What made that arrogance so unspeakableVery arrogant
So? I don't know anyone who wins because of their 2nd serve (unless you squint extremely hard to make an argument for Sampras). No one wants to hit a second serve and it always is a liability.He's saying the right things in that Murray covers his 2nd serve very well, but it's still bad. If Fed is going to win this match (and I believe he is) then he'll have to tee off on a few second serves which is more than possible when playing Murray. He usually wins in spite of his 2nd serve and not because of it.
So? I don't know anyone who wins because of their 2nd serve (unless you squint extremely hard to make an argument for Sampras). No one wants to hit a second serve and it always is a liability.
Ouch!essence-of-Sabatini. that's what they call murray's 2nd serve.
The 2nd serve IS a liability for everybody. If you want to complain that Murray's second serve is not as good as the second serve of Sampras or Federer, knock yourself out. But you can't act as if every other player doesn't play around the weakness inherent in their second serve. Unless your Ivanisevic, your second serve is never a weapon. It can only hurt you.Nobody wins directly because of their 2nd serve sure, but Murray's is a weakness that sometimes gets him in trouble against better players. It's like the saying "You can't win a GS in the 1st week but you can lose it." Well, you can't win a match with your 2nd serve, but you can lose it.
Look at his opponent's second serve. Sure Federer never wants to hit 2nd serves, but he has a damn good one that's helped him win (or not lose in this context) a lot of matches over the years. Djokovic has made his 2nd (and 1st) serves better as well for example.
Murray's 2nd serve is a liability which is not the case for everybody.
The 2nd serve IS a liability for everybody. If you want to complain that Murray's second serve is not as good as the second serve of Sampras or Federer, knock yourself out. But you can't act as if every other player doesn't play around the weakness inherent in their second serve. Unless your Ivanisevic, your second serve is never a weapon. It can only hurt you.
Relative to the tour, of course Murray's serve is substandard, I've never denied this. But it's disingenuous to act as if the second serve isn't a weakness for every player on tour. Everyone plays around the second serve. Maybe Murray has to work harder at it, but even Federer has to change his play when he flubs his first serve.Come on! You cannot be arguing this. Give me a break. Murray's second serve is bad when you consider he's in the top 4 in the world. It sits up and it's attackable. Much more so than a fair few other players. That's all there is to it.
Relative to the tour, of course Murray's serve is substandard, I've never denied this. But it's disingenuous to act as if the second serve isn't a weakness for every player on tour.
I'll agree to that. Mostly trying to make the point that everyone not named Ivanisevic would always rely on other parts of their game to make up for the inherent vulnerability of their second serve (relative to their first service game, as you said).But what are you calling a weakness? Is Isner's 2nd serve a weakness? Is Karlovic's? Is Federer's? I wouldn't say so at all. Of course, relative to the first it will never be as good, but all those guys have above average 2nd serves. That's not a "weakness" IMO. Murray's on the other hand is a weakness. It's bad EVEN FOR a 2nd serve in relation to the first.
I'll agree to that. Mostly trying to make the point that everyone not named Ivanisevic would always rely on other parts of their game to make up for the inherent vulnerability of their second serve (relative to their first service game, as you said).
The way Murray played against Pospisil he would lose in straights to Roger.
He can beat Federer.Murray has to pull out all the stops to beat Federer on Friday, he really has to be ready from the get go or he'll be crushed.
No "let's play to the backhand" crap, just an aggressive display of all-round tennis with a lot of forays to the net to finish the points.
Who am I kidding anyway, I bet Murray goes into Sub-Dom mode like he does with Djokovic, I guess the only consolation is that he's bettered his Wimbledon from last year.
Murray can't outcraft Federer. I'm not sure anybody can. He'll need to overpower Federer.He can beat Federer.
He just, like you said, needs to use all of his arsenal. Federer will be playing crafty tennis too and the only way to counter that is to outcraft the craftsman. Murray can do that.
I personally think that Murray is almost as crafty as Federer; Federer is just a lot smarter about it than Murray. He's the expert of craftiness. Murray however has potential. He just needs to believe in his abilities and try and go for his shots even if he doesn't feel comfortable doing so.Murray can't outcraft Federer. I'm not sure anybody can. He'll need to overpower Federer.
Murray has variety and, yes, he's crafty, but Federer has been getting by through sheer craftiness in recent years. That's his forte.I personally think that Murray is almost as crafty as Federer; Federer is just a lot smarter about it than Murray. He's the expert of craftiness. Murray however has potential. He just needs to believe in his abilities and try and go for his shots even if he doesn't feel comfortable doing so.
Overpowering Federer nowadays might be the way to go; and since Murray has a huge backhand and a decent forehand he will need to time them perfectly/get in a good rhythm in order to take advantage of his strokes.
Relative to the tour, of course Murray's serve is substandard, I've never denied this. But it's disingenuous to act as if the second serve isn't a weakness for every player on tour. Everyone plays around the second serve. Maybe Murray has to work harder at it, but even Federer has to change his play when he flubs his first serve.
Nobody wins directly because of their 2nd serve sure, but Murray's is a weakness that sometimes gets him in trouble against better players. It's like the saying "You can't win a GS in the 1st week but you can lose it." Well, you can't win a match with your 2nd serve, but you can lose it.
Look at his opponent's second serve. Sure Federer never wants to hit 2nd serves, but he has a damn good one that's helped him win (or not lose in this context) a lot of matches over the years. Djokovic has made his 2nd (and 1st) serves better as well for example.
Murray's 2nd serve is a liability which is not the case for everybody.
I personally think that Murray is almost as crafty as Federer; Federer is just a lot smarter about it than Murray. He's the expert of craftiness. Murray however has potential. He just needs to believe in his abilities and try and go for his shots even if he doesn't feel comfortable doing so.
Overpowering Federer nowadays might be the way to go; and since Murray has a huge backhand and a decent forehand he will need to time them perfectly/get in a good rhythm in order to take advantage of his strokes.
Well stated I think.
It's also worth noting that his second serve is poor, or a weakness, relative to his peers. Murray is judged by Big 4 standards, not the standards of the rest of the tour. And, when you compare these guys, they're all above average (at a minimum) in every facet of the game. Murray is as well, except his second serve is just average. That's fine against 95% of the tour. Against Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic it is an obvious weakness. And, in matchups that are often decided by the smallest of margins, it could be the difference between winning and losing.
I still think Murray is taking the title, but Gasquet winning probably didn't help his cause.
I disagree completely. There a bunch of players with great second serves and Roger is one of them. He can place it well and mixes it up which allows him to start points in an offensive manner. Nole turned himself into a multiple slam champ by getting more spin and MPHs on his second serve. For as good as Murray is, his second serve is pretty poor.
64% first serves and 56% second serves are actually not that bad for Murray (considering that Federer's 2nd serve average is only 1% higher at 57).
Of course, the higher he can get those stats, the better his chances.
But what are you calling a weakness? Is Isner's 2nd serve a weakness? Is Karlovic's? Is Federer's? I wouldn't say so at all. Of course, relative to the first it will never be as good, but all those guys have above average 2nd serves. That's not a "weakness" IMO. Murray's on the other hand is a weakness. It's bad EVEN FOR a 2nd serve in relation to the first.
Instead of just looking at the percentages, we need to notice the number of crucial points he has lost on account of the weak second serve in the past. It has been telling and easily apparent to the casual viewer as well.
Serena's second serves are faster than Andy's.
On a closer look though Murray's 2nd serve points won vs a very poor returner (compared to Simon) was only 56% vs 60% for Federer. Had Simon played Murray those 2nd serve numbers would have been even lower for sure.64% first serves and 56% second serves are actually not that bad for Murray (considering that Federer's 2nd serve average is only 1% higher at 57).
whats the lowest ranking of federer after he became no. 1 for first time on 2nd february 2004
I also found he was very kind to Murray with this comments.I hope people don't make a story out of this. Federer actually gave Murray props.