I watched bits of Murray vs Federer at AO 2010 and Toronto 2010 : The difference between slam and bo3 in this match up is astonishing.

[Sysyphus]

Masters series
Federer wasn't trying
Murray wins.

haiku?

let me try:

London Olympics
mury pees on federer
Tokyo pipe dream

 

[EdSWright]

So was watching highlights of random young Murray vs Fed, ended up watching couple of sets from these matches.

Murray's ability to use varieties is so underrated. People say Federer doesn't let anyone have rhythm, I will claim that young Murray never let Federer have rhythm. Federer was always miscalculating/ misfiring against murray due to this fact. Murray persistently refused to go away and would drop brilliant returns on a dime while retrieving like 80% of Federer's would be winner. For Federer ,young Murray was mystery, with young Djokovic he had an easy plan : outhit Djokovic or hit it out. But unlike Djokovic, Murray refused to indulge in "Who finds a more acute angle or blasts a winner first" pattern of a typical Federer-young Djokovic match , he would keep running side to side retrieving, while asking different passive aggressive questions , no wonder it drove Federer mad.


But in slams, it was a completely different match up. Federer used to come in with a " Nah not getting into your chess games, I amma blast you off the court, if not that I just pull a impossible shot outta thin air" mentality. And this worked, unlike in bo3s, Federer's attacking approach basically broke Murray's will in USO 2008 and AO 2010. In USO 2008 Federer went off with his FH in the first few games just to intimidate Murray. It feels like Fed basically cut down the errors on aggression like 50% from Murrderer bo3 matches in bo5


The most astonishing thing is the same pattern of play that won Murray points in bo3 would mostly turn on its head in bo5. The same shots Federer misses in BO3 he, for some godforsaken reason ,ends up making in slams. Federer's focus goes up like a level or two in slams.

Case in point There is one point in Toronto final second set, where Murray keeps hitting to Federer BH, till Federer runs around and hits a half baked inside out FH, Murray promptly fires BHDTL.
In AO 2010 F, Murray at one point does the same thing, keeps going to Federer BH, and of course Federer ain't having the time of his life with that, but unlike in Toronto, on the 4th ball to his BH, but Fed goes for a extremely acute angled winner of the Backhand.

2010 AO F (Highly recommended to watch this , effing high quality in first 3-4 minutes)

compare to

I always thought that Murray was a very interesting, strategic player with a hell of a lot of variety when he was younger. Then it seemed he made a conscious decision to become a slugger if he wanted to win anything big. Maybe a good decision, maybe not, but aesthetically it was a big shame.

 

[zagor]

It's not some big mystery. Murray for some reason seems to have played even more conservative in slams while Fed's baseline is just in better shape in them (especially the later stages), he just won't leak so many errors off the BH side.

For all the insensitivity/arrogance/whatever you wanna call it, Fed was spot on about Murray's game after 2008 Dubai loss. Andy is a hard worker no doubt, but I don't think he ever really fulfilled his potential as a player.

 

[Nole_King]

I have him over Rosewall Vilas and Newcombe considering OE only and its honestly quite close with Mats despite the slam gap.

The 3 won in OE as well and I have no argument to give to someone who can put very close a 7 time GS champion with a 3 time.

 

[Mainad]

It's not some big mystery. Murray for some reason seems to have played even more conservative in slams while Fed's baseline is just in better shape in them (especially the later stages), he just won't leak so many errors off the BH side.

For all the insensitivity/arrogance/whatever you wanna call it, Fed was spot on about Murray's game after 2008 Dubai loss. Andy is a hard worker no doubt, but I don't think he ever really fulfilled his potential as a player.

Yeah, except I doubt Federer ever expected to lose to Murray again after that match ("Today I gave him the errors" etc.etc). It took a while for it to sink in that Murray actually had a game that could beat him on its own merits but it did sink in eventually.

 

[zagor]

Yeah, except I doubt Federer ever expected to lose to Murray again after that match ("Today I gave him the errors" etc.etc). It took a while for it to sink in that Murray actually had a game that could beat him on its own merits but it did sink in eventually.

I don't think so, i believe Fed knew fully well how good Murray is and knew he was gonna beat him more in the future (on HC especially). He was just angry with himself after playing a poor match.

Don't get me wrong, Fed was being a sore loser in that interview. However as I said, I do believe he was right about Murray's game. Murray never got out of the defensive mentality and that cost him in big matches, he had a great career but he could have had an ATG one (6-7 slams) IMO despite his opposition.

Novak and Nadal are known for their defense but they forced the issue a lot more on average than Andy.

 

[JackGates]

So was watching highlights of random young Murray vs Fed, ended up watching couple of sets from these matches.

Murray's ability to use varieties is so underrated. People say Federer doesn't let anyone have rhythm, I will claim that young Murray never let Federer have rhythm. Federer was always miscalculating/ misfiring against murray due to this fact. Murray persistently refused to go away and would drop brilliant returns on a dime while retrieving like 80% of Federer's would be winner. For Federer ,young Murray was mystery, with young Djokovic he had an easy plan : outhit Djokovic or hit it out. But unlike Djokovic, Murray refused to indulge in "Who finds a more acute angle or blasts a winner first" pattern of a typical Federer-young Djokovic match , he would keep running side to side retrieving, while asking different passive aggressive questions , no wonder it drove Federer mad. Maybe Fed is just better than Murray and has nothing to do with variety?


But in slams, it was a completely different match up. Federer used to come in with a " Nah not getting into your chess games, I amma blast you off the court, if not that I just pull a impossible shot outta thin air" mentality. And this worked, unlike in bo3s, Federer's attacking approach basically broke Murray's will in USO 2008 and AO 2010. In USO 2008 Federer went off with his FH in the first few games just to intimidate Murray. It feels like Fed basically cut down the errors on aggression like 50% from Murrderer bo3 matches in bo5


The most astonishing thing is the same pattern of play that won Murray points in bo3 would mostly turn on its head in bo5. The same shots Federer misses in BO3 he, for some godforsaken reason ,ends up making in slams. Federer's focus goes up like a level or two in slams.

Case in point There is one point in Toronto final second set, where Murray keeps hitting to Federer BH, till Federer runs around and hits a half baked inside out FH, Murray promptly fires BHDTL.
In AO 2010 F, Murray at one point does the same thing, keeps going to Federer BH, and of course Federer ain't having the time of his life with that, but unlike in Toronto, on the 4th ball to his BH, but Fed goes for a extremely acute angled winner of the Backhand.

2010 AO F (Highly recommended to watch this , effing high quality in first 3-4 minutes)

compare to

Yeah, Murray is great doing it to others, but not Fed, Fed loves players like Murray and Hewitt. I think it's just that Fed raised his level at majors, because Fed was still from Pete era where masters weren't as importnat, they used it as tune-ups, but now this changed and Fed today takes masters seriously, Djokodal changed that and Murray too. Plus, Fed at the time also underestimated younger guys, heck teen Nadal at age 17 beat prime Fed in fast HC. But, yeah, versus others, Murray uses variety just like Fed, they both love variety. But Fed on top of that still has serve and power on the forehand if it fails, so he can also use power.

 

[JackGates]

Yeah, except I doubt Federer ever expected to lose to Murray again after that match ("Today I gave him the errors" etc.etc). It took a while for it to sink in that Murray actually had a game that could beat him on its own merits but it did sink in eventually.

But Fed never lost to Murray at a major till 2013, so did Murray really have the game? I mean Canas beat peak Fed twice too, does it mean now Canas somehow figured out Federer? No, Fed usually was a different level at majors, I think it's as simple as that. But lately Fed is also focusing on masters too, Fed was still from tail end of pete's era where masters weren't considered important, but now due to Djokovic and Nadal and Murray and others, all pros take masters as serious as slams in preparation.

 

[Nole_King]

But Fed never lost to Murray at a major till 2013, so did Murray really have the game? I mean Canas beat peak Fed twice too, does it mean now Canas somehow figured out Federer? No, Fed usually was a different level at majors, I think it's as simple as that. But lately Fed is also focusing on masters too, Fed was still from tail end of pete's era where masters weren't considered important, but now due to Djokovic and Nadal and Murray and others, all pros take masters as serious as slams in preparation.

It is really hard for blind supporters to comprehend logic and hence will find it difficult to understand your post.

Even in 2013, it was worst Federer at display. Struggled badly against Tsonga and then sucked the whole year. But yeah, some sleep well by ignoring this fact.

 

[JackGates]

It is really hard for blind supporters to comprehend logic and hence will find it difficult to understand your post.

Even in 2013, it was worst Federer at display. Struggled badly against Tsonga and then sucked the whole year. But yeah, some sleep well by ignoring this fact.

Also now after the racket change and Fed starting to care about masters Fed totally figured out Murray even at masters, last time Fed even bageled him when they played. Look, I love Murray, he is amazing player, but saying Fed struggled with him is a bit of a stretch. Cilic and Delpo posed Fed much more problems, so if anything, FEd hates big hitters with huge serves and decent movement and having weapons on both sides. Fed actually does great versus counter-punchers, I can't remember when was the last time counter-puncher troubled Fed at majors.

 

[Mainad]

But Fed never lost to Murray at a major till 2013, so did Murray really have the game? I mean Canas beat peak Fed twice too, does it mean now Canas somehow figured out Federer? No, Fed usually was a different level at majors, I think it's as simple as that. But lately Fed is also focusing on masters too, Fed was still from tail end of pete's era where masters weren't considered important, but now due to Djokovic and Nadal and Murray and others, all pros take masters as serious as slams in preparation.

But the very fact that he did eventually beat Federer in a Slam suggests he had the game even if he didn't have the mental fortitude to exercise it often enough whenever they met at those events. Plus there is the straight set victory over Federer in the 2012 Olympic final which was also a Bo5 match. It wasn't his lack of game, just lack of nerve and mental strength on too many occasions.

Also now after the racket change and Fed starting to care about masters Fed totally figured out Murray even at masters, last time Fed even bageled him when they played. Look, I love Murray, he is amazing player, but saying Fed struggled with him is a bit of a stretch. Cilic and Delpo posed Fed much more problems, so if anything, FEd hates big hitters with huge serves and decent movement and having weapons on both sides. Fed actually does great versus counter-punchers, I can't remember when was the last time counter-puncher troubled Fed at majors.

By Masters, I'm assuming you mean the M1000s as opposed to the YEC/WTF (completely separate event although confusingly called The Masters Cup for a while). Federer did bagel Murray when they last met in the latter event in 2014 except that Murray was clearly exhausted at that event (he had played 3 events back to back in the weeks preceding just to qualify following his gradual recovery from back surgery) and was in no shape to handle a fit and in-form Federer. But that's the only time Federer ever inflicted a defeat of that magnitude on him. In M1000s, what we usually refer to as Masters these days, he very definitely did not have Murray's number given that the H2H in those events is 6-3 to Murray (all 3 of Fed's wins coming in his favourite Masters, Cincinnati) and Murray straight setted him in both of their finals (2010 Toronto and 2010 Shanghai) as well as 2 semi-finals (2008 Madrid, 2012 Shanghai) and a third that went the distance (2009 Indian Wells).

Overall, Murray has a H2H of 11-14 vs Federer (prior to his back surgery in 2013, he was actually ahead) and he remains the only player, apart from Nadal and Djokovic, to record double digit victories over Federer so to say his game never troubled Federer is just not true. Cilic is 1-9 although his sole win came in the 2014 US Open semi en route to winning the title. Del Potro is 7-18 which includes 2 wins at the Slams, both at the US Open (2009 and 2017). Del Potro certainly has the biggest win over Federer amongst the 3 but Murray is clearly way ahead in overall consistency.

 

[Mainad]

I don't think so, i believe Fed knew fully well how good Murray is and knew he was gonna beat him more in the future (on HC especially). He was just angry with himself after playing a poor match.

Don't get me wrong, Fed was being a sore loser in that interview. However as I said, I do believe he was right about Murray's game. Murray never got out of the defensive mentality and that cost him in big matches, he had a great career but he could have had an ATG one (6-7 slams) IMO despite his opposition.

Novak and Nadal are known for their defense but they forced the issue a lot more on average than Andy.

I respect your viewpoint (as usual of course) but I think I will stick to my view. Federer had a habit of putting down prospective rivals in their early encounters (he did something similar to baby Nadal and baby Djoko) and, in Murray's case, he definitely implied that Murray could only beat him if he gave him the errors. He was certainly mentally stronger in Slams and that was Murray's real problem there I think rather than lack of game.

 

[JackGates]

But the very fact that he did eventually beat Federer in a Slam suggests he had the game even if he didn't have the mental fortitude to exercise it often enough whenever they met at those events. Plus there is the straight set victory over Federer in the 2012 Olympic final which was also a Bo5 match. It wasn't his lack of game, just lack of nerve and mental strength on too many occasions.



By Masters, I'm assuming you mean the M1000s as opposed to the YEC/WTF (completely separate event although confusingly called The Masters Cup for a while). Federer did bagel Murray when they last met in the latter event in 2014 except that Murray was clearly exhausted at that event (he had played 3 events back to back in the weeks preceding just to qualify following his gradual recovery from back surgery) and was in no shape to handle a fit and in-form Federer. But that's the only time Federer ever inflicted a defeat of that magnitude on him. In M1000s, what we usually refer to as Masters these days, he very definitely did not have Murray's number given that the H2H in those events is 6-3 to Murray (all 3 of Fed's wins coming in his favourite Masters, Cincinnati) and Murray straight setted him in both of their finals (2010 Toronto and 2010 Shanghai) as well as 2 semi-finals (2008 Madrid, 2012 Shanghai) and a third that went the distance (2009 Indian Wells).

Overall, Murray has a H2H of 11-14 vs Federer (prior to his back surgery in 2013, he was actually ahead) and he remains the only player, apart from Nadal and Djokovic, to record double digit victories over Federer so to say his game never troubled Federer is just not true. Cilic is 1-9 although his sole win came in the 2014 US Open semi en route to winning the title. Del Potro is 7-18 which includes 2 wins at the Slams, both at the US Open (2009 and 2017). Del Potro certainly has the biggest win over Federer amongst the 3 but Murray is clearly way ahead in overall consistency.

Weird thing is though that Fed struggled to both baby Rafa and Murray when he was in his peak, but now when he got used to the racket in 2014 when those guys are closer to prime, Fed seemed to solve them, so it looks like it was mostly the racket, I don't see what else can it be? Or Fed improved or whatever, but the point is since he got used to the new racket he is like 8-2 versus those guys combined. So, either it was the racket or Fed is better now, what else can it be? Old Fed is bad versus lower guys, but he is doing better vs top guys.

 

[JackGates]

I respect your viewpoint (as usual of course) but I think I will stick to my view. Federer had a habit of putting down prospective rivals in their early encounters (he did something similar to baby Nadal and baby Djoko) and, in Murray's case, he definitely implied that Murray could only beat him if he gave him the errors. He was certainly mentally stronger in Slams and that was Murray's real problem there I think rather than lack of game.

You don't think lack of game is an issue when comparing 20 GS and 3 GS champion, of course lack of game is a huge issue between them. You don't think there is decent skill gap between 20 and 3 GS champions, I mean come on man. If anything, why don't you say Murray troubles Djokovic, since he beat him in 2 GS finals, but Murray never came close to beating prime Federer at a major.

 

[Mainad]

Weird thing is though that Fed struggled to both baby Rafa and Murray when he was in his peak, but now when he got used to the racket in 2014 when those guys are closer to prime, Fed seemed to solve them, so it looks like it was mostly the racket, I don't see what else can it be? Or Fed improved or whatever, but the point is since he got used to the new racket he is like 8-2 versus those guys combined. So, either it was the racket or Fed is better now, what else can it be? Old Fed is bad versus lower guys, but he is doing better vs top guys.

Federer is a very adaptable guy and is one of the best at figuring out opponents especially those who have given him unexpected trouble in their early encounters. Despite occasional back problems he is rock solidly fit (2nd only to Djokovic I suspect) whilst, as we can see, that has not always been the case with Murray or Nadal. Whilst he has clearly aged like everyone else he has probably aged better than most other players with the likely exception of Djokovic and it's therefore probably no surprise that, with the exception of Nadal on clay, Djokovic is now the only player who gives him any trouble on a consistent basis.

 

[Mainad]

You don't think lack of game is an issue when comparing 20 GS and 3 GS champion, of course lack of game is a huge issue between them. You don't think there is decent skill gap between 20 and 3 GS champions, I mean come on man. If anything, why don't you say Murray troubles Djokovic, since he beat him in 2 GS finals, but Murray never came close to beating prime Federer at a major.

No, I don't. I think the main issue with Murray has been mental in too many of his Slam finals. The fact that he has had so many wins against Federer (including a Bo5 set final) indicates to me that the game is there when he puts it all together, physically and mentally. That's my take anyway.

 

[Hitman]

No, I don't. I think the main issue with Murray has been mental in too many of his Slam finals. The fact that he has had so many wins against Federer (including a Bo5 set final) indicates to me that the game is there when he puts it all together, physically and mentally. That's my take anyway.

In which slam finals do you think he was mentally hampered?

 

[Mainad]

In which slam finals do you think he was mentally hampered?

Against Fed? 2010 AO and 2012 Wimbledon. He missed so many opportunities in those matches. Don't get me started against many of his encounters with Djokovic.

 

[Nole_King]

Against Fed? 2010 AO and 2012 Wimbledon. He missed so many opportunities in those matches. Don't get me started against many of his encounters with Djokovic.

What trash. In 2012 Wimby he won the first set. Federer turned the match in second set with some pristine play in the 12th game. Murray was trying as hard as he could but Federer upped his game and Murray was simply no match in set 3 and 4. Saying that he missed opportunities is ignoring the fact that Federer displayed a level in last couple of sets that was beyond Murray's reach. That was one of the reason Murray broke during post match interview because he knew he gave it all but it was not good enough

 

[DSH]

What trash. In 2012 Wimby he won the first set. Federer turned the match in second set with some pristine play in the 12th game. Murray was trying as hard as he could but Federer upped his game and Murray was simply no match in set 3 and 4. Saying that he missed opportunities is ignoring the fact that Federer displayed a level in last couple of sets that was beyond Murray's reach. That was one of the reason Murray broke during post match interview because he knew he gave it all but it was not good enough

Murray had chances to took a 2 sets lead. He failed, and then the second part of the match it was indoors.
At that moment, the dynamics of that encounter changed completely and the final result was already known from that moment.
The Scots had already raised the white flag.
The rest was a procedure for Federer.

 

[JackGates]

But mentality is always result of lacking skills, so how is this relevant? Hey, if you never talk to women of course you won't be confident talking to women, but that doesn't mean you are mentally weak, it just means you didn't practice it. If you practice anything and have skills you will always have confidence, so Fed's game is what hampers Murray's confidence not Murray not sitting in front of a mirror and telling himself affirmations, the brain dosn't work like that.

Hey, you play Federer when your winners suddenly come back with interest, you will lose confidence very fast too. Murray had past success versus Fed according to you so he should be feeling more confident and he did, he won the first set in 2012 W final.

And what about 2015 semi? Murray was in his peak and now didn't have any pressure of winning slams and wasn't even the final, so he was free. Call me crazy, but I think 8 time W champions has superior skills and it's not mental. Murray first needs to improve his skills for it to become mental lol.

Mental toughness is just something people talk about not knowing much about neurochemistry, it's a delusion for fans and players and all of us to cope with life and with failure.

 

[Nole_King]

Murray had chances to took a 2 sets lead. He failed, and then the second part of the match it was indoors.
At that moment, the dynamics of that encounter changed completely and the final result was already known from that moment.
The Scots had already raised the white flag.
The rest was a procedure for Federer.

Firstly I was responding to a post that said he missed "so many opportunities" making it sound like the match was gifted to Federer by Murray. My point was that with all effort of Murray in first two sets it was still one set all. Credit has to be given to Federer for defending well when Murray was forcing in one of the games of second set. Federer didn't survive because of Murray playing weak or due to some UEs.

Murray had beater Federer twice at indoors earlier. I dont agree that match turning indoors gave Federer too much advantage. Infact the rain break was at a wrong time for Federer who just broke to win the second set and was leading 40-0 on his serve. If anything the rainbreak should have helped Murray more. Federer never let go of pressure and Murray simply was not good enough.

 

[Nole_King]

Overall, Murray has a H2H of 11-14 vs Federer (prior to his back surgery in 2013, he was actually ahead) and he remains the only player, apart from Nadal and Djokovic, to record double digit victories over Federer so to say his game never troubled Federer is just not true

Again a very misleading line. Murray lead Federer 6-2 till first half of 2009. By end of 2012 it was 10-9. Federer led him 7-4 in this period. He had already turned the rivalry on its head before Murray went for back surgery.

And I never understand how Murray was good enough to win one more Wimbledon after 2013 and become YE#1 but due to the injury couldn't defeat Federer. If somehow we accept this twisted logic, Murray should be thanking Raonic for taking out Federer in 2016 SF. Else he would have been stuck at 2 GS (below Stan), with no YE#1.

 

[JackGates]

Again a very misleading line. Murray lead Federer 6-2 till first half of 2009. By end of 2012 it was 10-9. Federer led him 7-4 in this period. He had already turned the rivalry on its head before Murray went for back surgery.

And I never understand how Murray was good enough to win one more Wimbledon after 2013 and become YE#1 but due to the injury couldn't defeat Federer. If somehow we accept this twisted logic, Murray should be thanking Raonic for taking out Federer in 2016 SF. Else he would have been stuck at 2 GS (below Stan), with no YE#1.

Interesting stat is that Murray never beat Federer or Nadal on his way of his slams. Wawrinka beat all 3 and twice back to back. Wawrinka beat Fed/Djokovic and Djokovic/Nadal for his FO/AO titles. I think this alone is worth more than Murray's 3 majors.

 

[Nole_King]

Interesting stat is that Murray never beat Federer or Nadal on his way of his slams. Wawrinka beat all 3 and twice back to back. Wawrinka beat Fed/Djokovic and Djokovic/Nadal for his FO/AO titles. I think this alone is worth more than Murray's 3 majors.

Try telling that to THE Murray fan here. Ofcourse Murray's overall achievements are superior to Stan but Stan's three GS wins were much better.

Another interesting thing is how much Stan has been a problem for Novak in Bo5. If we remove the one retirement each that the two had, Novak is 4-3 and all those 4 wins were 5 setters.

 

[Mainad]

Interesting stat is that Murray never beat Federer or Nadal on his way of his slams. Wawrinka beat all 3 and twice back to back. Wawrinka beat Fed/Djokovic and Djokovic/Nadal for his FO/AO titles. I think this alone is worth more than Murray's 3 majors.

On the other hand, Stan never beat Federer or Nadal in big title matches on their respective best surfaces, grass and clay.

 

[mike danny]

Interesting stat is that Murray never beat Federer or Nadal on his way of his slams. Wawrinka beat all 3 and twice back to back. Wawrinka beat Fed/Djokovic and Djokovic/Nadal for his FO/AO titles. I think this alone is worth more than Murray's 3 majors.

Nah, Murray beat better versions of Federer and Nadal than Stan did. Stan though has by far the best win over Novak anyone could hace at 2014 AO.

 

[mike danny]

Try telling that to THE Murray fan here. Ofcourse Murray's overall achievements are superior to Stan but Stan's three GS wins were much better.

Another interesting thing is how much Stan has been a problem for Novak in Bo5. If we remove the one retirement each that the two had, Novak is 4-3 and all those 4 wins were 5 setters.

3-3.

 

[mike danny]

On the other hand, Stan never beat Federer or Nadal in big title matches on their respective best surfaces, grass and clay.

Those were good wins, but I don't hold them in high regard due to how bad Fedal were in them.

Toronto 2010 and Shanghai 2010 were better final wins.

 

[JackGates]

On the other hand, Stan never beat Federer or Nadal in big title matches on their respective best surfaces, grass and clay.

That would only apply if Murray beat them at RG and at Wimbledon. Stan did it at majors.

 

[mike danny]

That would only apply if Murray beat them at RG and at Wimbledon. Stan did it at majors.

Stan's wins against Fedal at majors aren't impressive though. Murray's are.

 

[JackGates]

Stan's wins against Fedal at majors aren't impressive though. Murray's are.

But you forget to mention that at the same tournament Wawrinka also beat Djokovic, that's the point, he beat big 3 back to back, that's why it's huge and Wawrinka dethroned Nole at AO, that is huge too, nobody was able to do that.

 

[mike danny]

But you forget to mention that at the same tournament Wawrinka also beat Djokovic, that's the point, he beat big 3 back to back, that's why it's huge and Wawrinka dethroned Nole at AO, that is huge too, nobody was able to do that.

The last one is why I give Stan major props and why I consider him better than Murray at the AO.

But the reason why Stan was able to beat the Big 3 back to back is because he ran into a swcind sub par Big 3 member.

Nadal was injured at 2014 AO.

Federer was done in BO5 on clay by the time 2015 RG rolled around.

Murray would also fancy his chances against an injured Fed at 2008 USO for example.

 

[Mainad]

Those were good wins, but I don't hold them in high regard due to how bad Fedal were in them.

It's a common habit on here (and a very lazy and misplaced one) to dismiss Murray's wins on account of the fact his opponents played poorly by their standards (maybe Murray's level of play made them play poorly by their standards?) . Needless to say, his opponents' wins over Murray rarely seem to lack any credit if Murray played poorly!

Toronto 2010 and Shanghai 2010 were better final wins.

Glad you think so.

 

[Mainad]

That would only apply if Murray beat them at RG and at Wimbledon. Stan did it at majors.

Big titles still include Masters 1000s (check with the ATP). Stan never beat either of them in a final on their favourite surfaces.

 

[JackGates]

The last one is why I give Stan major props and why I consider him better than Murray at the AO.

But the reason why Stan was able to beat the Big 3 back to back is because he ran into a swcind sub par Big 3 member.

Nadal was injured at 2014 AO.

Federer was done in BO5 on clay by the time 2015 RG rolled around.

Murray would also fancy his chances against an injured Fed at 2008 USO for example.

No, it's not that, because Wawrinka also pushed Federer and Djokovic several times where they weren't subpar. Like AO 17 when Fed was goating. Or 8 times at majors Wawrinka either won or barely lost vs Nole. You would only have a point if it was once or twice. Wawrinka is just a bit better vs top guys when it matters than Murray. And Murray also had more opportunities to play big guys, he has many finals and still wasn't able to do it.

 

[Krish872007]

Stan's wins against Fedal at majors aren't impressive though. Murray's are.

This I agree with. Technically Nadal was injured in both 2010 and 2014 at the AO, but I think 2010 was the more impressive version compared to the 2014 Final and Murray thrashed him. The US Open 2008 was particularly impressive
And he played very well at the AO 2013

 

[D.Nalby12]

It's very simple. Federer entered most inconsistent phase of his career in 2008. He could bring his best level only for Slams in 2008-09 period. Murray being eternal opportunist grabbed few non Slam wins in that period. But always got destroyed when faced fed in Slams.

 

[JackGates]

This I agree with. Technically Nadal was injured in both 2010 and 2014 at the AO, but I think 2010 was the more impressive version compared to the 2014 Final and Murray thrashed him. The US Open 2008 was particularly impressive
And he played very well at the AO 2013

Rafa was injured at AO 13 too, Fed had his worse year in 2013, Rafa wasn't in his HC prime in 2008. So, no more impressive than what Wawrinka did, same thing.

 

[D.Nalby12]

It's not some big mystery. Murray for some reason seems to have played even more conservative in slams while Fed's baseline is just in better shape in them (especially the later stages), he just won't leak so many errors off the BH side.

For all the insensitivity/arrogance/whatever you wanna call it, Fed was spot on about Murray's game after 2008 Dubai loss. Andy is a hard worker no doubt, but I don't think he ever really fulfilled his potential as a player.

What exactly he said after that loss? Fed' assessment of game is always spot on. Some call it arrogance but he has been brutally honest in post match PCs.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

What exactly he said after that loss? Fed' assessment of game is always spot on. Some call it arrogance but he has been brutally honest in post match PCs.

"I don't think he has changed his game a whole lot since the first time I played him and I really thought he would have done," said Federer. "He is going to have to grind it very hard in the next few years if he is going to play this way. He stands way behind the court. You have to do a lot of running and he tends to wait for the mistakes of his opponent.

"I gave him the mistakes but overall, in a 15-year career, you want to look to win a point more often, rather than wait for the other guy to miss. Who knows, he might surprise us all."

 

[JackGates]

I always thought that Murray was a very interesting, strategic player with a hell of a lot of variety when he was younger. Then it seemed he made a conscious decision to become a slugger if he wanted to win anything big. Maybe a good decision, maybe not, but aesthetically it was a big shame.

Surfaces, even Fed has become more passive, Djokovic too, Nadal too, Rodick too. Roddick apart from his serve was almost pushing in 2009 W final.

 

[Hitman]

Rafa was injured at AO 13 too, Fed had his worse year in 2013, Rafa wasn't in his HC prime in 2008. So, no more impressive than what Wawrinka did, same thing.

Rafa was not injured at AO 2013. He didn't play because he was sick with a high fever, so he opted out from travelling so far and trying to compete in a slam. He came back straight after.

 

[JackGates]

Rafa was not injured at AO 2013. He didn't play because he was sick with a high fever, so he opted out from travelling so far and trying to compete in a slam. He came back straight after.

Exact year doesn't matter, I know it was at AO when Nadal was injured, I remember he lost the last set badly.

 

[Hitman]

Try telling that to THE Murray fan here. Ofcourse Murray's overall achievements are superior to Stan but Stan's three GS wins were much better.

Another interesting thing is how much Stan has been a problem for Novak in Bo5. If we remove the one retirement each that the two had, Novak is 4-3 and all those 4 wins were 5 setters.

@Mainad is a great Murray fan, who genuinely supports him and is respectful to all the other players. There are a couple of fake Murray fans that come to mind, one in particular who is basically a bitter Sampras fan sour over the fact Federer broke his records, and hides behind the mask of being a Muray fan, yet knows nothing about his career. Mainad is one of the best Murray fans here, and often has to defend him from continuous attacks that undermine his achievements. At least with this Murray fan, everything is genuine.

 

[zagor]

What exactly he said after that loss? Fed' assessment of game is always spot on. Some call it arrogance but he has been brutally honest in post match PCs.

Tennis: Roger Federer criticises Andy Murray

Tennis: Roger Federer has criticised Andy Murray's tactics during the Scot's victory over the world No1 in Dubai yesterday, and questioned whether Murray is progressing as a player.

www.theguardian.com

"I don't think he has changed his game a whole lot since the first time I played him and I really thought he would have done," said Federer. "He is going to have to grind it very hard in the next few years if he is going to play this way. He stands way behind the court. You have to do a lot of running and he tends to wait for the mistakes of his opponent.

"I gave him the mistakes but overall, in a 15-year career, you want to look to win a point more often, rather than wait for the other guy to miss. Who knows, he might surprise us all."

 

[Hitman]

Exact year doesn't matter, I know it was at AO when Nadal was injured, I remember he lost the last set badly.

Nadal was injured in 2010, when he stopped playing after losing the first two sets to Murray and being 3-0 down in the third.
Nadal was injured in 2011, when he pulled his hamstrings against Ferrer, and played the match injured, losing in straight sets
Nadal did not play 2013 due to a high fever that forced his return to be delayed until after the event had finished
Nadal was injured in 2014 in the final, injuring his back before the final took place, and couldn't move a few games into the second set against Wawrinka
Nadal was in horrible form in 2015, being straight beaten including a bagel by Berdych, but he was healthy
Nadal was beaten in a tough 5 set battle in 2016 first round to Verdasco, he was healthy

 

[JackGates]

@Mainad is a great Murray fan, who genuinely supports him and is respectful to all the other players. There are a couple of fake Murray fans that come to mind, one in particular who is basically a bitter Sampras fan sour over the fact Federer broke his records, and hides behind the mask of being a Muray fan, yet knows nothing about his career. Mainad is one of the best Murray fans here, and often has to defend him from continuous attacks that undermine his achievements. At least with this Murray fan, everything is genuine.

Also, I don't resent Murray fans bashing Fed, it's 20 majors versus 3, so they need some confidence.

 

[Hitman]

Also, I don't resent Murray fans bashing Fed, it's 20 majors versus 3, so they need some confidence.

Most genuine Murray fans don't bash Fed. Those are Fed haters trying to pass off as Murray fans, yet they hardly know anything about him.

 

[mike danny]

This I agree with. Technically Nadal was injured in both 2010 and 2014 at the AO, but I think 2010 was the more impressive version compared to the 2014 Final and Murray thrashed him. The US Open 2008 was particularly impressive
And he played very well at the AO 2013

Much bettet than at the 2015 FO, that's for sure.