the time. I would be happy for Federer to peak around WO.

Djokovic will win a significantly higher number of slams then Murray when all is said and done. He is far and away the better player. murray can't even play on clay.

I think he played fine last set aside. Serve was a bit off but credit where it is due- Muzza won the match

If Fed served well, then the match would have been more even and it is likely that he would have won the match.

Fed's backhand was way better than normal and that was the reason that he was able to take it to 5 sets. If he had the 2008-2010 backhand combined with the poor serve, it would have been disaster.

Federer needs good serve now to win matches against Nole and Murray to compensate for his movement.