Federer-Murray - Cincinnati 2015 MS - SF

[Mainad]

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."

That's simply to take the p1ss out of Fedfans like you who constantly make all sorts of excuses for Fed's losses while denying any possibility of excuses for their opponents!

 

[The_18th_Slam]

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!

Don't get your panties in a bunch. I said right in the beginning of today's match that Murray was clearly tired. You, on the other hand, are a steaming pile of hypocritical organic matter, the way you make excuses for Murray and then whine about other people making excuses for other players.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

That's simply to take the p1ss out of Fedfans like you who constantly make all sorts of excuses for Fed's losses while denying any possibility of excuses for their opponents!

Actually, I agree that Murray was tired today. You are the one that is making all sorts of excuses for Murray (surgery! tired! tooth ache! belly ache!) while whining like a little girl anytime anyone else makes an excuse for any other player. Your hypocrisy is astounding. You're a blind Murray fanboy.

 

[Mainad]

Don't get your panties in a bunch. I said right in the beginning of today's match that Murray was clearly tired. You, on the other hand, are a steaming pile of hypocritical organic matter, the way you make excuses for Murray and then whine about other people making excuses for other players.

Then what the heck are we arguing about or do you just love arguing for the sake of it? And don't try to twist things round when I've just pointed out your own great steaming pile of hypocrisy, whining away about poor Fed's near-death experience in 2006 Cincy! Tell me, if Fed had won that match back in 2006, would that have been completely legitimate? Or does it not count only when he loses?

 

[D.Nalby12]

Predictable. May be mods can change title of this thread to "Lesson - how to construct excuses for professional player out of nothing" or something like that. As usual Mainad is our chief professor for subject of Professional Excuse making .

In all seriousness, Murray seems to be having some excuse attached with each of his loss. This almost going up to The ************* level of excuse making lately. Federer routined him in straights at Wimbledon few weeks ago without dropping serve. Then excuse for Murray was Federer suddenly turning clock back to 2005 playing prime level Tennis. They blamed his serve % for that loss. After that we saw how "Prime Federer" got bullied by Djokovic all over the court in Final. Today Federer brought some quality Tennis beating him in straights with just 55% first serves and now he is exhausted. Just looking at scorelines, no one could spot a difference between "Fresh Murray" and "Exhausted Murray". Those are similar looking with close 6-4/7-5 sets. Consensus seems to be Federer is getting upper hand in rivalry since his resurgence. The real excuse for Murray should be not being good Tennis player and competitor as widely believed in past or his supporter still seems to believe.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Then what the heck are we arguing about or do you just love arguing for the sake of it? And don't try to twist things round when I've just pointed out your own great steaming pile of hypocrisy, whining away about poor Fed's near-death experience in 2006 Cincy! Tell me, if Fed had won that match back in 2006, would that have been completely legitimate? Or does it not count only when he loses?

Here is the post I made saying Murray was tired:

Yeah, Murray looks tired. I'll allow Mainad his excuse this time.

The point, you petulant child, is that you're a hypocrite. If you're gonna make excuses for Murray, don't complain when others make excuses for other players.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Predictable. May be mods can change title of this thread to "Lesson - how to construct excuses for professional player out of nothing" or something like that. As usual Mainad is our chief professor for subject of Professional Excuse making .

In all seriousness, Murray seems to be having some excuse attached with each of his loss. This almost going up to The ************* level of excuse making lately. Federer routined him in straights at Wimbledon few weeks ago without dropping serve. Then excuse for Murray was Federer suddenly turning clock back to 2005 playing prime level Tennis. They blamed his serve % for that loss. After that we saw how "Prime Federer" got bullied by Djokovic all over the court in Final. Today Federer brought some quality Tennis beating him in straights with just 55% first serves and now he is exhausted. Just looking at scorelines, no one could spot no difference between "Fresh Murray" and "Exhausted Murray". Those are similar looking with close 6-4/7-5 sets. Consensus seems to be Federer is getting upper hand in rivalry since his resurgence. The real excuse for Murray should be not being good Tennis player and competitor as widely believed in past or his supporter still seems to believe.

But the Murray is clearly losing only because of the deathly surgery he had 2 years ago, which nearly killed him but merely ended up crippling him!

 

[Mainad]

Here is the post I made saying Murray was tired:

The point, you petulant child, is that you're a hypocrite. If you're gonna make excuses for Murray, don't complain when others make excuses for other players.

Well, I've got a much better and much more mature suggestion. How about we can honestly discuss a player's fitness without trying to suggest that it puts an asterisk against any match they may happen to lose? In other words, I have no problem acknowledging the legitimacy of Murray's losses but don't see why I can't comment on his level in that match and the possible reasons for it. You, on the other hand, like to put asterisks against any match Fed may lose when he may be feeling tired, particularly when he loses to Murray. So try spitting out that dummy of your's and acknowledge that if Federer loses, he loses. I have no problem doing the same for Murray. Let's prove who the REAL biased fanboy is here? The ball's in your court!

 

[D.Nalby12]

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.

Yes, he is hypocrite and He is blind Murray fanboy as you said earlier. I haven't seen him not moaning about some excuse after any of Murray's loss since I've joined this message board. Just a rough estimate but quite sure this guy has made more than 1K about whining and moaning about Murray's minor back surgery in various discussions but half of them could have been avoided if there was nobody feeding him. If you don't feed, he can't moan for hours.

Try to keep this message board less polluted as possible.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

So try spitting out that dummy of your's and acknowledge that if Federer loses, he loses. I have no problem doing the same for Murray. Let's prove who the REAL biased fanboy is here? The ball's in your court!

Is that why you've spent your entire day making 10,000 excuses for Murray's loss?

 

[Fedex]

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.

It's never as simple as no excuses though is it really. I remember Federer's mono, back, leg and whatever else excuses which were possibly legit otherwise we'd have a 20 plus slam champion on our hands.
Or what if Murray didn't have the pre and pro effects of a serious back issue. How many slam finals did he lose as a result?
What if Djokovic had discovered his alergy to gluten earlier? How many less slams would Federer have had?
All very intangible but you could also argue legit.
In yesterday's match only a monkey would argue that Murray was not fatigued. Remember the guy who only last week outplayed and outgunned Djokovic in a Master's final.
However, it was Murray's fault that he was fatigued. He struggled in various long matches this week and Federer did not.
Then it get's very complicated and you could argue that the Montreal and Cincinnati scheduling was unfair due to Murray having to play various back to back and early morning matches and with hardly any break between Montreal and Cincinnati?
This, however, you could argue is no excuse too because all the players know the score which is why Federer was clever enough and played well enough in past tournaments to earn the luxury to skip it.
I guess my point is that we could go on and on all day long going back and forward making excuses for various players, the luck of the draw, the scheduling, the injuries, the tiredness, but, when two players meet, the result of the match is really a combination of a vast amount of factors and years of planning going on behind the scenes that few of us can really understand and appreciate.
My simple black and white view is that the player who wins nearly always deserves to win regardless of any excuses.
Federer decided not to play Montreal. Murray did. Murray was rewarded with a Masters win but reduced his chances of winning Cincinnati. I believe both players made the correct decision but Federer coped with the circumstances better therefore he deserved his win. And now looks as strong as he can be for the USO.
Federer's planning, decision making, training and talent have maximised his chances.
Murray also made the correct decision to play both Montreal and Cincinnati. He won a Masters beating Djokovic, playing well and gaining confidence, and had to try and hold onto his no2 ranking but it was too much to get passed Federer.
Federer deserved the win.

 

[batz]

Didn't get the chance to post last night - many congrats to Roger's fans on a thoroughly deserved win and good luck for the final.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

It's never as simple as no excuses though is it really. I remember Federer's mono, back, leg and whatever else excuses which were possibly legit otherwise we'd have a 20 plus slam champion on our hands.
Or what if Murray didn't have the pre and pro effects of a serious back issue. How many slam finals did he lose as a result?
What if Djokovic had discovered his alergy to gluten earlier? How many less slams would Federer have had?
All very intangible but you could also argue legit.
In yesterday's match only a monkey would argue that Murray was not fatigued. Remember the guy who only last week outplayed and outgunned Djokovic in a Master's final.
However, it was Murray's fault that he was fatigued. He struggled in various long matches this week and Federer did not.
Then it get's very complicated and you could argue that the Montreal and Cincinnati scheduling was unfair due to Murray having to play various back to back and early morning matches and with hardly any break between Montreal and Cincinnati?
This, however, you could argue is no excuse too because all the players know the score which is why Federer was clever enough and played well enough in past tournaments to earn the luxury to skip it.
I guess my point is that we could go on and on all day long going back and forward making excuses for various players, the luck of the draw, the scheduling, the injuries, the tiredness, but, when two players meet, the result of the match is really a combination of a vast amount of factors and years of planning going on behind the scenes that few of us can really understand and appreciate.
My simple black and white view is that the player who wins nearly always deserves to win regardless of any excuses.
Federer decided not to play Montreal. Murray did. Murray was rewarded with a Masters win but reduced his chances of winning Cincinnati. I believe both players made the correct decision but Federer coped with the circumstances better therefore he deserved his win. And now looks as strong as he can be for the USO.
Federer's planning, decision making, training and talent have maximised his chances.
Murray also made the correct decision to play both Montreal and Cincinnati. He won a Masters beating Djokovic, playing well and gaining confidence, and had to try and hold onto his no2 ranking but it was too much to get passed Federer.
Federer deserved the win.

See, that is perfectly fair. I have no issues with your stance whatsoever. It's just that Mainad has been making excuse after excuse for Murray ever since I joined this forum, and he attacks everyone who makes excuses for Djokovic or Federer. It's just ridiculous. But yes, I more or less agree with you.

 

[Fedex]

Message to D Nalby and 18th Slam and Mainad.

It's all quite personal and unpleasant now.
You can all get your points across in a more civilised manner.
It's just turned into a slanging match now.

 

[D.Nalby12]

But the Murray is clearly losing only because of the deathly surgery he had 2 years ago, which nearly killed him but merely ended up crippling him!

Yes, Murray's surgery has replaced Nadal's knee in last couple of years.

 

[LETitBE]

Muzzard having a good year and i think he should be at least co fave with djok at the US,fed just shy of them.

 

[zagor]

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.

And my point is, get me any fan of the big 4 and I can point out his/her double standards. Some cases are extreme yes (where said fan obsessively hates one or more of the other big 4 players but Mainad is no hater) but we all have them.

As a Fed fan, there are very few matches he lost where I feel he played his best tennis. It's my bias, can't really help it and neither can others. I can credit the other player of course (and every win counts and is deserved, have no qualms about that) but I'll often feel Fed could have served better, played key points better, was tired/flat, past his prime (when he hits 3 FH winners from a neutral rally all match these days) etc.

I'm completely fine with Mainad (and others) feeling Murray was flat and not his best (I might even come to the same conclusion if I re-watch the match and focus only on Murray), I only care that Fed won.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

And my point is, get me any fan of the big 4 and I can point out his/her double standards. Some cases are extreme yes (where said fan obsessively hates one or more of the other big 4 players but Mainad is no hater) but we all have them.

As a Fed fan, there are very few matches he lost where I feel he played his best tennis. It's my bias, can't really help it and neither can others. I can credit the other player of course (and every win counts and is deserved, have no qualms about that) but I'll often feel Fed could have served better, played key points better, was tired/flat, past his prime (when he hits 3 FH winners from a neutral rally all match these days) etc.

I'm completely fine with Mainad (and others) feeling Murray was flat and not his best (I might even come to the same conclusion if I re-watch the match and focus only on Murray), I only care that Fed won.

I've pointed out double-standards from Federer fans in the past. Most notably tennis_pro, who was using "competition" as an argument for putting Federer over Kuerten on clay. I call it as I see it. Can you point out a double-standard of mine?

 

[zagor]

I believe both players made the correct decision but Federer coped with the circumstances better therefore he deserved his win.

I'll disagree with you there, I think Murray should have skipped Cinci even if it meant giving Fed the #2 USO seed. It's not a coincidence that the only time he won USO he lost at both Canada and Cincy early, just as it's not a coincidence during his peak year everytime Fed won Canada he lost early in Cincy.

Smart scheduling is crucial for winning slams and Murray's already a tour veteran more or less as a 28 year old. I think this reduced his chances at USO, time will tell if I'm right.

 

[LETitBE]

I'll disagree with you there, I think Murray should have skipped Cinci even if it meant giving Fed the #2 USO seed. It's not a coincidence that the only time he won USO he lost at both Canada and Cincy early, just as it's not a coincidence during his peak year everytime Fed won Canada he lost early in Cincy.

Smart scheduling is crucial for winning slams and Murray's already a tour veteran more or less as a 28 year old. I think this reduced his chances at USO, time will tell if I'm right.

no way,momentum is gold and Muzzard has done the right thing,he has a week to play and do what he has to do to be ready for the Open.I ope he wins or at least makes the final again.

 

[zagor]

I've pointed out double-standards from Federer fans in the past. Most notably tennis_pro, who was using "competition" as an argument for putting Federer over Kuerten on clay. I call it as I see it. Can you point out a double-standard of mine?

Well, there are always exceptions that prove the rule, maybe you just happen to be one of them? Regardless, I think I'm getting fatigued of this topic. Fed won and did it in style, whether Murray was at his best or not is his problem.

 

[dh003i]

Really, what does all this debate matter? If Federer and Murray played 1000 times, does anyone have any doubt about who would win more often than not? More importantly, and what has actually been tested in reality, is that when they both enter the same tournaments Federer wins more of them than Murray. That's why he has won many more Majors. Even the biggest Murray fans cannot seriously have any doubts that Federer is the better player.

That said, of course Murray is still a great player. 2 Majors, case closed, all time great. At one point there was serious doubt that he'd ever win a Major, but he did what he needed to do.

 

[Fedex]

Yes, Murray's surgery has replaced Nadal's knee in last couple of years.

Murray's back problems were already clearly evident as far back as Wimbledon 2013.
You do realise Murray's title was won on the back of pain killers if you'll excuse the pun.
I believe if he had lost that final game where he was 40-love up and then ended up various break points down, then he would have lost the set and capitulated and lost the match. IMO from a physical standpoint, he had to beat Djokovic in straight sets at Wimbledon 2013 otherwise he was done.
So can we put a timeline on this and safely say that the period from USO 2013 until AO 2015 is pretty much a write off for Murray due to back.
Can we all agree on this and no more garbage talk?

 

[Fedex]

I'll disagree with you there, I think Murray should have skipped Cinci even if it meant giving Fed the #2 USO seed. It's not a coincidence that the only time he won USO he lost at both Canada and Cincy early, just as it's not a coincidence during his peak year everytime Fed won Canada he lost early in Cincy.

Smart scheduling is crucial for winning slams and Murray's already a tour veteran more or less as a 28 year old. I think this reduced his chances at USO, time will tell if I'm right.

Yes that is a worry. The exact same applies to Djokovic then because he is also looking jaded.
Federer in pole position then?

 

[The_18th_Slam]

So can we put a timeline on this and safely say that the period from USO 2013 until AO 2015 is pretty much a write off for Murray due to back.
Can we all agree on this and no more garbage talk?

Is that including AO15?

 

[Fedex]

Is that including AO15?

No definitely not including AO 2015. He was back on top of his game by then.

Call it mid 2013 to end 2014. Not too far off I would say.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

No definitely not including AO 2015. He was back on top of his game by then.

In that case, I think that's agreeable. However, Mainad still uses it as an excuse. 2 years later.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Yes that is a worry. The exact same applies to Djokovic then because he is also looking jaded.
Federer in pole position then?

Federer might have a good chance if he beats Djokovic tomorrow and Murray/Wawrinka are drawn in Djokovic's half of the draw. He can still lose to pretty much anyone, though.

 

[zagor]

Yes that is a worry. The exact same applies to Djokovic then because he is also looking jaded.
Federer in pole position then?

No, don't think Fed will win either. Winning 7 BO5 matches on HC is too big of a task for him at this stage of his career, grass is nice and soft and his serve and netgame are very effective there which is why he still contends at Wimbledon.

My pick is Wawrinka, he's the only guy that consistently peaks for slams these days and can topple Novak in BO5.

 

[Fedex]

In that case, I think that's agreeable. However, Mainad still uses it as an excuse. 2 years later.

I think a year and a half is a reasonable excuse because if you then start saying that Murray's back issues were affecting him before and after that period then practically every player has niggles and physical problems that they can cast up.
From watching Murray over the years and seeing a definite noticeable correlation of back issues to reduced performance, I think a year and half is just about right.

 

[Fedex]

No, don't think Fed will win either. Winning 7 BO5 matches on HC is too big of a task for him at this stage of his career, grass is nice and soft and his serve and netgame are very effective there which is why he still contends at Wimbledon.

My pick is Wawrinka, he's the only guy that consistently peaks for slams these days and can topple Novak in BO5.

Regardless of whether Federer wins USO or not, he has given himself the best chance managing his schedule and adapting style of play. If he's giving himself the best chance then you can't ask for more.

 

[Chanwan]

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

I just wish you would have said as much but alas you gave no reasons whatsoever despite multiple requests
Gary gave good ones. But how does his best serving performance vs. Fed since the AO 2013 fit into this? You yourself said his serve is one of the first things to suffer...

 

[zagor]

I just wish you would have said as much but alas you gave no reasons whatsoever despite multiple requests
Gary gave good ones. But how does his best serving performance vs. Fed since the AO 2013 fit into this? You yourself said his serve is one of the first tjings to suffer...

I think it depends on the server. I've seen Isner being absolutely exhausted (barely moving his feet, late on every shot) yet still bang down aces/service winners.

 

[heninfan99]

hahahah federer still clowning Murray at 34 yrs old. great stuff!

 

[Towser83]

Delete post...

 

[Towser83]

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.

But I never did make excuses for Djokovic when Murray beat him, I've only done that now because have rolled out the excuses for Murray which does seem to happen a lot when Fed beats him. Djokovic didn't play great in Canada but I don't put that down to fatigue (or some injury he apparently has) I just think he didn't play well. No excuses. Love how you make the point of him being bad this week and fed being lucky but have to say he was better in Canada! Also where did I ever say that Murray and Djokovic haven't been under par this week? That's not what I said at all

In truth Djokovic hasn't been great since wimbledon at Canada or Cincy. Murray from what I have seen (and I didn't see the match with Federer) has not been great here either. But I bet you weren't talking about Djokovic being below par last week, only when Fed plays him and then he's lucky. They way I see it is Murray played Djokovic enough times when Novak was on top of his game that just by law of averages he deserved to play him when he wasn't top of his game. He earned that. But then so has Federer! At this point in time if Djokovic plays his absolute best, neither Fed or Murray have a great chance to win. They have a chance but Novak is heavy favourite if he's playing his absolute best.

Again I don't get why Murray plays great in Canada but one match later he's exhausted. Also kind of his own fault for over playing and it's all those extra events that have earned him the number 2 ranking so it's a trade off.

Like i said I don't think Murray has played great this week but Federer has beaten him the last 5 times, last 10 sets, not been broken in the last few matches, 13 of the last 14 sets.... you were predicting he would get destroyed so he can't have played that badly to have made it a close match.

sorry but I'm not the one making excuses, but you are and also begrudging a possible Federer win here like if he does he's got lucky when he's faced up to top Novak all year.

 

[Russeljones]

The main thing for me was the number of times Federer made positive DTL forehands. Something that's really been missing from his game the last couple of years.

 

[D.Nalby12]

@Chanwan

www.tennislive.net/atp/match/roger-federer-VS-andy-murray/western-southern-open-cincinnati-2015/

Good site for match statistics, everything is in place.

 

[heninfan99]

The main thing for me was the number of times Federer made positive DTL forehands. Something that's really been missing from his game the last couple of years.

there was one DTL return that was mind blowing

 

[heninfan99]

maybe not everything. It lists murray as being lighter in weight

@Chanwan

www.tennislive.net/atp/match/roger-federer-VS-andy-murray/western-southern-open-cincinnati-2015/

Good site for match statistics, everything is in place.

 

[Chanwan]

I think it depends on the server. I've seen Isner being absolutely exhausted (barely moving his feet, late on every shot) yet still bang down aces/service winners.

True. I wad specifically referring to AM as Mainad brugt that up pre match

 

[D.Nalby12]

Murray's back problems were already clearly evident as far back as Wimbledon 2013.
You do realise Murray's title was won on the back of pain killers if you'll excuse the pun.
I believe if he had lost that final game where he was 40-love up and then ended up various break points down, then he would have lost the set and capitulated and lost the match. IMO from a physical standpoint, he had to beat Djokovic in straight sets at Wimbledon 2013 otherwise he was done.

Agreed. It was 2013, when Murray suffered severe and persistent back pain unlike most people seems to believe it was 2014. He skipped almost half of that season (Clay court and post USO part) and barely showed up for Masters. He peaked in GS tournaments precisely but still his play Wimbledon 2013 wasn't that much impressive compared to earlier one.

So can we put a timeline on this and safely say that the period from USO 2013 until AO 2015 is pretty much a write off for Murray due to back.

Can we all agree on this and no more garbage talk?

Pretty reasonable. I don't think Murray should be excused for every loss for year and half. He wasn't injured in 2014 but it took some time to reestablish previous fitness levels and straighten mental game. I also believe, he returned to his close previous best level (2012) from very first tournament of the season. You're honest enough to admit that but someone like Mainad who is genuinely interested in making excuses has extended excuse period till this Wimbledon, so as to cover embarrassing loss against Federer. This is nothing but blatant excuse making, I believe. Do you agree with me?

This season is basically very underrated since he hasn't bagged GS title yet but level wise 2012 and 2015 are his peak years IMO. 2013 is overrated season since he won Wimbledon that year but I can't see the reason current Murray not winning it, if you throw him 2013 draw and Zombievic in Final. He definitely would.

Just like everyone, Murray decided to go on operation table to eliminate the long persistent back pain so as to prolong career. Contrary to popular belief, I believe that decision saved and prolonged his professional career. He has played ~140 matches since comeback with very few (one or two) reported back pains. He even recorded his personal best results on physically taxing surface like clay since surgery. Before that, he wasn't fit enough compete on clay, let alone winning.

@Chanwan seems online. What you think about this bro?

 

[britam25]

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.

I never said otherwise, the level of enjoyment of the match has absolutely NOTHING to do with how close the loser ultimately came to winning the match-and, in terms of SETS WON, which is the criteria for winning a tennis match, a guy who loses 7-6(10), 7-6(10), came no closer to winning then a guy who loses two golden sets. And, in terms of SETS WON a guy who loses 0-6, 6-4, 0-6, 0-6 was closer to winning the match than a guy who loses 7-6, 7-6, 7-6, even though the latter player clearly won far more games, could've won more points, and was far more interesting to watch.

 

[britam25]

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.

Dead on.

 

[Chanwan]

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

Me arguing with Mainad in this thread.

Mainad: Fed got lucky that Murray was so fatigued. And he's lucky to meet a fatigued Djoko tmr as well.
Me: Which aspects of his game did this fatigue affect today?
Mainad: He was fatigued! Didn't you see his previous matches? Are you blind?
Me: But today, which aspects? It shouldn't be that hard to point out
Mainad: He was fatigued! Fatigued!
Me: It clearly didn't affect his serve, as you said it would. He served his best vs. Fed since perhaps the AO 2013 match. So again, which aspects?
Mainad: He was fatigued!
Me: Where did it show?
Silence from Mainad.

Mainad, on other posters pointing to specific reasons:
Just wish Chanwan would admit as much.

Me: No problem, Gary gave good reasons, but why couldn't you say it?
And why is his return of serve, specifically his return of Fed's 2nd serve so affected, whereas his own serve was close to as good as ever vs Fed?

I'm still - 16 hours onwards - waiting.
Don't leave me hanging bro.

 

[Meles]

Mainad mate, I can guarantee you two things:

-Fed is not feeling lucky in any shape or form for having to face Novak in the final again.

-Novak that showed up against Dolgo will be nowhere to be found in the final, Fed will have to play his absolute best and then some to have a shot at winning.

Novak was not playing poorly. That was all a Dog show. Fed has a shot to today to blow Novak off court in a similar manner.

 

[Chanwan]

@fecaleagle
Thanks for that thorough match analysis on a game by game basis. It made me a lot more appreciative to Murray being fatigued to some extent. He did hit some regulation BH's into the net, but don't they happen in every match? If you look hard enough, you'll find something, but I can agree there probably was a bit of slow footwork and poor errors as well.
Anyhow 22/26 in W/UE ain't exactly a bad stat sheet vs. a fellow top player and specifically in the 2nd set, I thought the level was high (which is odd if fatigue was the factor).

@Gary Duane
You point to Murray not getting to BP with Fed serving at 55 % -> hence something must be wrong.
It's not always that simple. Fed served 59 % (vs. 55 % yesterday) in the 2012 Cinci final, yet Djoko - an extremely in form player that tournament and as good as Murray on ROS and better from the ground - never saw a BP.
Fed served a whole lot better vs. Murray at Wimbledon, but there Murray just got one BP in 3 sets - not much of a difference between 0 in 2 and 1 in 3 sets (but yes, Fed served a LOT better at Wimbledon). Was there something wrong there too? I believe Mainad had all kind of excuses iirc, but to my eye Murray played a damn fine Wimbledon-semi and a decent to good Cinci semi.

Also, statswise, the one thing that stands out is Murray's inability to handle the Fed 2nd serve yesterday. But why would that area be the most affected? Opposite the first serve, he doesn't need to be as explosive and 'unflat' for the 2nd serves. Yet he hit a fair amount of them out/in the net. So his 2nd serve return was somewhat off, yes, but why would that be the area that's, BY FAR, the most affected by fatigue? (and if you say it's rally related rather than directly ROS-related, then why would Murray win a pretty great percentage, 57 %, behind his own 2nd serve?)

@Mainad you can read this as well if you want. I still have hopes of you giving your own argument

 

[The_18th_Slam]

There is no doubt he was fatigued. Just look at how he's been playing all week. Also, Federer isn't playing like a 34 year old, more like a 24 year old. Lopez said the same after their match yesterday, hence the jokey banter when they went to shake hands. Since he started using his new racquet, Federer has transformed his game against Murray. Maybe Murray needs to start thinking about a new racquet too?

So I see three excuses:
1. Murray was a near corpse
2. Federer is playing better than he did at his peak
3. It's all the bloody rackets!

 

[tennis_pro]

Federer outplayed him, plain and simple, I saw no (or very little) fatigue from Murray, he ran down balls like he always does. If only he could return Federer's second serve better he'd have a better chance but it had nothing to do with fatige. He served well too.

 

[D.Nalby12]

@fecaleagle
Thanks for that thorough match analysis on a game by game basis. It made me a lot more appreciative to Murray being fatigued to some extent. He did hit some regulation BH's into the net, but don't they happen in every match? If you look hard enough, you'll find something, but I can agree there probably was a bit of slow footwork and poor errors as well.
Anyhow 22/26 in W/UE ain't exactly a bad stat sheet vs. a fellow top player and specifically in the 2nd set, I thought the level was high (which is odd if fatigue was the factor).

@Gary Duane
You point to Murray not getting to BP with Fed serving at 55 % -> hence something must be wrong.
It's not always that simple. Fed served 59 % (vs. 55 % yesterday) in the 2012 Cinci final, yet Djoko - an extremely in form player that tournament and as good as Murray on ROS and better from the ground - never saw a BP.
Fed served a whole lot better vs. Murray at Wimbledon, but there Murray just got one BP in 3 sets - not much of a difference between 0 in 2 and 1 in 3 sets (but yes, Fed served a LOT better at Wimbledon). Was there something wrong there too? I believe Mainad had all kind of excuses iirc, but to my eye Murray played a damn fine Wimbledon-semi and a decent to good Cinci semi.


Also, statswise, the one thing that stands out is Murray's inability to handle the Fed 2nd serve yesterday. But why would that area be the most affected? Opposite the first serve, he doesn't need to be as explosive and 'unflat' for the 2nd serves. Yet he hit a fair amount of them out/in the net. So his 2nd serve return was somewhat off, yes, but why would that be the area that's, BY FAR, the most affected by fatigue? (and if you say it's rally related rather than directly ROS-related, then why would Murray win a pretty great percentage, 57 %, behind his own 2nd serve?)

@Mainad you can read this as well if you want. I still have hopes of you giving your own argument

Federer just dropped 11 points on his serve in Wimbledon Final. One can blame this on unusually higher first serve % from Roger but in second set of Wimbledon he served close to his average 61% and yet Murray couldn't even produce a single BP. Federer won 100% first serve points in that set and remember Murray was supposed to be fresh in that match. Today Federer served 55% which is little below his average and yet Murray couldn't produce a BP again. Let's say, Murray was exhausted but what special he is doing when being fresh? Nothing.

He is struggling to win points on Federer's serve lately and as a viewer without looking at numbers, I feel his own failures to read serve contributing it rather than exhaustion or something. Just see the difference between his and returning of Novak's in Wimbledon. Djokovic seems to read his serve way better while Murray had no clue.