Can Federer fix H2H vs Murray?

[yoloiamtheman]

If by chance Tsonga is beaten by Murray or loses early Federer and Murray could meat at the quarters of Madrid open. So can Federer fix the H2H ??


Mind it Murray beat Federer in most of the 3 set matches but Federer has 4-1 in GS matches including 3-0 record in GS finals (Wimbledon,Aus,US-3 different GS) and also 3-1 in WTF. But Murray also beat him in Olympic finals.

Also they have never met each other on clay else the H2H could have been 17-11 instead of 10-11 (assuming they meet each other once every year on clay).


So can Federer take lead in this rivalry???

 

[newpball]

Frankly I think Tommy Robredo should be able finish him off just fine.

:grin:

 

[every7]

Defintely. Isn't the head to head close at the moment anyway? I think Federer can salt away a few good wins against Andy if he plays him this year, particularly in the next few weeks.

 

[The Green Mile]

Yep, 10-11 in murrays favour or something like that. He should be ahead at the end of the year, with the way murray is playing...

 

[Wynter]

Thing is all of the 'Big 4' have 4-5 years on Fed. They almost all shpuld be leading him in H2H, its almost ridiculous they don't with the exception of Rafa of course.

 

[helloworld]

Thing is all of the 'Big 4' have 4-5 years on Fed. They almost all shpuld be leading him in H2H, its almost ridiculous they don't with the exception of Rafa of course.

Rediculous excuse. Fed had the luxury of playing baby Murray and Djokovic for YEARS and still managed to have a negative H2H. If anything, Fed should be LEADING both Diokovic and Murray by a large margin, but he does not.

 

[6-3 6-0]

Not possible in Madrid as AMurray will probably be knocked out before he reaches QF. First round against NAlmagro is gonna be a tough match and he may very well be knocked out.

Let's hope they finally meet on clay

 

[6-3 6-0]

Rediculous excuse. Fed had the luxury of playing baby Murray and Djokovic for YEARS and still managed to have a negative H2H. If anything, Fed should be LEADING both Diokovic and Murray by a large margin, but he does not.

PSampras still managed to have negative H2H against Baby RFederer :lol:

 

[helloworld]

PSampras still managed to have negative H2H against Baby RFederer :lol:

Meeting 1 time in their career isn't exactly anything to write about, TROLL.

 

[6-3 6-0]

Meeting 1 time in their career isn't exactly anything to write about, TROLL.

Yes. It is, TROLL!

 

[ledwix]

There isn't really anything to be fixed or that can be fixed. Regardless of next week's results, their match-up will be about tied. Djokovic-Federer and Djokovic-Nadal are also nearly tied.

Since there is no prize for leading a match-up with a single player, it is a statistic, meaning it should be treated statistically. Whether a h2h is tied, or a player leads by one match, it doesn't really have any big implications, except in how the victories translate to actual titles.

 

[PrinceMoron]

If by chance Tsonga is beaten by Murray or loses early Federer and Murray could meat at the quarters of Madrid open. So can Federer fix the H2H ??


Mind it Murray beat Federer in most of the 3 set matches but Federer has 4-1 in GS matches including 3-0 record in GS finals (Wimbledon,Aus,US-3 different GS) and also 3-1 in WTF. But Murray also beat him in Olympic finals.

Also they have never met each other on clay else the H2H could have been 17-11 instead of 10-11 (assuming they meet each other once every year on clay).


So can Federer take lead in this rivalry???

as long as Federer does not have to play JMdP for 4 hours the day before, he should be fine.

 

[jg153040]

If by chance Tsonga is beaten by Murray or loses early Federer and Murray could meat at the quarters of Madrid open. So can Federer fix the H2H ??


Mind it Murray beat Federer in most of the 3 set matches but Federer has 4-1 in GS matches including 3-0 record in GS finals (Wimbledon,Aus,US-3 different GS) and also 3-1 in WTF. But Murray also beat him in Olympic finals.

Also they have never met each other on clay else the H2H could have been 17-11 instead of 10-11 (assuming they meet each other once every year on clay).


So can Federer take lead in this rivalry???

17 vs 2
302 vs 0
4-1 in GS
3-0 in GS finals

Yeah, this needs fixing. Makes Fed indeed look very bad.

 

[*Sparkle*]

Rediculous excuse. Fed had the luxury of playing baby Murray and Djokovic for YEARS and still managed to have a negative H2H. If anything, Fed should be LEADING both Diokovic and Murray by a large margin, but he does not.

Well said. I keep seeing it repeated that Federer was disadvantaged by the age gap, and that should theoretically apply now, if he were playing a fully fit Murray. However, they played a lot of matches when Fed had the upper hand age wise, and Murray still managed to get ahead.

That said, Federer does have a good chance of evening things up if they meet in Madrid, but obviously they both need to reach the semi-finals first. It will be interesting to see how it plays out, but I'll be one of the few who won't place too much emphasis on it, regardless of who wins.

 

[jg153040]

Rediculous excuse. Fed had the luxury of playing baby Murray and Djokovic for YEARS and still managed to have a negative H2H. If anything, Fed should be LEADING both Diokovic and Murray by a large margin, but he does not.

First you are wrong. They played Fed more when Fed was past his prime than peak Fed had the chance of playing them when they were "babies".

Because old Fed makes it deep and they didn't make it deep in Fed's prime.
Peak Fed made 23 consecutive semis, where were they?

And even with their edge, Fed actually LEADS h2h 10-6 in majors even with that. He is 4-0 vs them in GS finals, most important matches. And 3 matches that they won, Fed had 2 match points, and vs Murray it was close five setter. So, even when they do beat him it's barely.

And last, even if they lead him 20-0, it's irrelevant. That doesn't give them titles or takes titles away from Fed.

 

[tennis_pro]

Rediculous excuse. Fed had the luxury of playing baby Murray and Djokovic for YEARS and still managed to have a negative H2H. If anything, Fed should be LEADING both Diokovic and Murray by a large margin, but he does not.

Out of 34 matches Federer faced Djokovic exactly 6 times before 2008.
Out of 21 matches Federer faced Murray twice before 2008.

 

[The Green Mile]

Well said. I keep seeing it repeated that Federer was disadvantaged by the age gap, and that should theoretically apply now, if he were playing a fully fit Murray. However, they played a lot of matches when Fed had the upper hand age wise, and Murray still managed to get ahead.

That said, Federer does have a good chance of evening things up if they meet in Madrid, but obviously they both need to reach the semi-finals first. It will be interesting to see how it plays out, but I'll be one of the few who won't place too much emphasis on it, regardless of who wins.

You mean the quarter finals... whoever wins that will most likely play rafa in the semis unless he gets knocked out earlier.

 

[jg153040]

Out of 34 matches Federer faced Djokovic exactly 6 times before 2008.
Out of 21 matches Federer faced Murray twice before 2008.

Yeah this. But some people don't let facts and reality to get in the way.

And still even with this edge, Fed leads them 10-6 in GS and 4-0 in GS finals.

And two USO he had match points vs Nole and Murray barely won that five setter.

 

[mike danny]

Out of 34 matches Federer faced Djokovic exactly 6 times before 2008.
Out of 21 matches Federer faced Murray twice before 2008.

Djokovic started coming into his own at Montreal 2007. That was when he entered the top 4 and beat Federer for the first time. Federer played Djokovic 4 times before he was a top 4 player. So they only played 4 matches when Nole was a baby.

 

[mike danny]

Rediculous excuse. Fed had the luxury of playing baby Murray and Djokovic for YEARS and still managed to have a negative H2H. If anything, Fed should be LEADING both Diokovic and Murray by a large margin, but he does not.

What is Sampras's excuse then? He played baby Hewitt plenty of times when he had the age adv yet still trails him 4-5. How do you explain that?

And for the record Federer and Djokovic played only 14 matches when Fed was still in.his prime. From 2010 on they played 20 matches and Djok still could not take the lead vs a past prime Roger

 

[jg153040]

What is Sampras's excuse then? He played baby Hewitt plenty of times when he had the age adv yet still trails him 4-5. How do you explain that?

And for the record Federer and Djokovic played only 14 matches when Fed was still in.his prime. From 2010 on they played 20 matches and Djok still could not take the lead vs a past prime Roger

Also, Djokovic is much better than Hewitt, Safin.

 

[Wynter]

Also, Djokovic is much better than Hewitt, Safin.

Don't cross that line with me Only thing Djok has on Hewitt is more firepower and the advantage on slow courts. Hewitt has arguably the same level of movement and better shot selection in his peak.

 

[jg153040]

Don't cross that line with me Only thing Djok has on Hewitt is more firepower and the advantage on slow courts. Hewitt has arguably the same level of movement and better shot selection in his peak.

How can you say that? Djokovic has 12 GS finals and 6 wins, so this means he had much larger peak than Hewitt.

 

[Wynter]

How can you say that? Djokovic has 12 GS finals and 6 wins, so this means he had much larger peak than Hewitt.

Hewitt was built for Fast Courts, Djokovic for slow, the slowing down of the courts ruined Hewitts career, is testament that he was able to stay at the top when his gameplan was slwoly unravelled by the speed of the court.

Its why he never really succeeded at the French or on Clay but Wimbledon or Faster courts such as the USO, he makes inroads ala Stan and Delpo last year.

And if you want Hewitts luck he was stopped by the Runner Up or Winner of each slam roughly 9-12 times if I recall the right number during his peak years 2002-2005

For more info

Interesting comments in Pete Sampras's book on his thoughts on Lleyton Hewitt =

"He loved players who served and volleyed and tried to pressure him. Lleyton was one of the few guys who really could resist the onslaught of a high quality attacker. For a period I felt Lleyton might really dominate. His game translated well from surface to surface, but then a few things happened.

For one Roger federer improved, and he figured Lleyton out cold. The game in general also improved while Lleyton was at the top. Guys were playing with a little more power, partly thanks to advances in racket technology, but fewer of them were playing into Hewitt's hands. Lleyton liked having a target, but in his era guys stopped coming to the net. Hewitt was a victim of his time"

 

[Djokovic2011]

Yeah this. But some people don't let facts and reality to get in the way.

And still even with this edge, Fed leads them 10-6 in GS and 4-0 in GS finals.

And two USO he had match points vs Nole and Murray barely won that five setter.

Murray didn't "barely win" that match at the AO last year, despite it being a five setter. Andy should've won that match in 4 comfortable sets at the most.

 

[mike danny]

Frankly, who cares about the H2H with Murray? This particular H2H is a very good evidence why sometimes H2H means squat.

These 2 are so far in achievements and Federer has gotten the better of him in so many big matches that it is not worth talking about it.

Congratulations to Murray for leading the H2H. He deserves it. He is definetely better than Federer when Masters 1000 matches (and Olympics) come into play, but not more that that overall

 

[jg153040]

Hewitt was built for Fast Courts, Djokovic for slow, the slowing down of the courts ruined Hewitts career, is testament that he was able to stay at the top when his gameplan was slwoly unravelled by the speed of the court.

Its why he never really succeeded at the French or on Clay but Wimbledon or Faster courts such as the USO, he makes inroads ala Stan and Delpo last year.

And if you want Hewitts luck he was stopped by the Runner Up or Winner of each slam roughly 9-12 times if I recall the right number during his peak years 2002-2005

For more info

I do understand this argument. That Hewitt has greater ability than results show. Because he had to deal with peak Fed all the time. But I was taking this into an account. So, even if we give Hewitt 4 majors, Djokovic is still a lot better.

 

[Djokovic2011]

And for the record Federer and Djokovic played only 14 matches when Fed was still in.his prime. From 2010 on they played 20 matches and Djok still could not take the lead vs a past prime Roger

Go by the performance, not the age. Fed being in his late twenties shouldn't be considered "old" anymore- this isn't the 1980s. I feel a thread on this topic coming on very soon.........

 

[6-3 6-0]

Murray didn't "barely win" that match at the AO last year, despite it being a five setter. Andy should've won that match in 4 comfortable sets at the most.

Just like RNadal should have won RG Semi 2013 in 4 sets?

 

[jg153040]

Murray didn't "barely win" that match at the AO last year, despite it being a five setter. Andy should've won that match in 4 comfortable sets at the most.

Depends how you look at it. I consider a match that goes to five barely.

 

[mike danny]

Murray didn't "barely win" that match at the AO last year, despite it being a five setter. Andy should've won that match in 4 comfortable sets at the most.

The point is he didn't.

He should not have let Federer back into the match. I am sure that a younger version of Roger could have pushed Murray much harder in the 5th set.

Overall it did not hurt him, because Roger was 31, but put a 25 Roger with better stamina and the 5th set would have been a battle as well

 

[mike danny]

Go by the performance, not the age. Fed being in his late twenties shouldn't be considered "old" anymore- this isn't the 1980s. I feel a thread on this topic coming on very soon.........

If you want me to go by his perfomance then ok. Agree. 2010 was the year his decline began simply because his performances pretty much reflected this. He was terrible overall, even in slams.

 

[Mainad]

Given the way Murray is at the moment, if Federer can't even up the H2H in their next match, I doubt he ever will!

 

[6-3 6-0]

Given the way Murray is at the moment, if Federer can't even up the H2H in their next match, I doubt he ever will!

No offense, but 95% he won't be able to since I have a feeling he is gonna crash out sooner than QF. NAlmagro is a dangerous opponent on clay for first few rounds.

 

[mike danny]

Given the way Murray is at the moment, if Federer can't even up the H2H in their next match, I doubt he ever will!

Federer is not a spring chicken either. Murray still has the youth advantage

 

[Djokovic2011]

Just like RNadal should have won RG Semi 2013 in 4 sets?

Absolutely. And don't be so touchy! :wink:

 

[Mainad]

No offense, but 95% he won't be able to since I have a feeling he is gonna crash out sooner than QF. NAlmagro is a dangerous opponent on clay for first few rounds.

None taken. Almagro is flaky but he has just beaten Nadal and he won his only previous clay encounter with Murray, albeit back in 2008. I had hoped Murray would get a qualifier or someone a bit more lower ranked in his first 2 matches. I hadn't anticipated him coming up against a claycourter of Almagro's quality straightaway. That's the risk of letting your ranking slide, I guess.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Federer is not a spring chicken either. Murray still has the youth advantage

Federer is currently ranked above Murray. It would be more of an upset if Andy were to win, especially on clay.

 

[6-3 6-0]

Absolutely. And don't be so touchy! :wink:

I am not. Hate when people try to alter reality. What should've, could've, would've happened really doesn't matter, what actually happened matters. The fact that it went to 5 sets shows AMurray was pushed to the limit like the one at RG 2013 SF.
It's just like saying RFederer should have served it out in 2010/11 USO when in reality he didn't. So, no credit to him.

 

[Djokovic2011]

If you want me to go by his perfomance then ok. Agree. 2010 was the year his decline began simply because his performances pretty much reflected this. He was terrible overall, even in slams.

Federer was still ranked inside the top 3 in 2010. Stop exaggerating.

 

[jg153040]

Federer is currently ranked above Murray. It would be more of an upset if Andy were to win, especially on clay.

Maybe in bo3. But in bo5 on clay, Fed's age may matter. So, I wouldn't be surprised if Murray can grind out Fed at RG.

 

[Steve0904]

Federer was still ranked inside the top 3 in 2010. Stop exaggerating.

Yeah, but that's like saying Djokovic was in top 4 in 2010 even though he played like crap by his standards pretty much the whole year. Same goes for Fed. Outside of the AO he was pretty bad.

As far as Fed's H2H with Murray goes, I'm hardly worried about it especially considering his record against Murray in slams. In some sense he's already "fixed" it considering it was 6-2 Murray at the end of 2008 and now it's 11-10 Murray with a few extra slam wins for Fed and one for Murray.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Yeah, but that's like saying Djokovic was in top 4 in 2010 even though he played like crap by his standards pretty much the whole year. Same goes for Fed. Outside of the AO he was pretty bad.

Are you saying that anyone who beat Federer after the 2010 AO should have an asterisk put next to his victory?

 

[Steve0904]

Yep, 10-11 in murrays favour or something like that. He should be ahead at the end of the year, with the way murray is playing...

Actually that depends on if Murray and Fed can play well enough to reach each other, particularly Murray of course since he might not be in form yet, and if he is we probably won't see it in clay season anyway.

 

[Steve0904]

Are you saying that anyone who beat Federer after the 2010 AO should have an asterisk put next to his victory?

No, I'm saying he played pretty bad for the rest of the year by his normal standards. Don't read into it too much.

 

[mike danny]

Are you saying that anyone who beat Federer after the 2010 AO should have an asterisk put next to his victory?

No but after AO he was terrible. In his prime he was never bounced out before the semis in 2 consecutive slams.

This is proof enough for me in 2010 his decline began

 

[mike danny]

Yeah, but that's like saying Djokovic was in top 4 in 2010 even though he played like crap by his standards pretty much the whole year. Same goes for Fed. Outside of the AO he was pretty bad.

As far as Fed's H2H with Murray goes, I'm hardly worried about it especially considering his record against Murray in slams. In some sense he's already "fixed" it considering it was 6-2 Murray at the end of 2008 and now it's 11-10 Murray with a few extra slam wins for Fed and one for Murray.

After IW 2009 Murray was leading Fed 6-2. Since then Fed leads 8-5. So yeah he did do well vs Murray H2H wise after all

 

[tennisaddict]

It is funny that fans of Nadal, Murray and Novak have to go back to H2H and reference 'Fed' to get their player the recognition.

In other words the claim to fame is by association.

 

[jg153040]

Yeah, but that's like saying Djokovic was in top 4 in 2010 even though he played like crap by his standards pretty much the whole year. Same goes for Fed. Outside of the AO he was pretty bad.

As far as Fed's H2H with Murray goes, I'm hardly worried about it especially considering his record against Murray in slams. In some sense he's already "fixed" it considering it was 6-2 Murray at the end of 2008 and now it's 11-10 Murray with a few extra slam wins for Fed and one for Murray.

I'm not worried about any h2h. Tiny black mark in theory could be only Rafa's 6-2 in GS finals.

But considering Rafa is clay goat and Fed made those RG finals at his worst surface, no biggie.

I see glass half full.
Some people see: h2h in finals is bad
I see: making extra RG finals losing only to clay goat

 

[mellowyellow]

I have to say, Murray has a few opportunistic wins over Fed like Olympics. I believe their are 2 or 3 more instances where scheduling/travel or strength of opponent played a big role in the outcome.