Murray is going to challenge federer on grass__HAHAHA
- Thread starter aphex
- Start date
zagor
Bionic Poster
Don't be so hasty to draw conlcusions.Each new match is a completely different situation due to many different factors(form of the day,match-ups etc.).Did you think Fed's gonna win the FO given in how much trouble he was against Chucho?
I'd favour Fed on grass if they meet as well but Murray is a problematic match-up for Fed,he has definitely proven that and will have enormous crowd support if they meet in the final.
I'd favour Fed on grass if they meet as well but Murray is a problematic match-up for Fed,he has definitely proven that and will have enormous crowd support if they meet in the final.
That's what I fear. If Federer believes that too, he could be in trouble. If not, I think he would just own Murray on grass. I saw a very passive Murray yesterday who let his opponent be aggressive. Federer should be able to make less unforced errors and to serve even better than Kendrick did. He also has a much better slice than Kendrick or Murray and should be able to grind out a part of the very long rallies as well. That said, I think Murray didn't play well against Kendrick and will do a lot better as the tournament progresses.
Blinkism
Legend
Well, if you remember the end of the first set, Kendrick was 2 points away from taking it, and then he was able to take the tight second set.
I felt, while watching the match, that if Kendrick was just a bit better mentally and less sloppy, that he could have actually beat Murray. He had the right plan and a good aggressive approach, but he didn't put it all together for the entire match.
That's why I'm convinced that Federer will beat Murray in the final... that is, if Murray makes the final (and Fed for that matter, although I don't see who'll stop him)
I agree, he could have won the first set no doubt. He started off poorly and I believe that also cost him. However, I think Murray will vastly improve over these two weeks. The courts will slow down which might work in his favour against Federer as well. It's just not that easy that you can say; Let's see, Djoko, Roddick and Murry lost a set, Federer didn't, so he's gonna win easily. That's not the way it works.
Tennis_Bum
Professional
Both you and Blinkism made good points, but I tend to agree with Blinkism more simply because I think had Kendrick tightened his forehand he could have own the 1st set. Murray looked so tight at 4-5. I mean Love-30 at 4-5 you got to really take good care of the point. Granted Murray served an ace at love-30, but I don't think Kendrick played a good game at 4-5 at let Murray escape. It would be interesting if Kendrick won the 1st set. I am not saying he would go on to win the 2nd as he did, but it would make thing interesting to say the least.
Joe is right too, just because some guys struggle with first round that doesn't mean they won't clean up their game later on. The is no guarantee for Fed at the later stage of the tournament. But if I am a betting man, I will bet that Fed will win Wimbledon if based solely on the first 2 days of the tournament.
I just hope that Fed continues to play that way and tighten his forehand even more. I think Fed's forehand is the shot that gets him into a lot of trouble. Sure he hits great shots with it, but a lot of times he makes life so difficult for himself with that sometimes erratic forehand, which happens more and more nowadays.
Clydey2times
Hall of Fame
Not only that, but this guy had a 2 sets to love lead on Nadal in 2006, the year Rafa first made the final.
We're talking about an incinostent player, not a bad one. If he's serving well, he's a problem for anyone.
Murray's stats are actually very good for the match. Played better than I thought, simply because he was expected to blow Kendrick away.
Murray hit 52 winners and 19 UEs (minus 20 aces to make 32 winners from a rally). Murray also served huge. Kendrick barely got a sniff, while Andy was constantly in Kendrick's service games.
cork_screw
Hall of Fame
If fed would have played murray at the French this year, he would have lost. And this is coming from a federer fan. I'll admit it. He's got his number. Murray would have played completely different. A lot of rolling the ball in and neutralizing balls and points. Murray plays with a lot of junk. He's somewhat of a professional pusher. But he's learned how to win that way, so all I can say is it's working for him. Not super fun to watch, but it gets the job done against a lot of players.
Love Game
Talk Tennis Guru
Why do you say that? Just because he lost a set to Kendricks? Kendricks kicked out Simon from the French. I saw it and wouldn't be so quick to discount Kendricks as you apparently are.
Bottom line: Andy Murray won!
maximo
Banned
Blinkism
Legend
I see what you're saying, but I still think that Murray is more flawed with his grass court game than Federer.
Federer struggling through the French Open was not because his game was poor, but more the fact that he played sloppy, unfocused, and uninspired in some of his matches. It was more mental than fundamental.
For Murray, however, it seems that if he's up a good grass courter and he can't play his service game as well as he possibly can, that he'd probably lose.
That's why I think Fed would beat him, granted that he is serving well.
TennisFan481
Banned
Federer does still have to (probably) get through Kohlschrieber, Soderling, and Tsonga/Verdasco/Karlovic. That's assuming Garcia-Lopez doesn't shock the world tomorrow (highly unlikely, but hey...tennis has certainly had its share of shocks).
As a fan of Federer, this draw is a bit unsettling with how the 3rd, 4th, and QF all look to be tough matches (possibly the semis, though Djokovic is so flawed mentally that it's really hard for me to see him actually taking out Federer there).
As a fan of Federer, this draw is a bit unsettling with how the 3rd, 4th, and QF all look to be tough matches (possibly the semis, though Djokovic is so flawed mentally that it's really hard for me to see him actually taking out Federer there).
Love Game
Talk Tennis Guru
if your prediction turns out to be true (which i have my doubts because just who do you think is gonna take andy out?) ... anyway, if that happens i think roger w/b blowing the ricola pipe!
Cesc Fabregas
Legend
No worse than some of your posts.
Leublu tennis
Legend
how interesting8
He can play with that junk in other tournaments and maybe sneak wins but I doubt in Grand Slams that will happen especially not against great players like Nadal and Federer. It takes a LOT more than pushing and good defence to beat them over 5 sets when it matters most.
Last edited:
Leublu tennis
Legend
I second that12
ChanceEncounter
Professional
Murray has Fed's number on hard courts. He's never come close to taking 3 sets off of Federer anywhere, much less on his best surface: grass. Clay is both of their weakest surfaces, but Murray struggles much more on clay than Federer does.
Regarding their possible finals matchup, Federer plays nothing like Kendrick, so we can't assume. That said, Federer rarely so much as drops a set on grass against anyone other than Nadal, so I'm not sure why everyone feels Murray would beat him at Wimbledon.
Underhand
Legend
What sits in a golden purse.
abmk
Bionic Poster
NO ways .. you realise you are talking about murray who hasn't reached a CC final till now ?????? Clay is his WORST surface and he is still not that comfortable playing on it
Plus Grand Slams are a different story from 3-setters
Last edited:
Its because the majority of people that think this simply are unable to grasp the difference between Grand Slams and lesser tournaments and keep thinking Federer is the same player in Grand Slams that he is in all the lesser tournaments. And no matter how many times Federer keeps doing the business in Grand Slams, they will still actually not get this.
To draw the analogy: What Murray and his supporters seem to think is because he beat Federer at Tiddlywinks that he will now automatically have a great chance to beat Federer at Chess, when Federer is the Master (Tiddlywinks being Non-Grand Slam tournaments and Chess being Grand Slams).
Clydey2times
Hall of Fame
Yet more excuses. I can't wait for Murray to beat Federer in a GS just to put that idiotic excuse to bed once and for all. It might not be at Wimbledon (5 sets or 3 sets, Federer is the favourite on grass). I know who my money is on if they play at the US Open, though.
No excuses, just plain and simple facts. Ive actually played in the top level at a different sport so I know more or less how the great players raise their game at the majors. Murray has yet to prove it so until he does your argument holds no water. Looks like you might have to wait a while longer.
Lol @ as if the US Open makes any difference. Federer has been just as dominant there as at Wimbledon if not more so.
Clydey2times
Hall of Fame
Federer beats Murray in one major and you cling to that like a security blanket.
"But, but, but they played once in a major and Federer won!"
Yeah, and he's lost 4 times since then. If Federer beating Murray at majors becomes a trend, you have a point. Until then, you're basing everything on a sample of one. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you're not a scientist.
Clydey2times
Hall of Fame
It's a better surface for Murray and he has proven in the last year that he is the better hard court player right now. That includes their H2H and the points accrued on hard courts.
Breaker
Legend
Murray .
Cesc Fabregas
Legend
Its not forgone conclusion that either is in the final lets wait and see eh?
I can see too that Federer should hold a clear advantage on a grasscourt. However, the murray serve won't be easy to break, and it will be down to Federer to bring his best if that match pops up on final sunday. If he brings his best there's no doubt in my mind TMF will win, but if he doubts himself and their matchup, he could be in trouble.
I disagree with the part about Federer struggling at the FO because he was uninspired. Maybe against acasuso and PHM, but not against Del Potro or Haas. He was very inspired and wanted it so badly. It just doesn't come that easy anymore today. it's not 2006 anymore and if his forehand doesn't work the way he wants it to work, he can have a tough time on any given day against good players.
I agree though that I think the chances of Murray being upset in this tournament are a lot higher than Federer's. I give Federer like a 95% chance of making the semis at least, while I can see Murray losing to guys like Gulbis, Gonzales or maybe even Wawrinka if he doesn't play his best.
Clydey2times
Hall of Fame
Exactly. Murray needs to raise his game. I'm sure he will, but it just shows that he did look a little nervous yesterday, given all the pressure.
Still, if he keeps serving like that, he'll be hard to beat.
Leublu tennis
Legend
Congrats on making GOAT, Love.Why do you say that? Just because he lost a set to Kendricks? Kendricks kicked out Simon from the French. I saw it and wouldn't be so quick to discount Kendricks as you apparently are.
Bottom line: Andy Murray won!
Leublu tennis
Legend
This is a pattern by this character. Set up threads that are insulting to some player in order to inflame the readers. It has nothing to do with tennis and people like that should not be allowed to participate at TW.
malakas
Banned
how he insulted?He thought so,and I have seen around much worse threads than this!And maximo asking for someone's banination is at least LAUGHABLE!
since he has more than a couple times personally offended others.
Lol @ Scientist comment.
No im not a scientist but I have also experienced being a top player at another sport so Im well aware how the truly great players raise their level at the biggest majors. Ive seen it time and time again. Its not just tennis. Ever heard of Stephen Hendry. He was the same as Federer. Brilliant at majors but so-so at lesser events, but boy did he turn it on when on the biggest stage.
No im not a scientist but I have also experienced being a top player at another sport so Im well aware how the truly great players raise their level at the biggest majors. Ive seen it time and time again. Its not just tennis. Ever heard of Stephen Hendry. He was the same as Federer. Brilliant at majors but so-so at lesser events, but boy did he turn it on when on the biggest stage.
Clydey2times
Hall of Fame
Lol @ Scientist comment.
No im not a scientist but I have also experienced being a top player at another sport so Im well aware how the truly great players raise their level at the biggest majors. Ive seen it time and time again. Its not just tennis. Ever heard of Stephen Hendry. He was the same as Federer. Brilliant at majors but so-so at lesser events, but boy did he turn it on when on the biggest stage.
I'm Scottish. Of course I've heard of Hendry, the greatest player ever.
Hendry has won 36 ranking titles and 36 non-ranking titles. Therefore, your assertion is false.
Lol @ Scientist comment.
No im not a scientist but I have also experienced being a top player at another sport so Im well aware how the truly great players raise their level at the biggest majors. Ive seen it time and time again. Its not just tennis. Ever heard of Stephen Hendry. He was the same as Federer. Brilliant at majors but so-so at lesser events, but boy did he turn it on when on the biggest stage.
Are you Ronnie O'sullivan?
Now I understand why your a Murray fan. :twisted:
I have played against Hendry.
Your take on his non-ranking titles is rather misleading. part of those non ranking events were his 6 Benson & Hedges Masters titles, which is regarded as the next most prestigious event after the World championship basically alongside the UK championship.
What I meant about Hendry was that he excelled at the "Big 3" i.e. World Championships, Masters, and UK Championships. Those were where he really produced the goods time and time again. Just like Federer does at the Grand Slams. Those 3 events are Snookers equivalent of Grand Slams.
Hence why I compare Federer to Hendry. Hendry used to routinely lose to lesser ranked players in lesser events, but come the World Championship you just knew it would take an astounding performance to beat him, no matter if he played against a player he had lost to ten times at lesser events, it would not matter, because he was a different animal when it really mattered.
jelle v
Hall of Fame
That would be so cool, snooker is my second favorite sport to watch after tennis.. Ronnie is the GOAT of snooker.. he is the Federer of snooker, or Federer is the Ronnie O'Sullivan of tennis.. both are heroes in my book anyway.. please let it be Ronnie O'Sullivan
That would be so cool, snooker is my second favorite sport to watch after tennis.. Ronnie is the GOAT of snooker.. he is the Federer of snooker, or Federer is the Ronnie O'Sullivan of tennis.. both are heroes in my book anyway.. please let it be Ronnie O'Sullivan
Don't get too excited. Ronnie's kinda cool though.
Leublu tennis
Legend
Flawed mentally? Thats a new one but I suppose you are well qualified to make judgments of something so familiar to you. Right?
Clydey2times
Hall of Fame
Throughout the 90s, Hendry was consistent everywhere. Maybe you're referring to the 00s.
And I'm a Murray fan for reasons that go beyond patriotism. Plenty of Scottish people dislike Murray. Bit insulting to be so presumptuous.
On another note, how did you fare against Hendry?
Sarzy
Hall of Fame
Federer is NOT going to crush Murray on the final.
Because Andy won't reach the final.
I agree. But if they do both make the final, I'd bet that Fed would win in 3 or 4.
