Federer : Murray Takes it Personally

Noelan

Legend
These fedfanboys should know better than running like headless chickens and digging old threads . What is the point? There is no amount of gloating that could satisfy vanity:oops:
 

killerboi2

Hall of Fame
Murray refused to jump on the already overloaded "religious experience" bandwagon occupied by fanatic suckups in the media and fanatic fanboy worshippers. I respected that about him. Just shame he couldn't beat Fed in slams more often. Nadal used to sing Fed's praises back in the day a little too much but had no problem wrecking him when it came down to business.
 

uliks

Banned
“That surprises me,” he said. “But there were some matches where I was not 100 percent, like in Shanghai for example. It was visible. It was clear. I was sick. I had a sore back and all that. I’m not going to say he’s the best player of all time if I had a sore back and also considering that I wasn’t far from beating him.

“I’ve always been honest. But I’ve always said 100,000 times that he’s an exceptional player with loads of talent, and a player I think will win Grand Slams. I just thought, at one stage, that he’d have, in fact, more success more quickly. Sometimes perhaps I was too severe with him, but he took it too personally. So that’s too bad for him. I don’t care too much what he says. I feel I was always straight with him.”




hahahah.. classic federer.
Yeah classic Federer. Garbage human being. Garbage!!!
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Murray refused to jump on the already overloaded "religious experience" bandwagon occupied by fanatic suckups in the media and fanatic fanboy worshippers. I respected that about him. Just shame he couldn't beat Fed in slams more often. Nadal used to sing Fed's praises back in the day a little too much but had no problem wrecking him when it came down to business.
Because Murray is not as good as some people make him out to be, so Fed's kinda right here -- he just said it really harshly.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
How many "mistakes" can this guy make, until we call him with his real name: Pathetic little doped wuss!
Coming from a guy who is a fan of someone who went from barely being No. 3 in the world to "dominating" a "strong era". :rolleyes:
 

uliks

Banned
Coming from a guy who is a fan of someone who went from barely being No. 3 in the world to "dominating" a "strong era". :rolleyes:
You're comparing 23 y/o coming into his peak years, with 36 y/o "injury reconvalescent", in his first tournament after 7 months, playing 5 setters after 5 setters after 5 setters, showing endless stamina, outlasting his opponents, never gets tired, never out of breath, running like a chicken on amphetamines...Yeah, right...:D
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
You're comparing 23 y/o coming into his peak years, with 36 y/o "injury reconvalescent", in his first tournament after 7 months, playing 5 setters after 5 setters after 5 setters, showing endless stamina, outlasting his opponents, never gets tired, never out of breath, running like a chicken on amphetamines...Yeah, right...:D
I'm comparing a guy who had stamina and heat-stroke problems and went from that to exactly what you described about Federer.
 

Gazelle

G.O.A.T.
What Federer wanted to say, but was too nice so he used friendlier words:

"The Binman is useless! Absolutly RUBBISH!"
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
You're comparing 23 y/o coming into his peak years, with 36 y/o "injury reconvalescent", in his first tournament after 7 months, playing 5 setters after 5 setters after 5 setters, showing endless stamina, outlasting his opponents, never gets tired, never out of breath, running like a chicken on amphetamines...Yeah, right...:D
LOL, you do realize Fed's 5 setter against Stan was just a bit longer than Nadal's straight set win over Raonic.

All of Fed's 5 setters were just a bit over the 3 hour mark (except the final which was just a little over 3 and a half hours). And he didn't outlast his opponents, he finished points quickly, thus his 5 setters were shorter. Compare that to Nadal who played way more hours than Fed in as many 5 setters and ran much more than Fed overall throughout the tournament and he still had energy left.

But keep talking without knowing facts.

You had no issues with Fed's stamina when he was losing to Djokovic, you actually defended it. Now look at you :D. All of a sudden Fed's age matters to you when it used to have no relevance to you when he was losing to Nole.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
What Federer wanted to say, but was too nice so he used friendlier words:

"The Binman is useless! Absolutly RUBBISH!"
Hmmm...I suspect that's what YOU would like him to have said. But even back then, Federer still had tons more respect for him than you have. Players are ALWAYS more realistic about their rivals than most of the fanboys and fangirls on here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NBP

Gazelle

G.O.A.T.
Hmmm...I suspect that's what YOU would like him to have said. But even back then, Federer still had tons more respect for him than you have. Players are ALWAYS more realistic about their rivals than most of the fanboys and fangirls on here.
Why do you say so? I have nothing against Murray.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I'm comparing a guy who had stamina and heat-stroke problems and went from that to exactly what you described about Federer.
Only that Federer wasn't exactly outlasting his opponents. He was ending points quick, thus all his 5 setters were shorter.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
So who exactly are these people making him out to be better than he is? :rolleyes:
People who act like he's got 10 GS titles behind him, guys that predicted he'd have an Edberg or Becker like career just because he got to No.1, etc.
 

uliks

Banned
LOL, you do realize Fed's 5 setter against Stan was just a bit longer than Nadal's straight set win over Raonic.

All of Fed's 5 setters were just a bit over the 3 hour mark (except the final which was just a little over 3 and a half hours). And he didn't outlast his opponents, he finished points quickly, thus his 5 setters were shorter. Compare that to Nadal who played way more hours than Fed in as many 5 setters and ran much more than Fed overall throughout the tournament and he still had energy left.

But keep talking without knowing facts.

You had no issues with Fed's stamina when he was losing to Djokovic, you actually defended it. Now look at you :D
7 months break without any competitive match, in your first tournament after long injury break, having surgery also the previous year, and suddenly, out of nowhere, you have an Emil Zatopek stamina and Usain Bolt speed. Lol, not even comparable with 2014 or 2015. Come on Mike Danny... Please, you have http://www.sffworld.com/forum/ to post things like this...;)
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
People who act like he's got 10 GS titles behind him, guys that predicted he'd have an Edberg or Becker like career just because he got to No.1, etc.
So who are these people acting like that? Plus why do you think its unrealistic for him to equal Becker or Edberg?
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
So who are these people acting like that? Plus why do you think its unrealistic for him to equal Becker or Edberg?
He has 3 slams and he'd have to double his tally from here on out, and only one man (Andre Agassi) accomplished such a feat. He isn't as fresh as Agassi was back then so I doubt he can do it is all I am saying.

I actually think its bordering on insanity to believe he will be that successful, similar to how the Djokovic fans thought that him winning 18 majors was a sure thing.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
7 months break without any competitive match, in your first tournament after long injury break, having surgery also the previous year, and suddenly, out of nowhere, you have an Emil Zatopek stamina and Usain Bolt speed. Lol, not even comparable with 2014 or 2015. Come on Mike Danny... Please, you have http://www.sffworld.com/forum/ to post things like this...;)
We know in 2014-2015 your boy won primarily because of a weak era, but in 2011 he went from stagnating to pumping Fed and Nadal like all the time.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
7 months break without any competitive match, in your first tournament after long injury break, having surgery also the previous year, and suddenly, out of nowhere, you have an Emil Zatopek stamina and Usain Bolt speed. Lol, not even comparable with 2014 or 2015. Come on Mike Danny... Please, you have http://www.sffworld.com/forum/ to post things like this...;)
Usain Bolt speed LOL. Now you're reaching. Haven't I just told you his 5 setters were relatively short? He also had the easiest QF ever after a day off and then another day off? And 2 days off after another relatively short 5 setter?

Meanwhile Nadal could still run in the 5th set after playing more hours than Federer.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
He has 3 slams and he'd have to double his tally from here on out, and only one man (Andre Agassi) accomplished such a feat. He isn't as fresh as Agassi was back then so I doubt he can do it is all I am saying.

I actually think its bordering on insanity to believe he will be that successful, similar to how the Djokovic fans thought that him winning 18 majors was a sure thing.
I think you are vastly overstating things as usual. However unlikely it may prove to be it's certainly not impossible and certainly nowhere near bordering on insanity as you claim.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
I think you are vastly overstating things as usual. However unlikely it may prove to be it's certainly not impossible and certainly nowhere near bordering on insanity as you claim.
It's also not impossible I will win the lottery, but I'd be insane to think it's guaranteed.
 

uliks

Banned
We know in 2014-2015 your boy won primarily because of a weak era, but in 2011 he went from stagnating to pumping Fed and Nadal like all the time.
But, how about 2003. ;)Or how about 1993. ;) Sometimes a youngling needs just one click, just one great match or a win and he can go on an absolute tear. But this 2017 AO sh!tt. :confused: OMG... Something very, very unnatural about this sh!tt, alright...:(
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
But, how about 2003. ;)Or how about 1993. ;) Sometimes a youngling needs just one click, just one great match or a win and he can go on an absolute tear. But this 2017 AO sh!tt. :confused: OMG... Something very, very unnatural about this sh!tt, alright...:(
Novak had been around for a while by the time 2011 rolled around and had established his place in tennis, Sampras and Federer had yet to do that before their runs.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
These fedfanboys should know better than running like headless chickens and digging old threads . What is the point? There is no amount of gloating that could satisfy vanity:oops:
Can you write a positive post for once for a change? You're so negative about everything all the time it's ridiculous. If you don't like it why did you even bother posting in this thread? I don't go to 80% of the threads I don't care about and say that I don't care. You should try the same.
 

Noelan

Legend
Can you write a positive post for once for a change? You're so negative about everything all the time it's ridiculous. If you don't like it why did you even bother posting in this thread? I don't go to 80% of the threads I don't care about and say that I don't care. You should try the same.
I should look up to you.LOL troll who opened numerous negative threads and post the same drivel over and over again:rolleyes:
 

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
I think you are vastly overstating things as usual. However unlikely it may prove to be it's certainly not impossible and certainly nowhere near bordering on insanity as you claim.
I know he's won a lot fewer Slams, but I think Murray is already well well well on his way to being in league with the likes of Edberg, Becker and Wilander. He's reached 11 Slam finals already and won 40+ titles. Those guys had it tough but Murray has had it especially tough IMO in having to deal with Federer and Djokovic in so many Slam finals.

Someone like @timnz will argue he's already there. I'm not quite giving it to him yet, but Murray exceeded (my) expectations in becoming so good again after his back surgery. It took him a long time to reach something resembling his old level. I really thought he'd stay at two Slams. Now I think a fourth is likely.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I know he's won a lot fewer Slams, but I think Murray is already well well well on his way to being in league with the likes of Edberg, Becker and Wilander. He's reached 11 Slam finals already and won 40+ titles. Those guys had it tough but Murray has had it especially tough IMO in having to deal with Federer and Djokovic in so many Slam finals.

Someone like @timnz will argue he's already there. I'm not quite giving it to him yet, but Murray exceeded (my) expectations in becoming so good again after his back surgery. It took him a long time to reach something resembling his old level. I really thought he'd stay at two Slams. Now I think a fourth is likely.
I think he needs 2 more slams to put him in the Becker-Edberg tier. The rest of his achievements might make up for his missing slam. But 4 is not enough. A 2 slam difference is still too much to overcome with just achievements outside them.

He needs to distance himself from Stan and Courier first.
 
Z

Zara

Guest
Also Djokovic winning 5 to 6 more slams within the next 3-5 years isn't completely out of the realm. That is of course if he wants to. The will to win has to be there.
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
I know he's won a lot fewer Slams, but I think Murray is already well well well on his way to being in league with the likes of Edberg, Becker and Wilander. He's reached 11 Slam finals already and won 40+ titles. Those guys had it tough but Murray has had it especially tough IMO in having to deal with Federer and Djokovic in so many Slam finals.

Someone like @timnz will argue he's already there. I'm not quite giving it to him yet, but Murray exceeded (my) expectations in becoming so good again after his back surgery. It took him a long time to reach something resembling his old level. I really thought he'd stay at two Slams. Now I think a fourth is likely.
if Murray had put up a better fight in more of his slam finals then maybe you could use the tough era argument but he's also had some easy runs to those finals in the first place...
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
The level of self indulgence from pathetic troll as you are is funny. Thank you for the laugh;)
Keep talkin sh*t. This is the first page of your posts:


Next time check your facts. Like saying I only post negative threads where the last one I made was 3 months ago and I've created like 50 since. ROFLMAO. The level of hypocrisy is off the charts.

Just because I don't support the same guy you do doesn't mean I'm a troll, naap.
 
Last edited:
Z

Zara

Guest
Murray refused to jump on the already overloaded "religious experience" bandwagon occupied by fanatic suckups in the media and fanatic fanboy worshippers. I respected that about him. Just shame he couldn't beat Fed in slams more often. Nadal used to sing Fed's praises back in the day a little too much but had no problem wrecking him when it came down to business.
Djokovic has a very courageous mentality as well. I mean the way he handled Federer and the nasty crowd that was against him at the USO was very commanding.

Andy has the game but falls short mentally in the finals against Federer, unfortunately. His match against Federer at the 2013 AO has always been a very favourite match of mine. I wish he had brought that mentality every time he played Federer in a slam. He's quite good at the Masters level though.

Nadal, Djokovic, Murray all brought the much needed balance to tennis. I am very grateful to these players.
 
People who act like he's got 10 GS titles behind him, guys that predicted he'd have an Edberg or Becker like career just because he got to No.1, etc.
Who acts like he has 10 GS titles behind him? And he still could have a Becker/Edberg like career. He's the current world number one, so surely it wouldn't come as a shock for him to win another couple of slams. If he did that this year, he would have had a Becker/Edberg like career given all other metrics. That's also with a few more years to run before he retires.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Who acts like he has 10 GS titles behind him? And he still could have a Becker/Edberg like career. He's the current world number one, so surely it wouldn't come as a shock for him to win another couple of slams. If he did that this year, he would have had a Becker/Edberg like career given all other metrics. That's also with a few more years to run before he retires.
"Depends on which version of Murray showed up. At the very least, he would have made it far more difficult for Federer and may have cost him the next match if not winning himself."

Federer has a 5-1 record over Murray in majors so it's clear you have like barely any clue what you're talking about.
 

The Green Mile

Bionic Poster
Federer vs Murray H2H is a funny old thing. Many of the winners matches, had the opponent playing quite poorly, of the winner simply outclassed them. Not as many high quality matches with both playing well, as other big rivalries.
 
"Depends on which version of Murray showed up. At the very least, he would have made it far more difficult for Federer and may have cost him the next match if not winning himself."

Federer has a 5-1 record over Murray in majors so it's clear you have like barely any clue what you're talking about.
Don't be so bloody ignorant. The 5-1 record includes matches in 2008 and 2010, where Federer was 27/28, and Murray hadn't reached his top level yet. The Australian Open in 2014 was also just after Murray came back from back surgery. Federer is now 35 years old whilst Murray is the world number 1. My statement was perfectly balanced in that it said Murray may have even lost. Try thinking things through before you make such judgements on what I know. You are the one who seems to be intellectually challenged and a bit simple by quoting a stat out of context and thinking you know it all.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Don't be so bloody ignorant. The 5-1 record includes matches in 2008 and 2010, where Federer was 27/28, and Murray hadn't reached his top level yet. The Australian Open in 2014 was also just after Murray came back from back surgery. Federer is now 35 years old whilst Murray is the world number 1. My statement was perfectly balanced in that it said Murray may have even lost. Try thinking things through before you make such judgements on what I know. You are the one who seems to be intellectually challenged and a bit simple by quoting a stat out of context and thinking you know it all.
If Murray hadn't "reached his top level yet" why was he ranked from 5-2 in the world?

Was 2015 Wimbledon "just after he had surgery" too? I'm also not an ardent believer of that being his "best match at Wimbledon ever" and that's pretty much proof he doesn't have problems with Murray, and to follow up his straight sets defeats of Murray at Cincinnati in 2014 and 2015.

Your statement wasn't "balanced" at all -- it's arguably ridiculous given the circumstances.

I'm intellectually challenged yet you are citing that stat as "out of context" despite it strictly being about majors?

Funnily enough, you didn't mention Roger was coming off a season where he won 1 title and was ranked at his lowest point (6th in the world) in 11 years. You also didn't mention the fact Murray won a major and was playing great tennis in 2013, only when it suits your argument do you cite "statistics" but they are in favor of Murray and to the bereft of Federer.
 
If Murray hadn't "reached his top level yet" why was he ranked from 5-2 in the world?

Was 2015 Wimbledon "just after he had surgery" too? I'm also not an ardent believer of that being his "best match at Wimbledon ever" and that's pretty much proof he doesn't have problems with Murray, and to follow up his straight sets defeats of Murray at Cincinnati in 2014 and 2015.

Your statement wasn't "balanced" at all -- it's arguably ridiculous given the circumstances.

I'm intellectually challenged yet you are citing that stat as "out of context" despite it strictly being about majors?

Funnily enough, you didn't mention Roger was coming off a season where he won 1 title and was ranked at his lowest point (6th in the world) in 11 years. You also didn't mention the fact Murray won a major and was playing great tennis in 2013, only when it suits your argument do you cite "statistics" but they are in favor of Murray and to the bereft of Federer.
Well, where do I start on that drivel. Murray was NOT at the level he was in 2012/2013 back in 2008 and 2010.

I didn't mention Wimbledon 2015 (or 2012 for that matter) because Federer was class and beat a Murray who was playing well. There was no need to qualify them.

How can a statement which inferred that a World Number 1 may have beaten or at least troubled a 35 year old man who hadn't played for 6 months not be balanced? Yes, I confirm my statement. If you can not process that, you are indeed intellectually challenged. The same goes if you think Federer was in the same condition as Murray in 2014 after Andy had back surgery. Significant difference there, and not too difficult to comprehend. Also not difficult to comprehend is that the stat is out of context given Federer's age, injury and time away from court.

Why did I need to mention Murray was playing great tennis in 2013? That was prior to back surgery and when he beat Federer. I hadn't said otherwise. I also haven't cited statistics in favour of Murray as they do not exist. Federer has had a significantly better career and been a much better player than Murray. But to think that now as World Number 1, that Murray would not have at least troubled a 35 year old Federer who had been out for 6 months at the Australian Open if he was in form is complete and absolute nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Top