How Times Change: Federer/Murray

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
Fed's a changed man from his younger days. His tennis isn't as consistently good, but he is a much more professional athlete (in more ways than one).
 
Fed's a changed man from his younger days. His tennis isn't as consistently good, but he is a much more professional athlete (in more ways than one).
It's sports though, being a good fighter is more important than being a nice guy. You don't get slams for being nice. You don't get lasting recognition either - only nerds like myself remember than Srichaphan won Sportsmanship Award twice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ
It's sports though, being a good fighter is more important than being a nice guy. You don't get slams for being nice. You don't get lasting recognition either - only nerds like myself remember than Srichaphan won Sportsmanship Award twice.
Do you consider yourself a final product, tho?

Evolution is perpetual, even on the individual level.

You, too, can develop into something better.
 

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
It's sports though, being a good fighter is more important than being a nice guy. You don't get slams for being nice. You don't get lasting recognition either - only nerds like myself remember than Srichaphan won Sportsmanship Award twice.
I agree, this is sports, but this thread is particularly talking about professionalism itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ

ChaelAZ

Legend
It's sports though, being a good fighter is more important than being a nice guy. You don't get slams for being nice.
You certainly don’t get them being a dbag, least we would have Kyrgios GOATing. You can be proud without being prideful, and tough on court without being an azzz. Lots of good fighters and athletes are nice as well. It isn’t one or the other unless they choose to be like that. And people grow beyond to understand it. Even Tyson.
 
You certainly don’t get them being a dbag, least we would have Kyrgios GOATing. You can be proud without being prideful, and tough on court without being an azzz. Lots of good fighters and athletes are nice as well. It isn’t one or the other unless they choose to be like that. And people grow beyond to understand it. Even Tyson.
It's not mutually exclusive but can be linked. Pretty sure chokiness of the likes of Thiem and Cilic is related to their overt niceness, in the sense that both come from the same part of personality.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
I don't think Federer truly respected Murray until about 2012 onwards after he won his 1st Slam. Slams are the benchmark for Federer and I think he was a bit irritated by the fact Murray led their H2H in the early days which is why he made so many put-down comments about Murray's inability to win Slams and his style of play which puzzled him (his put down about the 2011 Asian swing was rather funny as well as inaccurate given that he seemed to forget that Murray had crushed Nadal in the final of Tokyo and had crushed Fed himself in the final of Shanghai the year before).

I think his respect grew more in the last few years after Murray won more Slams and big titles and became the only player apart from the Big 3 to make #1.
 

Rogfan

Semi-Pro
It's not mutually exclusive but can be linked. Pretty sure chokiness of the likes of Thiem and Cilic is related to their overt niceness, in the sense that both come from the same part of personality.
Completely agree with you. Winning is about showing your fearless side, being ruthless, more so on court than off court ofc, but when you’re like Thiem, saying things like “Nadal is the best, I know I’m not expected to beat him” before FO final, you can never expect Thiem to ever beat Nadal there even if the latter is 50 yrs old.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Nostradamuserer

“He’s going to have to grind very hard for the next few years if he keeps playing this way. He tends to wait a lot for the mistake of the opponent,” said
Federer
. “He stands way far behind on the court and that means you’ve got to do a lot of running. I gave him the mistakes today but I think overall, over a 15-year career, you want to look to win a point more often than for an opponent to miss. That’s what served me well over the years but who knows, he might surprise us all and do it for 20 years.”
 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
Completely agree with you. Winning is about showing your fearless side, being ruthless, more so on court than off court ofc, but when you’re like Thiem, saying things like “Nadal is the best, I know I’m not expected to beat him” before FO final, you can never expect Thiem to ever beat Nadal there even if the latter is 50 yrs old.
Pretty sure you can say things and not mean them
 
Nostradamuserer

“He’s going to have to grind very hard for the next few years if he keeps playing this way. He tends to wait a lot for the mistake of the opponent,” said

Federer

. “He stands way far behind on the court and that means you’ve got to do a lot of running. I gave him the mistakes today but I think overall, over a 15-year career, you want to look to win a point more often than for an opponent to miss. That’s what served me well over the years but who knows, he might surprise us all and do it for 20 years.”
Maybe he knew there was a reason why it's not good. Some guys can do it (Djoker and rafa), and some can not (Murray). Dangerous game playing so defensive.
 

papertank

Hall of Fame
Seems like Murray really got under Fed’s skin. Let’s not forget the H2H was 5-1 Murray at one point. Not even Rafa ever had that much of a lead on him percentage wise.
 

Fedforever

Hall of Fame
Didn't know Fed was so bad to Murray before. :oops:
@Mainad is right, and I think it was the same with some of the aggro with Novak as well, Fed did take a "show us your medals" attitude in his younger days. The article didn't even include his most pointed jab, probably because it was on a broadcast interview.

Think he's more mature these days though. Usually when I see those "Fed is so arrogant" type diatribes the quotes aren't from recent years.
 

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
It is possible to be a great champion and a great sportsman on court. Many have: the Australians that ruled in the 50s, 60s and 70s. Borg, Goolagong-Cawley, Evert, Cljisters to name a few.
 

OhYes

Legend
@Mainad is right, and I think it was the same with some of the aggro with Novak as well, Fed did take a "show us your medals" attitude in his younger days. The article didn't even include his most pointed jab, probably because it was on a broadcast interview.

Think he's more mature these days though. Usually when I see those "Fed is so arrogant" type diatribes the quotes aren't from recent years.
Well I ain't defending Murray for sure, just find it strange Fed got so aggressive at him. Even Andy as Brit didn't stop Fed at poking. He must have felt pretty confident it wouldn't backfire.
 

Fedforever

Hall of Fame
Even Andy as Brit didn't stop Fed at poking.
That was probably part of it. The British press was weird with Andy - parts of it were absolutely horrible to him but one or two journalists basically acted as if they were part of Andy's press team. It was probably one of them who asked Fed if Murray was the favourite for Wimbledon 09 which I think he had every right to find annoying.

I like seeing players' more acerbic, competitive sides but modern media management tends to try and drill it out of them. And then forums like this launch into "oh, isn't he horrible" whenever a player does or says something that shows they're vaguely human.
 

TearTheRoofOff

Hall of Fame
I don't think Federer truly respected Murray until about 2012 onwards after he won his 1st Slam. Slams are the benchmark for Federer and I think he was a bit irritated by the fact Murray led their H2H in the early days which is why he made so many put-down comments about Murray's inability to win Slams and his style of play which puzzled him (his put down about the 2011 Asian swing was rather funny as well as inaccurate given that he seemed to forget that Murray had crushed Nadal in the final of Tokyo and had crushed Fed himself in the final of Shanghai the year before).

I think his respect grew more in the last few years after Murray won more Slams and big titles and became the only player apart from the Big 3 to make #1.
I liked Fed's words of encouragement at the AO 2010 ceremony, though. Basically saying he'll win one because he's too good not to. Sure it's easier to be magnanimous in victory, but it felt sincere and less generic than some 'congrats on a great week' stuff.
 

Zara

Legend
Seems like Murray really got under Fed’s skin. Let’s not forget the H2H was 5-1 Murray at one point. Not even Rafa ever had that much of a lead on him percentage wise.
Federer always enjoyed beating Murray especially at Wimbledon.
 

Zara

Legend
Fed was salty and I think he even hated to play Murray in 2008-2009.
Even beyond that all the way to 2015. In fact, he was so into thrashing Andy that he was unable to bring the same level against a more prepared Djokovic.

Of course, everyone would feel sorry for him now, now that he has a metal hip. Not much is expected from him after all. He's not a clear threat.
 
Last edited:

ForehandRF

Professional
Even beyond that all the way to 2015. In fact, he was so into thrashing Andy that he was unable to bring the same level against a more prepared Djokovic.

Of course, everyone would feel sorry for him now, now that he's a metal hip. Not much is expected from him after all. He's not a clear threat.
It just happened that Fed served like a maniac in that 2015 Wimbledon match and was in good form that day.I don't think he was salty or anything like it after 2011 anymore.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Half of those top 10 "jabs" aren't jabs at all... Just normal responses and comments.

But yeah, RF was quite arrogant in the 00s. Mocked Djokovic early on too.

Couldn't mock Rafa because Rafa trounced him as a clay expert aged 17 at a HC event the first time they played. Rafa confused him, RF didn't know how to deal with him, on or off the court.
 

Zara

Legend
It just happened that Fed served like a maniac in that 2015 Wimbledon match and was in good form that day.I don't think he was salty or anything like it after 2011 anymore.
It was not as vindictive but more of a show off because Andy was more the crowd favourite and Fed enjoyed thrashing him in front of his own home crowd. I wish Andy was mentally tougher in Slams.

But at least Djokovic too care of things.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
It was not as vindictive but more of a show off because Andy was more the crowd favourite and Fed enjoyed thrashing him in front of his own home crowd. I wish Andy was mentally tougher in Slams.

But at least Djokovic too care of things.
Federer didn't serve as consistently against Djokovic like he did against Murray though.
 

Zara

Legend
Federer didn't serve as consistently against Djokovic like he did against Murray though.
That’s right and that’s because he was far too focused in the match against Andy and wasn’t able to bring the same level against Djokovic. But of course, Nole is not as vulnerable as Andy against Fed and can play very well against a hostile crowd.
 

DSH

Hall of Fame
It is a fallacy to say that Federer lost that final because he did not play at the level shown in the previous round.
Djokovic has a better second serve, a better forehand and a much better mentality, especially in tight and crucial moments.
No, simply that the obstacle to overcome was much more difficult and that match against the British only fed a door of illusions so the Swiss ended up hitting with a slam of reality when he faced the Serbian that time.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
It is a fallacy to say that Federer lost that final because he did not play at the level shown in the previous round.
Djokovic has a better second serve, a better forehand and a much better mentality, especially in tight and crucial moments.
No, simply that the obstacle to overcome was much more difficult and that match against the British only fed a door of illusions so the Swiss ended up hitting with a slam of reality when he faced the Serbian that time.
Disagree, I watched both matches and Fed's serving was definitely worse in the final v Djokovic. He started off in the same vein as the semi but then started making UEs which he didn't in the semi-final. I think you're right to say that Djokovic was in his head much more than Murray (who hadn't had a win against Federer for 2 years) and that almost certainly affected his performance adversely. Djokovic has been in his head at Wimbledon ever since. For whatever reason his performance in that final was nowhere near as clutch as it was in the semi.
 
Disagree, I watched both matches and Fed's serving was definitely worse in the final v Djokovic. He started off in the same vein as the semi but then started making UEs which he didn't in the semi-final. I think you're right to say that Djokovic was in his head much more than Murray (who hadn't had a win against Federer for 2 years) and that almost certainly affected his performance adversely. Djokovic has been in his head at Wimbledon ever since. For whatever reason his performance in that final was nowhere near as clutch as it was in the semi.
Fed's serving in the first two sets was only slightly worse, Djokovic also put more pressure causing doubt. Came undone in the last two sets alright though.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Fed's serving in the first two sets was only slightly worse, Djokovic also put more pressure causing doubt. Came undone in the last two sets alright though.
Even slightly worse can make all the difference and it did. Djokovic had many more opportunities to pounce on it than Murray did.
 

Zara

Legend
Disagree, I watched both matches and Fed's serving was definitely worse in the final v Djokovic. He started off in the same vein as the semi but then started making UEs which he didn't in the semi-final. I think you're right to say that Djokovic was in his head much more than Murray (who hadn't had a win against Federer for 2 years) and that almost certainly affected his performance adversely. Djokovic has been in his head at Wimbledon ever since. For whatever reason his performance in that final was nowhere near as clutch as it was in the semi.
Quite clearly Djokovic and Murray are two different players. Djokovic is mentally more clutch with a better second serve and as I mentioned before, he's able to play against a hostile crowd and Federer is intimated by him so his performance suffers as a result. The mental aspect of things is probably more in place here where these two players are concerned (Andy and Nole). In that semi-final, Andy was more mentally vulnerable and Federer probably still had that Olympic loss in his mind.
 
Top