Federer-Murray - Cincinnati 2015 MS - SF

[britam25]

Why don't you post a poll? Put 7-6, 6-7, 7-6 vs 6-0, 6-7, 6-0 and ask "Which match was closer?". For you they are equally close, assuming normal games.

I bet I'm right.

You clearly don't understand what I'm saying, so, just drop it.

 

[Down_the_line]

Yeah, I disagree with britam25 year (as usual). If I go out and win a match 7-6 7-6, I'm sure not boasting about how it wasn't even close. That's ludicrous. I'd be saying the exact opposite, that it was a tight, competitive match that was so close it could have gone either way.

 

[Tennisanity]

You clearly don't understand what I'm saying, so, just drop it.

Oh I get what you're saying. I think it's you that does not understand the meaning of "close match". "Close match" is not simply based on the stats. You have to watch the match.

 

[Tennisanity]

Yeah, I disagree with britam25 year (as usual). If I go out and win a match 7-6 7-6, I'm sure not boasting about how it wasn't even close. That's ludicrous. I'd be saying the exact opposite, that it was a tight, competitive match that was so close it could have gone either way.

Exactly. He probably doesn't play tennis.

 

[-snake-]

Way too much blah blah on this thread. Bottom line: Murray played better than in the earlier rounds ,but still wasn't enough to beat the grandpa. Move on fellas.

 

[britam25]

Oh I get what you're saying. I think it's you that does not understand the meaning of "close match". "Close match" is not simply based on the stats. You have to watch the match.

Read the first sentence in post # 901, very slowly, 10 times, and then, MAYBE you will understand. Anybody who thinks somebody who was 2 sets short of winning was close to winning, as Murray was, obviously isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to tennis knowledge.

 

[Tennisanity]

^^^ Sorry, I told you I understand what you're saying. And I'm telling you, you are clueless. As the other poster said you win 7-6, 7-6 and you are not saying how 'not close' the match was. Likewise the loser is saying, damn I was so close to winning. If you can't see that, then you'll never get it, just drop it.

 

[fecaleagle]

An essay is not required. However it would be nice of your suggestion came with a small helping of visible proof or argument.

First, before I start the replay, you can always tell if your guy is having a bad week or match, where other people may not. If something isn't clicking or your player just seems flat, you notice, where a fan of your player's opponent might not. Murray has looked like utter crap all week; he's been sweating buckets and handing back breaks at critical moments. Both of these are atypical for Murray this year and are evidence of physical and mental fatigue (in my opinion).

Play (* indicates server)!

Set 1:
F-M
0-0*
Decent game. Mostly short rallies ending in unforced errors, but Murray gets the hold. Fed aggressive and crisp, Murray looks a step slow but puts in a few good serves and uses the backhand well when he needs to. No clear evidence of fatigue except that Murray looks slow to react and is in bad position on a number of shots.
*0-1
Comfortable hold for Federer. Murray hits a lot of lazy backhands resulting in UEs.
1-1*
Koening and Gilbert suggest that we can expect to see Murray playing the scoreboard more than usual. Good serving from Murray, but more lazy backhands. This plays into Federer's hands. Easy forehand dumped into the net by Murray due to bad footwork. Atypical of him and indicative of fatigue. Federer breaks.
*2-1
Murray gets an adrenaline rush and pushes back hard to take the first two points, but Federer serves his way out of trouble with two UEs (one a gift) from Murray.
3-1*
Murray coming in to try to be aggressive and come in. He's tried to be more agressive lately (with Bjorkman), but right now, it seems motivated by an awareness that he needs to shorten points (subjective). Murray comes to net twice in this game. Good hold.
*3-2
Poor forehand return dumped into net by Murray on Federer 2nd serve at 15-30. As usual, Federer is serving beautifully, but Murray is not able to capitalize on his chances because his footwork is poor.
4-2*
Somewhat comfortable hold from Murray. Another dumped forehand and lazy backand UE error in this game.
*4-3
Murray attempting to will himself into the set, but Federer serves beautifully to cruise through another service game. No evidence of fatigue.
5-3*
Murray finally holds serve comfortably. Only two points over three shots; Federer takes them.
*5-4
Federer plays yet another brilliant service game. Murray dragging his feet a bit in the tail end of longer points, but Federer earns the set.
Set 1: 6-4 Federer

All in all, Murray plays one of the better sets I've seen from him all week, but Federer serves too well. If Murray weren't gassed, I'd still give Federer a 75% chance of taking it, but I get the feeling that Murray doesn't have the legs to get into Federer's service games today.

Back with Set 2 in a bit.

 

[britam25]

^^^ Sorry, I told you I understand what you're saying. And I'm telling you, you are clueless. As the other poster said you win 7-6, 7-6 and you are not saying how 'not close' the match was. Likewise the loser is saying, damn I was so close to winning. If you can't see that, then you'll never get it, just drop it.

That's what I told YOU 2 or 3 posts ago, but you're still flapping your gums. Second verse, same as the first:

Read the first sentence in post # 901, very slowly, 10 times, and then, MAYBE you will understand. Anybody who thinks somebody who was 2 sets short of winning was close to winning, as Murray was, obviously isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to tennis knowledge.

 

[Chanwan]

First, before I start the replay, you can always tell if your guy is having a bad week or match, where other people may not. If something isn't clicking or your player just seems flat, you notice, where a fan of your player's opponent might not. Murray has looked like utter crap all week; he's been sweating buckets and handing back breaks at critical moments. Both of these are atypical for Murray this year and are evidence of physical and mental fatigue (in my opinion).

Play (* indicates server)!

Set 1:
F-M
0-0*
Decent game. Mostly short rallies ending in unforced errors, but Murray gets the hold. Fed aggressive and crisp, Murray looks a step slow but puts in a few good serves and uses the backhand well when he needs to. No clear evidence of fatigue except that Murray looks slow to react and is in bad position on a number of shots.
*0-1
Comfortable hold for Federer. Murray hits a lot of lazy backhands resulting in UEs.
1-1*
Koening and Gilbert suggest that we can expect to see Murray playing the scoreboard more than usual. Good serving from Murray, but more lazy backhands. This plays into Federer's hands. Easy forehand dumped into the net by Murray due to bad footwork. Atypical of him and indicative of fatigue. Federer breaks.
*2-1
Murray gets an adrenaline rush and pushes back hard to take the first two points, but Federer serves his way out of trouble with two UEs (one a gift) from Murray.
3-1*
Murray coming in to try to be aggressive and come in. He's tried to be more agressive lately (with Bjorkman), but right now, it seems motivated by an awareness that he needs to shorten points (subjective). Murray comes to net twice in this game. Good hold.
*3-2
Poor forehand return dumped into net by Murray on Federer 2nd serve at 15-30. As usual, Federer is serving beautifully, but Murray is not able to capitalize on his chances because his footwork is poor.
4-2*
Somewhat comfortable hold from Murray. Another dumped forehand and lazy backand UE error in this game.
*4-3
Murray attempting to will himself into the set, but Federer serves beautifully to cruise through another service game. No evidence of fatigue.
5-3*
Murray finally holds serve comfortably. Only two points over three shots; Federer takes them.
*5-4
Federer plays yet another brilliant service game. Murray dragging his feet a bit in the tail end of longer points, but Federer earns the set.
Set 1: 6-4 Federer

All in all, Murray plays one of the better sets I've seen from him all week, but Federer serves too well. If Murray weren't gassed, I'd still give Federer a 75% chance of taking it, but I get the feeling that Murray doesn't have the legs to get into Federer's service games today.

Back with Set 2 in a bit.

are you rewatching it or is your memory that good? Good point with the bold btw.

 

[fecaleagle]

Play (* indicates server)!

Set 2:
F-M
0-0*
Comfortable hold to love for Murray. Looks good and gets in a number of first serves.
*0-1
Murray gets a look but blows another easy backhand on a chance to go up 0-30. Federer holds.
1-1*
More bad footwork from Murray. Yelling "feet." This is not normally indicative of fatigue for him, but he is a step slow today. Good return for Federer, but Murray can't get out of the way and dumps another ball into the net.
*1-2
More loose backhands from Murray (three of them) into the net. More screaming in frustration.
2-2*
Federer just playing great. No excuses here. Murray guts out the hold with help from a bad Federer challenge.
*2-3
Murray gets another peek here for 0-30, but Federer serves beautifully and strikes the ball cleanly when it matters.
3-3*


Conclusion as of 3-3: Federer still wins this match against Murray in Montreal form, but Murray definitely gets deeper into a few of Federer's service games with a break or two, taking a set. My wife just got home, so this project is now ending, but if you paid any attention to Murray's performances this week, you wouldn't be making the argument that fatigue (physical and mental) played no role in the outcome today. I will grant that Murray looked better today than he did at any point during this tournament, and that nothing can be taken away from Federer's brilliant performance in this match. But I can still guarantee you that it affected Murray's performance during this match. I noticed it mostly in the high number of UEs (particularly the number of easy backhands that he dumped into the net today), and the poor footwork in some patches. You can't discount either players' performance in the outcome of a match, but with that, you should accept the fact that not all of the mis-hits and loose shots today from Murray can be due to Federer's excellent play. Murray's tired ass bears much of the responsibility for this result, whether you can point to a singular moment or not (I can't unfortunately).

 

[Tennisanity]

That's what I told YOU 2 or 3 posts ago, but you're still flapping your gums. Second verse, same as the first:

Read the first sentence in post # 901, very slowly, 10 times, and then, MAYBE you will understand. Anybody who thinks somebody who was 2 sets short of winning was close to winning, as Murray was, obviously isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to tennis knowledge.

What the hell??????????? You said 7-6, 6-7, 7-6 is EQUALLY close to 6-0, 6-7, 6-0 AND I'm telling you, you're off you're rocker if you think so. 7-6, 7-6, IS ALSO a close match and you don't think so. So shut up please, we completely disagree.

 

[West Coast Ace]

Way too much blah blah on this thread. Bottom line: Murray played better than in the earlier rounds ,but still wasn't enough to beat the grandpa. Move on fellas.

Ouch.

Murray couldn't get much of a sniff on Fed's serve; Fed was into a lot of his serve games - and probably should have broken a few more times. Murray competed well to take the 2nd to a TB.

Fed's BH continues to hold up pretty well.

I don't think Murray like having his 2nd serve clowned- he did a better job of counter punching and won some of them.

 

[fecaleagle]

are you rewatching it or is your memory that good? Good point with the bold btw.

Rewatching.

 

[britam25]

You must be the biggest idiot on the planet. What you're saying is absolutely trivial. That you characterize the last fact as MORE IMPORTANT in determining the "closeness of a match" is something I do not agree with. Do you speak english? Christ almighty, talk about dense.

I got that you don't agree the first 10 times you said it. Your insults have been duly reported.

 

[Tennisanity]

I got that you don't agree the first 10 times you said it. Your insults have been duly reported.

Yeah so if I said I don't agree, why are you going on and on about it?

Yeah my insults only started after you called me dense. Reported too.

 

[coloskier]

A lot of traditional old school Sampras fans at different places. Obviously not around here with a bunch of 20 something Federer fans here. They weren't around when Pete was in his prime.

You're not gonna have a bunch of Sampras fans when the majority of kids here are in their early 20s who didn't start watching the men's game until the early 00's when Pete was about retired. ROFLMAO!!!

I witnessed Pete's peak/prime firsthand. Young Fed fan pre puberty kiddies here didn't.

Heck, I played against McEnroe in juniors, so I know Sampras in his prime. Sampras and Fed are so close and I am a fan of both. Sampras in his prime vs Fed in his prime would be a very close match, depending on surface. On fast surfaces (90's speed, not now), Sampras will win most. On court speed as it is now, Fed wins most.

 

[Sentinel]

@Sentinel

90's clay peaking in this thread. How can you miss this? LOL

Thanks for pointing out. I love 90's' poasts. Will read this thread now that I am awake. He and suresh are on another level entirely.

 

[Down_the_line]

This back and forth between britam25 and Tennisanity is the funniest stuff I've seen on TTW in a LONG time!

Congrats fellas.

In fact, the drama that has ensued in this thread in general has been awesome.

 

[Mainad]

I feel like there is always an excuse whenever Fed beats Murray but it's 5 matches and 10 sets in a row, I believe Murray hasn't even broken Federer's serve since cinci last year. It's clear Murray has a problem with Federer's game, fatigued or not.

I also sense you are one of those slightly miffed at Federer still doing well hence all this talk of him being lucky which is a bit dissapointing.

This will be the 5th tine he's met Djokovic this year and on the whole djokovic has been playing Very well. Was he lucky all those times he played great only to have Djokovic play his best and deny him? Maybe he's due for playing an under par Djokovic, why not? Murray did last week! If Murray gets to play under par Djokovic why not Fed?

Also you know maybe Novak is lucky that his main rival is a 34 year old father of 4. Maybe Murray is too because last week he didn't have to play fed so only had under par djokovic, this week only old man fed and under par djokovic in his way but he's exhausted exactly why? He wins Canada and then in his next match he's gassed? He hasn't really played a crazy amount of tennis since wimbledon.

Lol...here we go! You have no hesitation in excusing Djokovic for being 'under-par' (which he certainly has been in Cincy, not so much in Montreal) but object at my suggestion that Murray has been under-par too, which he certainly has been all this week. That is why I get so enraged at posters like you who are perfectly happy to dish out all manner of excuses for Djokovic or Federer but cannot accept any for Murray. Your stated sub-text behind this is quite clear: Fed and Djoko can only lose to the likes of Murray when THEY are sub-par but Murray only loses to them because he is a worse player, no excuses allowed! Do you think I don't know what you're doing?

Murray has played 3 or 4 more tournaments this year than either Federer or Djokovic. He has won more matches than either of them. The cumulative effect is that he is more tired than either of them. I had grave misgivings about him entering Cincy because of this and my fears were borne out as I watched him struggle all week. I don't want him to burn out ahead of the US Open.

 

[Gary Duane]

You clearly are trying to set up a strawman to no avail. You were asked for proof to back up the claim that Murray was fatigued TODAY in TODAY'S match. Quite to the contrary, the proof is there for all to see that fitness was not the reason Murray lost, as his failure occurred not from being outgrinded or winded, but because he could not get a handle on Federer's serve. If you saw a different match than I did, and you truly believe that Murray was physically struggling on court today against Federer offer up your own reasons as to why Murray showed signs TODAY that he was fatigued.

I have to point out that a Murray who does not even have a break point against Fed in two sets, not even one, is not the same Murray I've seen other times this year. This is the same guy who has 45% BP conversion for the year on hard courts. His return is close to the top in the world.

Fed was only at 54% on his first serve, which is very low. But he won 79% of his second serve points. A lot of those 2nd serves were obviously attackable. If Murray had served poorly, I would agree with you and others that this is typical Murray, because at his best his serve can let him down. But I think Murray was obviously sub-par today. The man needs a rest if he is going to have a change at the USO.

 

[Gary Duane]

There were absolutely no signs of physical fatigue from Murray in the 2nd set at least. He was comfortably defending and sprinting around the court. His game was dialed in as well. When you seen a player battling severe fatigue, you can see the player visibly cheating on footwork and going for erratic winners ( a bit like Gasquet yesterday towards the end). Had Murray won the 2nd set, we would have seen an extra little spring in his step going to the 3rd set too.

I would not say he was "comfortably defending" without one break point in the whole match on a day when Fed's percentage of 1st serves in was very low compared to usual.

I'm going to go on record as saying that Fed can't win against Novak tomorrow the way he played today because of HIS lack of defence - only 4 BPs in the whole match, converting only one. And I agree with others who say Novak has looked very tired this week. So Fed could win it tomorrow, but he has to have a better day, and Novak needs to be off a bit, as he has been all week.

 

[Gary Duane]

Once again, you don't get any more credit for losing a set 7-6 as opposed to 6-0, it's closer within the "confines" of a set, but, ultimately, a straight set loss is a straight set loss. "Close" is when you're a few points from winning the match, and if you don't win a set, you weren't close...period.

If you are watching a set that is 6/6, don't you watch the TB with more interest than when a guy who is down 0/5 is trying to avoid a bagel by getting the set to 1/6?

Both losses count the same in results but I don't think anyone looks at 6/0 6/7 6/0 the same as 7/5 6/7 7/6.

 

[Mainad]

I have to point out that a Murray who does not even have a break point against Fed in two sets, not even one, is not the same Murray I've seen other times this year. This is the same guy who has 45% BP conversion for the year on hard courts. His return is close to the top in the world.

Fed was only at 54% on his first serve, which is very low. But he won 79% of his second serve points. A lot of those 2nd serves were obviously attackable. If Murray had served poorly, I would agree with you and others that this is typical Murray, because at his best his serve can let him down. But I think Murray was obviously sub-par today. The man needs a rest if he is going to have a change at the USO.

Spot on, Gary! (I just wish certain other posters like Chanwan would admit as much).

 

[Inanimate_object]

I have to point out that a Murray who does not even have a break point against Fed in two sets, not even one, is not the same Murray I've seen other times this year. This is the same guy who has 45% BP conversion for the year on hard courts. His return is close to the top in the world.

Fed was only at 54% on his first serve, which is very low. But he won 79% of his second serve points. A lot of those 2nd serves were obviously attackable. If Murray had served poorly, I would agree with you and others that this is typical Murray, because at his best his serve can let him down. But I think Murray was obviously sub-par today. The man needs a rest if he is going to have a change at the USO.

Agreed, this Murray is a slight step back from his continual improvements in the 2015 season. That's no shocker. Few players can perform their best at every tournament, and it shouldn't be controversial to say that Murray wasn't at his very best. Murray lost. He lost because he wasn't as good as Federer today. There are days when Murray is much better than Federer. Today wasn't one of them. But these suggestions about fatigue are born of insecurities to excuse a defeat which seemed at the time inevitable. They are premature knee-jerk reactions to hollowly justify a result that does not compute in their heads. Frankly, I watched most of the match again out of curiosity and I saw very little sign that Murray didn't have his legs or was sucking air, giving up on winnable points or was in any way exhausted. He just had an off day. Poor return of serve (again I don't know how to tell from a tv screen how good Fed's kicker was), pretty great serving, and the bad luck of running into the 6 time champion. Not much else to say.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Have you not been watching him all week? Well, I have. He was so obviously fatigued in his first match against Fish that I thought he should pull out there and then and get as much rest as possible ahead of New York. Every subsequent match has been an awful struggle, completely the opposite of Montreal. I think he's just been running on adrenalin to get through them. Obviously, he tried to inject a bit more energy into today's tussle but it was always going to be a hopeless task against a fully fit, fully confident and in-form Federer. I tried to warn you, didn't I?

Djokovic is obviously feeling the pinch too and I don't really give a fig for his chances tomorrow if he shows up playing like he did today. Roger will have another field day. I bet he can't believe his luck!

For how much you whine and snivel about Federer fans making excuses for Federer's losses to Murray early in their rivalry, you sure aren't coming up short on excuses for Murray.

 

[Mainad]

Agreed, this Murray is a slight step back from his continual improvements in the 2015 season. That's no shocker. Few players can perform their best at every tournament, and it shouldn't be controversial to say that Murray wasn't at his very best. Murray lost. He lost because he wasn't as good as Federer today. There are days when Murray is much better than Federer. Today wasn't one of them. But these suggestions about fatigue are born of insecurities to excuse a defeat which seemed at the time inevitable. They are premature knee-jerk reactions to hollowly justify a result that does not compute in their heads. Frankly, I watched most of the match again out of curiosity and I saw very little sign that Murray didn't have his legs or was sucking air, giving up on winnable points or was in any way exhausted. He just had an off day. Poor return of serve (again I don't know how to tell from a tv screen how good Fed's kicker was), pretty great serving, and the bad luck of running into the 6 time champion. Not much else to say.

He's been fatigued all week. How else do you propose to explain why he struggled with Fish, had to come back from a set and 2 breaks down against Dimitrov (including having to save a match point) and dropped the first set and had to go the distance with Gasquet? I'm open to suggestions?

He said himself he was tired but would try to raise his level for Federer. That is what he tried to do. Had he been playing like he did last week in Montreal, he would have had a much better chance I feel!

 

[sbengte]

Missed the whole match , hope I can catch some replay of it. Murray has been lookin gassed all week alright, but remember that Fed also had a turnaround of < 20 hours or so since his QF match and was playing in his first day match.

I think Murray stood a better chance against Djoker in the final though. After the Wimbledon final, I don't think you can bet on Fed in the final at this point.

 

[Mainad]

For how much you whine and snivel about Federer fans making excuses for Federer's losses to Murray early in their rivalry, you sure aren't coming up short on excuses for Murray.

I just want a fair and level playing field. But I never make excuses for Murray that I don't think are legitimate. Just wish I could say the same for many Fed fans!

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Regardless, I want to point out that a lot of Fed fans don't give credit to Murray for his win in Cincy in 2006 (which was under similar circumstances) so roasting Mainad over hot coals over it feels a bit unfair.

I think the point is that Mainad gives Murray 100% credit for the 2006 match, while discrediting Federer of this win even before the match started.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

I just want a fair and level playing field. But I never make excuses for Murray that I don't think are legitimate. Just wish I could say the same for many Fed fans!

So, tell me, was the 2006 Cincinnati match between Federer and Murray played on a fair and level field?

 

[Mainad]

I think the point is that Mainad gives Murray 100% credit for the 2006 match, while discrediting Federer of this win even before the match started.

What the heck are you talking about?

 

[Gary Duane]

Spot on, Gary! (I just wish certain other posters like Chanwan would admit as much).

It's not an admission, Mainad. To me it is simple observation. There are a lot of ways for a great player to lose on a day that is not the best, but when Novak, Murray and Nadal can't create BPs, something is really wrong. Of course they can have days when they are denied, lots of opportunities and no conversions? But zero BP opportunities for me is as big a sign of an off day as when Fed starts losing service games.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

What the heck are you talking about?

What the heck do you think I'm talking about?

 

[Mainad]

So, tell me, was the 2006 Cincinnati match between Federer and Murray played on a fair and level field?

I don't know. But I guess you mean that Federer was gassed from playing Canada the week before? Okay, but Fed was still the world number 1, at the height of his peak, and, even if a bit tired and sub-par, was facing a teenage scrub. He should still have won. If Murray could sneak past old man Fish in his opening round in Cincy, why couldn't Fed do the same against young scrub, Murray?

 

[The_18th_Slam]

I don't know. But I guess you mean that Federer was gassed from playing Canada the week before? Okay, but Fed was still the world number 1, at the height of his peak, and, even if a bit tired and sub-par, was facing a teenage scrub. He should still have won. If Murray could sneak past old man Fish in his opening round in Cincy, why couldn't Fed do the same against young scrub, Murray?

I rest my case.

 

[Mainad]

What the heck do you think I'm talking about?

Well, I don't know, that's why I asked!

 

[Gary Duane]

Agreed, this Murray is a slight step back from his continual improvements in the 2015 season. That's no shocker. Few players can perform their best at every tournament, and it shouldn't be controversial to say that Murray wasn't at his very best. Murray lost. He lost because he wasn't as good as Federer today. There are days when Murray is much better than Federer. Today wasn't one of them. But these suggestions about fatigue are born of insecurities to excuse a defeat which seemed at the time inevitable. They are premature knee-jerk reactions to hollowly justify a result that does not compute in their heads. Frankly, I watched most of the match again out of curiosity and I saw very little sign that Murray didn't have his legs or was sucking air, giving up on winnable points or was in any way exhausted. He just had an off day. Poor return of serve (again I don't know how to tell from a tv screen how good Fed's kicker was), pretty great serving, and the bad luck of running into the 6 time champion. Not much else to say.

I think that mental fatigue can lose a close match. Fed looked utterly rested and sharp at the start of this tournament. I don't think he looked quite as sharp today, so I am expecting a loss to Novak tomorrow. But Fed has a chance if Novak is ALSO off, as Murray was in the semi.

My judgment is that Murray was off competitively but was OK physically. That's just my impression.

I also think the Fed is looking a bit angry, almost keyed up in a negative way. I think he is gambling on winning the USO and thinks this week is going to be key. I think he is feeling the pressure of being 34 and no GSs in the past couple years.

Novak looks mentally tired to me and has been pulling out matches not playing anywhere his best. So tomorrow and the upcoming USO will be very interesting.

 

[Mainad]

I rest my case.

Which is what, exactly? Fed's loss in 2006 is not legitimate because Fed was tired? But on the other hand, Fed's win in 2015 was completely legit because he wasn't?

 

[Mainad]

It's not an admission, Mainad. To me it is simple observation. There are a lot of ways for a great player to lose on a day that is not the best, but when Novak, Murray and Nadal can't create BPs, something is really wrong. Of course they can have days when they are denied, lots of opportunities and no conversions? But zero BP opportunities for me is as big a sign of an off day as when Fed starts losing service games.

Gary, I honestly can't think why Murray would have an off day unless the struggles he's been having all week played a big part. He admitted he was tired when interviewed after the Gasquet match. He clearly tried to raise his level but was still missing too many bread and butter shots against an opponent who wasn't even serving as well against him as usual. If the tiredness he admitted to after the previous match played no part, I'm at a genuine loss to explain it unless we just admit that Federer is too good for Murray these days, no matter what level he's playing at?

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Which is what, exactly? Fed's loss in 2006 is not legitimate because Fed was tired? But on the other hand, Fed's win in 2015 was completely legit because he wasn't?

No. Either excuses should be allowed for both losses, or both wins are completely worthy and meritorious. You're just as bad as the Federer fanboys you keep whining about. It's amazing how you can't seem to understand that. But I guess that's how it works when you're a blind Murray fanboy.

 

[Fedex]

What the heck do you think I'm talking about?

Not being cheeky here just curious. You've gone back in time to 2006. I can understand why there's some confusion.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Not being cheeky here just curious. You've gone back in time to 2006. I can understand why there's some confusion.

Okay, this is what I meant:

When Federer fans say that Federer was tired in the 2006 Cincinnati match against Murray, Mainad complains about people not giving Murray credit and making excuses. And yet, here he is, doing the same thing for Murray. If that isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what is.

Either both the wins have complete merit, or excuses should be allowed for both the losses. Mainad can't eat his cake and have it, too.

 

[Mainad]

No. Either excuses should be allowed for both losses, or both wins are completely worthy and meritorious. You're just as bad as the Federer fanboys you keep whining about. It's amazing how you can't seem to understand that. But I guess that's how it works when you're a blind Murray fanboy.

If you follow me on this board to any extent, you will know well that I'm no blind fanboy. I'm quite ready to give it him in the neck if I think he deserves it. All I've ever wanted for him was a level playing field, something which, for some reason, Fedfans have often been reluctant to grant him and I sense that happening yet again.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

If you follow me on this board to any extent, you will know well that I'm no blind fanboy. I'm quite ready to give it him in the neck if I think he deserves it. All I've ever wanted for him was a level playing field, something which, for some reason, Fedfans have often been reluctant to grant him and I sense that happening yet again.

I see you haven't addressed my point at all. Why is fatigue not a good excuse for Federer in 2006 when you're making that very excuse for Murray in 2015?

 

[Mainad]

Okay, this is what I meant:

When Federer fans say that Federer was tired in the 2006 Cincinnati match against Murray, Mainad complains about people not giving Murray credit and making excuses. And yet, here he is, doing the same thing for Murray. If that isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what is.

Either both the wins have complete merit, are excuses should be allowed for both the losses. Mainad can't eat his cake and have it, too.

Hang on, when did I say that Federer's win today does not have complete merit? I said nothing of the kind. I just regretted that Murray wasn't able to be at his best against him today because of his struggles this week, that's all. Federer's win is completely legitimate. If an opponent is tired, that's their problem!

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Hang on, when did I say that Federer's win today does not have complete merit? I said nothing of the kind. I just regretted that Murray wasn't able to be at his best against him today because of his struggles this week, that's all. Federer's win is completely legitimate. If an opponent is tired, that's their problem!

So if I said that Federer was close to death in the 2006 match against Murray but that Murray has complete merit for his win against a near-dead Federer, you wouldn't object to it?

 

[Mainad]

I see you haven't addressed my point at all. Why is fatigue not a good excuse for Federer in 2006 when you're making that very excuse for Murray in 2015?

I don't want to excuse either! I regret that Federer wasn't able to give his best in the 2006 match just as I regret Murray wasn't able to give his best in 2015 but that doesn't mean their respective victories werenot completely legitimate no matter what state their opponent was in (just as I explained in my previous post).

 

[The_18th_Slam]

I don't want to excuse either! I regret that Federer wasn't able to give his best in the 2006 match just as I regret Murray wasn't able to give his best in 2015 but that doesn't mean their respective victories werenot completely legitimate no matter what state their opponent was in (just as I explained in my previous post).

Which is weird, because I've seen you mock Federer fans saying, "it's funny how Federer was not able to give his best only against Murray in all those matches he lost."

 

[Mainad]

So if I said that Federer was close to death in the 2006 match against Murray but that Murray has complete merit for his win against a near-dead Federer, you wouldn't object to it?

Oh, come on! You're really revealing yourself in your true colours now. What a steaming great hypocrite you are and you've just had the barefaced cheek to accuse me of that! Federer on his deathbed in 2006? Over-dramatise much? If Federer was that bad, why didn't he pull out of the tournament citing exhaustion? He chose to play and he lost. End of. Murray chose to play today and he lost. End of. Doesn't in the least negate the legitimacy of either wins. But that doesn't stop us regretting that either of them weren't able to play at their best, only you want to bring out the violins for Fed while clearly not willing to do the same for Andy. What a typical Fedfan you're turning out to be!