Did Pat Mac actually sat Murray moves better than Federer on grass?

[Tennis_Stringman]

WTF? Murray anticipates where the ball will be hit and has good court sense but I would never say he's a better mover than Fed on any surface. Comments like that makes me have little respect for Pat Mac's opinions on tennis. And this guy is running USTA High Performance, WTF?

 

[Murrayfan31]

Um Federer's movement is his weakest part of his game these days. He makes up for it with a big forehand and big serve.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

He wouldn't be such a successful pusher without good movement. He's a good mover, albeit not as graceful as Fed.

 

[borg number one]

Federer is a much better mover on grass than Murray, but on hard courts, it's closer in my opinion. Even in 2012, Federer is a better mover at Wimbledon than Murray. Murray has great top speed and quickness. He can cover a lot of ground, quickly, but Federer is much better with all the necessary quick small steps. Nadal is probably the only player that's close to Federer in the footwork department at Wimbledon and on grass courts in general.

 

[zagor]

At this point of their careers, Murray is a much better mover than Fed on almost any surface.

At Fed's peak though, I'd say Fed is at the very least equal on grass and a better mover on clay. On HC Murray court coverage is possibly the best I've ever seen.

 

[Nostradamus]

WTF? Murray anticipates where the ball will be hit and has good court sense but I would never say he's a better mover than Fed on any surface. Comments like that makes me have little respect for Pat Mac's opinions on tennis. And this guy is running USTA High Performance, WTF?

You misunderstood pat. what pat meant was Murray is moving better in this tournament these two weeks on grass. Federer has been hampered due to back injury and has not moving at 100 %. sure, he beat novak but overall, he has not been moving his best.

Roger was very lucky in the semis, Novak played one of his worst matches that day.

 

[Nostradamus]

At this point of their careers, Murray is a much better mover than Fed on almost any surface.

At Fed's peak though, I'd say Fed is at the very least equal on grass and a better mover on clay. On HC Murray court coverage is possibly the best I've ever seen.

LOL, roger when healthy is better mover than both Murray and Novak, both. I stress when he is healthy

 

[helloworld]

Federer's weakness nowadays is his ability to cover the court due to his impaired movement. Murray on the other hand relies heavily on his movement and court coverage. It doesn't take a tennis genius to realize that Murray is a better mover.

 

[firepanda]

Murray is far better at moving on any surface. Speed is a necessary part of any defensive game while Federer has broken 30.

 

[borg number one]

I think footwork should be considered as a component of being a great mover. I would agree that Federer can't cover the court like Nadal, Djokovic or Murray on other surfaces, especially these days at a more advanced age. Yet, his footwork is right up there with say Nadal's. He's also very quick off the mark. Yet, I'd agree that in terms of purely covering the court, Murray is superb. By the way, in terms of great hard court coverage, it's hard to top Djokovic as of late, or even Nadal here at the 09 AO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9ScrTI_WQE&feature=relmfu

 

[joeri888]

Fed has great footwork but Murray is quicker

 

[borg number one]

Quicker on grass courts though? Anyway, Borg was quicker than them both lol..It's an interesting topic, who's the better mover and at Wimbledon especially? Well, it'll be something to watch for in the final. If Murray moves great, is fluid and is confident out there, he could take the title. It should be great.

 

[Murrayfan31]

I would say return of serve is a great way to measure footwork. Murray is better at it.

 

[paulorenzo]

LOL, roger when healthy is better mover than both Murray and Novak, both. I stress when he is healthy

federer still has really good court positioning in respect to his aggressive style of play. his movement has gone down though. in his prime, a healthy federer, without a doubt, moved better than djokovic and murray. but as of late i would say murray and djokovic are the better movers compared to even a healthy federer, although they play a different brand of tennis and opt to retrieve more balls than federer.

then again, movement isn't necessarily about foot speed and federer might still have the edge with court positioning and anticipation

 

[abmk]

At this point of their careers, Murray is a much better mover than Fed on almost any surface.

yes, right now, murray is a better mover on HC and grass ..... clay, don't see much of a difference though ...

At Fed's peak though, I'd say Fed is at the very least equal on grass and a better mover on clay. On HC Murray court coverage is possibly the best I've ever seen.

you are over-rating murray/under-rating fed ...

I'd say fed at his peak was a better mover on HC ( though obviously not by much )...

I think many don't realise how good fed's movement at his peak was because he doesn't spend ages retrieving and retrieving ala nadal/murray/djoker ....

 

[10is]

At this point of their careers, Murray is a much better mover than Fed on almost any surface.

Roger has clearly lost a step and half (at the very least) so that might be true. He doesn't have an explosive first step anymore and his movement to his FH is far from what it used to be. His movement at the net has similarly eroded.

He can still be graceful and beautiful to watch, but his fluidity has vastly diminished from 2004-05 levels.

At Fed's peak though, I'd say Fed is at the very least equal on grass and a better mover on clay. On HC Murray court coverage is possibly the best I've ever seen.

Ummm... no.. just NO... you're being over-generous to Murray and slighting Federer at the same time. Federer in his prime had the best movement of any tennis player on ANY surface. The movement of both his racquet and his body used to be so cleanly efficient, so rhythmically deliberate, that the man almost appeared to be playing in deceptively (ever-so-slight) slow motion. This can sometimes create the (false) impression of indifference, or of his having just woken up.

While Murray is remarkably fast, his is an agitated quickness, whereas Federer hardly ever appears to scramble because he’s never out of place; he sees early where he needs to be and moves there so fluidly that his motions appear choreographed. What was unique about Federer in his prime was the seamlessness of movement and strokes. Only Hewitt (in his prime) was alike in setting up for the new shot while still hitting the former one.

 

[paulorenzo]

I would say return of serve is a great way to measure footwork. Murray is better at it.

are we talking return of serve as a stroke or the return of serve game? if it's the stroke, murray's footwork during the return of serve is very impressive. he combines his spit step and unit turn very well. it's great to watch.

 

[abmk]

Federer in his prime had the best movement of any tennis player on ANY surface.

except nadal/borg on clay ...

 

[Cosmic_Colin]

But how many times have they each fallen over in the past fortnight?

 

[paulorenzo]

I think footwork should be considered as a component of being a great mover. I would agree that Federer can't cover the court like Nadal, Djokovic or Murray on other surfaces, especially these days at a more advanced age. Yet, his footwork is right up there with say Nadal's. He's also very quick off the mark. Yet, I'd agree that in terms of purely covering the court, Murray is superb. By the way, in terms of great hard court coverage, it's hard to top Djokovic as of late, or even Nadal here at the 09 AO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9ScrTI_WQE&feature=relmfu

i used to think that while nadal had great footspeed, his footwork wasn't all that great or at least not that tested since he was almost always way behind the baseline. this changed when he started playing more aggressively a couple years ago and started positioning himself more aggressively on court to take balls. he could run around a backhand better than anybody for a time and his footwork was very explosive, very precise.

 

[10is]

except nadal/borg on clay ...

True, though I will still rank him as a somewhat of a "lesser" equal on that surface. I doubt anyone would cite his movement (or lack thereof) as a reason for his failures against Nadal on clay..

 

[zagor]

Roger has clearly lost a step and half (at the very least) so that might be true. He doesn't have an explosive first step anymore and his movement to his FH is far from what it used to be. His movement at the net has similarly eroded.

He can still be graceful and beautiful to watch, but his fluidity has vastly diminished from 2004-05 levels.

Oh I definitely agree, Fed used to float around court and transition from defense to offense so easily which is one of the main reasons he used to eat the big hitters for brekfeast while these days he often struggles with them.

Ummm... no.. just NO... you're being over-generous to Murray and slighting Federer at the same time.

Maybe, but I always found Murray's court coverage amazing, especially on HC he gets to so many balls it's ridiculous.

Federer in his prime had the best movement of any tennis player on ANY surface.

No way I'd put him over Nadal on clay, Fed's footwork and anticipation is IMO better than Nadal's (even though I find Nadal's footwork to be underrated somewhat) he never had Nadal's footspeed, Nadal was a speed demon in his earlier days.

The movement of both his racquet and his body used to be so cleanly efficient, so rhythmically deliberate, that the man almost appeared to be playing in deceptively (ever-so-slight) slow motion. This can sometimes create the (false) impression of indifference, or of his having just woken up.

In his best days Fed did make tennis seem easy/effortless, that always appealed to me.

While Murray is remarkably fast, his is an agitated quickness, whereas Federer hardly ever appears to scramble because he’s never out of place; he sees early where he needs to be and moves there so fluidly that his motions appear choreographed. What was unique about Federer in his prime was the seamlessness of movement and strokes. Only Hewitt (in his prime) was alike in setting up for the new shot while still hitting the former one.

Well I've always thought that Fed's anticipation is one of his greatest strengths, the reason he so rarely seemed out of position (something Laver always found fascinating about Fed) in his best days was that he read players amazingly well. He also has IMO best footwork of this era (and probably the best I've seen) but regarding footspeed and explosive first step I don't think he's as good in that department as any of Nadal, Novak and Murray.

 

[10is]

i used to think that while nadal had great footspeed, his footwork wasn't all that great or at least not that tested since he was almost always way behind the baseline. this changed when he started playing more aggressively a couple years ago and started positioning himself more aggressively on court to take balls. he could run around a backhand better than anybody for a time and his footwork was very explosive, very precise.

Nadal's footspeed has clearly declined but he has been able to make up for it through clever use of strategy and acumen, including being a tad more aggressive as you suggested. Nadal's footspeed from 04 through 06 was amazing and the primary reason why he managed to beat Federer during his prime.

 

[Murrayfan31]

are we talking return of serve as a stroke or the return of serve game? if it's the stroke, murray's footwork during the return of serve is very impressive. he combines his spit step and unit turn very well. it's great to watch.

Return of serve stroke. After that, is important to. Especially moving in on a short ball to attack it is important footwork.

 

[10is]

regarding footspeed and explosive first step I don't think he's as good in that department as any of Nadal, Novak and Murray.

Regarding foot-speed I would definitely agree -- Nadal and Djokovic are clearly better, and arguably Murray as well. However, on the issue of explosive first step, I would beg to differ. Again in his prime, the explosive reactivity of Federer's "first step", "fast stop" and power of deceleration were (in my opinion) "arguably" better.

I think this article explains it farly well:

http://www.apbelt.com/Technique_Lab/ARSteps3.html

 

[-Bobo-]

Fed has better footwork but Murray has better foot speed so it comes down to how each skill impacts movement on a particular surface. So Murray gets to more balls while Fed gets in position better, at least he used to. His footwork has been pretty bad since 08' comparatively, but he lost speed even earlier. Now the foot work is pretty good again but he still is way slower then 06 for instance.

 

[Murrayfan31]

Fed has better footwork but Murray has better foot speed so it comes down to how each skill impacts movement on a particular surface. So Murray gets to more balls while Fed gets in position better, at least he used to. His footwork has been pretty bad since 08' comparatively, but he lost speed even earlier. Now the foot work is pretty good again but he still is way slower then 06 for instance.

Going for your shots more doesn't mean you have better footwork. It means you feel the urgency to end the points quicker. I guess Rosol has the best footwork since he kept going for broke. lol

 

[mandy01]

What I like about Roger's movement generally is that it has 'economy' written all over it. He never seems take more strides, steps etc. than what is required. His entire game is based around getting maximum output with minimum wastage of energy even if he's playing from the back court.

 

[paulorenzo]

Fed has better footwork but Murray has better foot speed so it comes down to how each skill impacts movement on a particular surface. So Murray gets to more balls while Fed gets in position better, at least he used to. His footwork has been pretty bad since 08' comparatively, but he lost speed even earlier. Now the foot work is pretty good again but he still is way slower then 06 for instance.

yeah, watching highlights of fed retrieving balls from '04-'06 is pretty scary. phenomenal footspeed. watching federer the last few years, one can understandably forget how fast he used to be.

 

[mandy01]

yeah, watching highlights of fed retrieving balls from '04-'06 is pretty scary. phenomenal footspeed. watching federer the last few years, one can understandably forget how fast he used to be.

Most of this forum thinks in terms of 'recent past.' It's funny how we're supposed to analyse Federer's career only from 2008 onwards while if you do that to Sampras for instance, his fans will literally instantly fly off handle.

 

[zagor]

Regarding foot-speed I would definitely agree -- Nadal and Djokovic are clearly better, and arguably Murray as well. However, on the issue of explosive first step, I would beg to differ. Again in his prime, the explosive reactivity of Federer's "first step", "fast stop" and power of deceleration were (in my opinion) "arguably" better.

I think this article explains it farly well:

http://www.apbelt.com/Technique_Lab/ARSteps3.html

This was a very interesting read, thanks for posting the link.

 

[paulorenzo]

Going for your shots more doesn't mean you have better footwork. It means you feel the urgency to end the points quicker. I guess Rosol has the best footwork since he kept going for broke. lol

what i thought he was getting at was that federer has more aggressive court positioning than murray and is less willing to give up the baseline, especially to players like murray. federer takes more chances with his strokes, true, but federer also takes more chances with his court positioning. a hard hit, well placed groundstroke can put you on the defensive quickly if you're caught hugging the baseline as opposed to hanging back.

regarding rosol, he went after his shots as soon as the point started, trying to hit winners from the baseline at the get-go regardless of where he is on court or the quality of shot nadal sent him. fed doesn't do that. although he does play first strike tennis, he relies way more heavily on positioning himself to hit a quality shot in the rally before brings out the forehand. he goes for a forehand winner out of nowhere once in a while, but certainly not on every point.

 

[zagor]

Most of this forum thinks in terms of 'recent past.' It's funny how we're supposed to analyse Federer's career only from 2008 onwards while if you do that to Sampras for instance, his fans will literally instantly fly off handle.

Of course, as evidenced by the fact that they claim Sampras was a broken down man at the age of 29 and teenage Fed (who wasn't even top 10 at the time so he was removed from his peak even more than Sampras) beating him at Wimbledon is completely meaningless (Fed still supposedly has crappy volleys and would get absolutely destroyed by Sampras on grass at their peaks). Pete's beatdowns in USO finals at the hands of Hewitt and Safin are of course also dismissed in similar fashion.

On the other hand, 31 year old Fed is supposedly playing better than ever and his losses to peak Djokodal prove he's a weak era benefactor, heck people around here get angry when you call him old.

Gotta love this forum sometimes.

P.S Almost forgot about Nadal's "massive" decline at the age of 24, of course those same people who claim that also take offense if you call 30-31 Fed old in tennis terms, comedy gold.

 

[Sid_Vicious]

No way I'd put him over Nadal on clay, Fed's footwork and anticipation is IMO better than Nadal's (even though I find Nadal's footwork to be underrated somewhat)

I definitely think it is. Like you, I consider Federer's footwork to be superior. Especially, in terms of offense. Federer can use his footwork to crush I/O forehands with the tiniest amount of space possible.

However, I agree that Nadal has more than just footspeed. He has phenomenal footwork. Check out how he creates space to crush the Inside-in DTL forehand
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy6PR0-Ma3E&feature=player_detailpage#t=227s

Very impressive.

 

[zagor]

I definitely think it is. Like you, I consider Federer's footwork to be superior. Especially, in terms of offense. Federer can give himself much more space to go for winners using his footwork than Nadal.

However, I agree that Nadal has more than just footspeed. He has phenomenal footwork. Check out how he creates space to crush the Inside-in DTL forehand
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy6PR0-Ma3E&feature=player_detailpage#t=227s

Very impressive.

Awesome clip, Nadal-Blake was a great match-up, inside in FH is probably my favourite shot to watch (and try out on the court, failing most of the time of course) because you leave so much court open that it has to either be an outright winner or good enough to force a weak reply.

In recent years, the most I've been impressed with Nadal's footwork and FH was in his Wimbledon match against Delpo last year.

 

[Cosmic_Colin]

I'm repeating myself here, but falling over is a factor. I think maybe Fed has done it once or twice in the whole tournament, whilst Murray seems to have done it several times per match.

Fed got his first set break against Djokovic, and also a break against Xavier Malisse (or was it Bennetau) because of them falling over.

Imagine if Murray fell over during a tiebreak, resulting in a lost point.

Sure footing is a part of movement and it's probably worth sacrificing some speed to have it.

 

[paulorenzo]

I definitely think it is. Like you, I consider Federer's footwork to be superior. Especially, in terms of offense. Federer can use his footwork to crush I/O forehands with the tiniest amount of space possible.

However, I agree that Nadal has more than just footspeed. He has phenomenal footwork. Check out how he creates space to crush the Inside-in DTL forehand
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy6PR0-Ma3E&feature=player_detailpage#t=227s

Very impressive.

wow, talk about hugging the baseline. indeed impressive, incredibly aggressive play. and overall great rally with good gets from blake.

 

[PennAlum]

yes, right now, murray is a better mover on HC and grass ..... clay, don't see much of a difference though ...



you are over-rating murray/under-rating fed ...

I'd say fed at his peak was a better mover on HC ( though obviously not by much )...

I think many don't realise how good fed's movement at his peak was because he doesn't spend ages retrieving and retrieving ala nadal/murray/djoker ....

I think Murray is overrated because you always see him getting to balls deep behind the baseline and throwing up lobs whereas you rarely see Federer doing the same. Could it be that Murray is just last getting to those balls late? I never thought Murray had a great first step nor a graceful mover. He more akin to those grinders who who seemed slow but get to everything which I classify as a good anticipater with good court sense. I was at courtside for the Federer-Tsonga and Fed movement is so fluid and economical that you couldn't hear him move whereas you hear Murray slogging his way retrieving.