Federer: Murray's second serve "not SoBad"

Carsomyr

Legend
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/national-sport/federer-murray-serve-is-not-so-bad-1-7348676

2gwxa1c.jpg
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
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. He wins with the other parts of his game that are exceptionally good.
 

Inanimate_object

Hall of Fame
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.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
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.

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.
 

Inanimate_object

Hall of Fame
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.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
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.

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.
 

Inanimate_object

Hall of Fame
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. 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.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
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.

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.
 

Inanimate_object

Hall of Fame
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).
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
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).

That's fine. I agree. So we ended up "arguing" for no reason. There's 15 minutes of my life I'll never get back. ;)
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Murray's average 2nd serve percentage points won is 52% which is definitely lower than Federer and Nadal: 57% and Djokovic 55% but more or less in line with everybody else in the top 10 and actually higher than some past tennis greats: Becker and Ivanisevic 50%, same as Edberg 52% and only 1 percent behind Sampras 53%.

He covers it surprisingly well.
 
J

JRAJ1988

Guest
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.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
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.
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.
 

The_18th_Slam

Hall of Fame
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.
Murray can't outcraft Federer. I'm not sure anybody can. He'll need to overpower Federer.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Murray can't outcraft Federer. I'm not sure anybody can. He'll need to overpower Federer.
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.
 

The_18th_Slam

Hall of Fame
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.
Murray has variety and, yes, he's crafty, but Federer has been getting by through sheer craftiness in recent years. That's his forte.
 

harryz

Professional
Did you guys read the article? Seems that Fed was quite complimentary. Roddick seemed to lay into Murray pretty hard...
 

Rjtennis

Hall of Fame
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.

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.
 

spinovic

Hall of Fame
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.

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.
 

spinovic

Hall of Fame
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.

I agree. The difference is that Murray is more defensive by nature and doesn't always use his full arsenal, IMO. Federer, particularly on grass, and particularly at this point in his career, is in attack mode and is most likely going to use all of his variety.

I expect he will, but Murray needs to be aggressive. If he isn't, he'll probably lose.

I think this is going to be a high quality match. Regardless of how many sets it goes, I think we're going to see some great tennis. I expect every set to be tight and decided by a crucial point here or there...could be straight sets or a 5-set epic.

I picked Murray before the tournament started, so I'll stick with that. He and Federer have clearly been the two best players in the tournament thus far.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
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.

This is correct. People do not bring up this topic in a match of Murray against Agut or Karlovic. But when he plays the top 5, it is a handicap , as the margins are extremely small.

Needless to say, with a better second serve, Murray may have converted at least one or two of the ginormous number of finals he has lost.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
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.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
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.

Well, Murray is also a multiple Slam champ and beat Djokovic twice with his 2nd serve!
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
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.

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.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
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.

But Murray has a perfect record against both Isner and Karlovic and, until recently, had a positive H2H against Federer so maybe Federer's right and we should get this business of Murray's 'bad' 2nd serve into a bit of perspective!
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
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.

But again, you are not really getting it into perspective, are you? Murray has won 2 Slams and umpteen other big titles with his supposedly wretched 2nd serve so how do you figure out he managed to do that if his 2nd serve is such a glaring weakness?
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
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).
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.

Vs Karlovic, another poor returner, he wasn't really any better with only 58%. Fed had 72% vs Bautista-Agut (also not great but at least as good as Karlovic).
 

heninfan99

Talk Tennis Guru
"And then if Murray hits a good serve he can adjust and then chip it back and still be neutral in the point, so that will be something to watch."
Roddick still has nightmares about Fed's chip returns. LOL
 

Zoolander

Hall of Fame
Murrays second serve is "not so bad" in the same way that ebola or mad cow disease are "not so bad".

But he's good enough even with mad ebola cow disease to have won before so lets hope Fed dosent have an old man off day tomorrow.
 

Sreeram

Professional
Andy has different levels, he does not play his game all the time with same level. He normally reserves his highest level for best matches. I hope he will get his best level out against Fed on Friday. We cannot judge by seeing the match against Pospisil who is a different opponent. Murray played a tactical match and only towards the end of 3rd set he showed some aggression so that he will not end up taking it to tie break or 4th set.
Regarding Andy's second sever, it cannot be too weak. I think the problem with Andy is he loses his first serve easily on key points. Hence he had to defend with 2nd serve. For example if we have statistics on first serve percentages on breakpoints faced, then Andy will be lowest. Hence he is forced to serve a moderate second serve. Being relatively a tall guy he should have more control on his first serve and get it going in key points.
Also Fed here is giving enough respect to Andy's achievements. Andy is way above any 2 slam winner like Wawrinka, in terms of achievments. A person with such a known weakness cannot progress like him, consistently. If Roddick was really that clever in finding out the weakness of Andy then why not he himself win few more matches against him?
 
Top