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.

[ForehandCross]

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."

This feels horribly arrogant but it actually ended up being decent critique of Murray's play.

Also nice of Federer to give "mistakes to Murray " like a dozen times

 

[mike danny]

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.

Federer wasn't exactly GOATing at AO 2017 though. He played 3 five setters.

 

[JackGates]

Federer wasn't exactly GOATing at AO 2017 though. He played 3 five setters.

Because Wawrinka and Nadal were goating too, Fed wasn't even supposed to make the semis after his long break then he wins the whole thing, that is goating.

 

[mike danny]

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!



Glad you think so.

I am only talking about those 2 matches which seem to be reverrer around here by some guys.

Nadal's 2015 struggles are well documented and Fed had played a 4.5 hour long match with Delpo before the final. He was running on fumes in the final.

Sorry, Mainad, but no version of Murray would trash a well playing Fed like that in BO5 on grass. Not even Djokovic and Nadal have done that. Murray played well, but Fed played his worst or one of his worst grass court matches in that final.

 

[D.Nalby12]

"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."

Those are pretty hard words. They said he was bitter after the loss but looking back surely he looks like a Tennis prophet. BTW Fed despite the loss looks very convinced it was because of his own mistakes and believed he would turn it around anytime. He didn't consider him as a threat. This confidence made him to destroy Murray in Slam finals.

 

[Mainad]

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."

Federer's typical put-down of an early opponent who had the temerity to give him any trouble (did he recall that Murray had already beaten him 2 years earlier in Cincinnati, another of his favourite tournaments?). I wonder if he found himself surprised?

 

[Mainad]

I am only talking about those 2 matches which seem to be reverrer around here by some guys.

Nadal's 2015 struggles are well documented and Fed had played a 4.5 hour long match with Delpo before the final. He was running on fumes in the final.

Often overlooked is that 'struggling' Nadal cruised through that particular tournament straight setting each opponent including Berdych (then still a top 10 player) until he met Murray in the final.

Sorry, Mainad, but no version of Murray would trash a well playing Fed like that in BO5 on grass. Not even Djokovic and Nadal have done that. Murray played well, but Fed played his worst or one of his worst grass court matches in that final.

I grant you that a better performing Fed would not likely have lost that match in straights but even a half-decent performance from him would have seen off most opponents in that match on grass on his favourite court.

 

[Djokovic2011]

I am only talking about those 2 matches which seem to be reverrer around here by some guys.

Nadal's 2015 struggles are well documented and Fed had played a 4.5 hour long match with Delpo before the final. He was running on fumes in the final.

Sorry, Mainad, but no version of Murray would trash a well playing Fed like that in BO5 on grass. Not even Djokovic and Nadal have done that. Murray played well, but Fed played his worst or one of his worst grass court matches in that final.

In fairness the way Murray was playing at the 2012 Olympics he would've been a handful for Federer no matter how long the semifinal with Del Potro lasted.

 

[Nole_King]

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.

Federer at 2013 AO was hardly better than Federer at 2105 FO. He struggled badly against Tsonga in QF and was far from his best. Maybe it was a precursor to things to come in 2013 for Federer. And Stan did blow away Federer at FO unlike the struggle that Murray had. So, I don't see too much of a difference between the two wins.

 

[Nole_King]

@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.

I guess it comes down to personal choice. I do feel that one of reason why Murray is being attacked is due to his fans trying to push him closer to Big 3 when the fact is the gap between Murray and the big 3 is far far more than the gap between any of the Big 3. And this guy makes it a point to keep bringing Murray in each and every discussion. It is as irritating as Murray's behavior on the court (clutching legs, swearing at his box etc. etc.)

 

[Nole_King]

3-3.

]
There was a Davis Cup Bo5 match as well ..

2016​	US Open	Outdoor Hard	F	Stan Wawrinka	671 64 75 63
2015​	Roland Garros	Outdoor Clay	F	Stan Wawrinka	46 64 63 64
2015​	Australian Open	Outdoor Hard	SF	Novak Djokovic	761 36 64 46 60
2014​	Australian Open	Outdoor Hard	QF	Stan Wawrinka	26 64 62 36 97
2013​	US Open	Outdoor Hard	SF	Novak Djokovic	26 764 36 63 64
2013​	Australian Open	Outdoor Hard	R16	Novak Djokovic	16 75 64 675 1210
2006​	SUI v. SCG WG PO	Indoor Hard	RR	Novak Djokovic	64 36 26 763 64

 

[Nole_King]

In fairness the way Murray was playing at the 2012 Olympics he would've been a handful for Federer no matter how long the semifinal with Del Potro lasted.

You mean to say Federer had no chance against that version of Murray?

I agree that Murray was playing well. But problem with Murray against Big 3 in big matches has been when the opponent start playing at their high level. That is when Murray's game starts to go down. Very rarely I see him playing at his best when one of the other Big 3 is playing at high level against him. Like in 2012 Wimby he starts well, is strong but as soon as Federer withstands the pressure and levels the match, Murray fails to keep up. He starts clutching his legs and becomes all negative. Besides his FO match against Novak when he leveled the match after being down 2 sets to love he has mostly folded up once his opponent is up 2-0 or 2-1.

 

[killerboss]

You mean to say Federer had no chance against that version of Murray?

I agree that Murray was playing well. But problem with Murray against Big 3 in big matches has been when the opponent start playing at their high level. That is when Murray's game starts to go down. Very rarely I see him playing at his best when one of the other Big 3 is playing at high level against him. Like in 2012 Wimby he starts well, is strong but as soon as Federer withstands the pressure and levels the match, Murray fails to keep up. He starts clutching his legs and becomes all negative. Besides his FO match against Novak when he leveled the match after being down 2 sets to love he has mostly folded up once his opponent is up 2-0 or 2-1.

It's a bit more complicated than that in my opinion. Players (especially top players who we are used to see dominate matches) are rarely going to look good when they lose to Murray because of the nature of his game and the way he breaks players down. Federer fans also say he didn't play well or wasn't himself etc in quite a lot of matches he loses I have noticed. I also thought that Djokovic played pretty well in USO 2012 bar the last set which is one of the few times I have ever seen him physically outlasted in such an important match.

 

[JackGates]

In fairness the way Murray was playing at the 2012 Olympics he would've been a handful for Federer no matter how long the semifinal with Del Potro lasted.

Are you trying to use Murray as proof to boost Djokovic versus Federer? I'm on to you, it won't work, because Murray is a good player who defeated Djokovic in two GS finals, so this makes Federer look better compared to Djokovic, since Federer can't lose to Murray in Grand Slam Finals.

 

[JackGates]

It's a bit more complicated than that in my opinion. Players (especially top players who we are used to see dominate matches) are rarely going to look good when they lose to Murray because of the nature of his game and the way he breaks players down. Federer fans also say he didn't play well or wasn't himself etc in quite a lot of matches he loses I have noticed. I also thought that Djokovic played pretty well in USO 2012 bar the last set which is one of the few times I have ever seen him physically outlasted in such an important match.

This is a good point, Murray makes you lower your level, this is what counter-punchers do. People have this false logic that agressor is always in control, which is false. Your opponent can also forse the agressor to not have control, defenders can have control.

 

[Nole_King]

It's a bit more complicated than that in my opinion. Players (especially top players who we are used to see dominate matches) are rarely going to look good when they lose to Murray because of the nature of his game and the way he breaks players down. Federer fans also say he didn't play well or wasn't himself etc in quite a lot of matches he loses I have noticed. I also thought that Djokovic played pretty well in USO 2012 bar the last set which is one of the few times I have ever seen him physically outlasted in such an important match.

You didnt get my point. I said that in matches that Murray lost to Big-3 in slams (and there are plenty), he generally folded up once he lost 2 sets (except for FO against Novak). His game goes down once he is behind and he starts to do all his silly antics.

He has won only 5 and lost 20 against Big-3 in GS matches and one of the reasons is that he was not able to hang on when the others are playing well. Some stats: Out of his 20 losses there were only 3 5 set matches out of which 2 times he was leading 2 sets to 1. This does indicate that he was not able to create chances for himself once he was down. His inability to raise his level or hang in there when the other was playing well is pretty evident.

And hence the fact that in a hypothetical scenario of Federer not getting extended in his 2012 Olympics SF, chances are he would have bought a higher level of play and once the match was close, chances of Federer prevailing were higher (Wim 2012 being again a prime example).

 

[Nole_King]

This is a good point, Murray makes you lower your level, this is what counter-punchers do. People have this false logic that agressor is always in control, which is false. Your opponent can also forse the agressor to not have control, defenders can have control.

5 wins out of 25 GS matches is too small a sample to form this theory.

 

[Enga]

I feel like the story is similar for a lot of up and comers. Murray is just the best of em, but there's other guys on the tour who can hand the Big 3 their ass in a Bo3, but not in a Bo5.

Maybe winning the Bo3 against a top player gives players a false sense of security. These top players are perfectionists and they have massive galaxy size egos. They won't just sit idly back and hope that things will get better by itself. They will probably analyze the past matchups and come up with a better plan for next time, especially when the stakes are highest. Often times fixing one subtle little thing can make the difference in a match.

 

[killerboss]

You didnt get my point. I said that in matches that Murray lost to Big-3 in slams (and there are plenty), he generally folded up once he lost 2 sets (except for FO against Novak). His game goes down once he is behind and he starts to do all his silly antics.

He has won only 5 and lost 20 against Big-3 in GS matches and one of the reasons is that he was not able to hang on when the others are playing well. Some stats: Out of his 20 losses there were only 3 5 set matches out of which 2 times he was leading 2 sets to 1. This does indicate that he was not able to create chances for himself once he was down. His inability to raise his level or hang in there when the other was playing well is pretty evident.

And hence the fact that in a hypothetical scenario of Federer not getting extended in his 2012 Olympics SF, chances are he would have bought a higher level of play and once the match was close, chances of Federer prevailing were higher (Wim 2012 being again a prime example).

"When they were playing well" is the part where it seems too simplistic to say. Even though you would expect them to beat him more often than they beat him, Murray is a player that can hurt big 3 members on his day (and arguably should have done it more often) Even when the big 3 members play each other, once one gets into a dominant position, it's pretty difficult for the other to overcome him.

And regarding Federer, at the Olympics - Now one point that a lot of people fail to realise (or mention) is that the match between Federer and Del Potro was not physical at all. The match was a (rather boring) serve fest in which the vast majority of the points did not last very long. The only reason the match lasted longer than your usual 3 setter was because neither player could break each other.

If anyone is looking for an excuse for Federer then what he said at the end of the match about him not approaching it with the right mentality and being overwhelmed by the occasion is better. Some fans even tried to say that Federer let Murray win because he felt sorry for him after Wimbledon, lmao.

 

[mike danny]

Federer at 2013 AO was hardly better than Federer at 2105 FO. He struggled badly against Tsonga in QF and was far from his best. Maybe it was a precursor to things to come in 2013 for Federer. And Stan did blow away Federer at FO unlike the struggle that Murray had. So, I don't see too much of a difference between the two wins.

I do. Federer at 2013 AO was still playing better because at the 2015 FO he was done as a contender in BO5 on clay.

 

[Nole_King]

"When they were playing well" is the part where it seems too simplistic to say. Even though you would expect them to beat him more often than they beat him, Murray is a player that can hurt big 3 members on his day (and arguably should have done it more often) Even when the big 3 members play each other, once one gets into a dominant position, it's pretty difficult for the other to overcome him.

And regarding Federer, at the Olympics - Now one point that a lot of people fail to realise (or mention) is that the match between Federer and Del Potro was not physical at all. The match was a (rather boring) serve fest in which the vast majority of the points did not last very long. The only reason the match lasted longer than your usual 3 setter was because neither player could break each other.

If anyone is looking for an excuse for Federer then what he said at the end of the match about him not approaching it with the right mentality and being overwhelmed by the occasion is better. Some fans even tried to say that Federer let Murray win because he felt sorry for him after Wimbledon, lmao.

Ok .. I should have said when others were leading him ..

It was still a 4.5 hrs match .. Again this is not an excuse. I am not saying Federer "would" have won. I said chances of him prevailing were higher because Murray has had big problems against Big 3 in Bo5. My post started in response to someone saying that it would not have mattered even if Federer would have not played a longer SF.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

I do. Federer at 2013 AO was still playing better because at the 2015 FO he was done as a contender in BO5 on clay.

...4 years later he beat Stan to reach the RG SF

 

[Nole_King]

I do. Federer at 2013 AO was still playing better because at the 2015 FO he was done as a contender in BO5 on clay.

Being contender doesn't mean he was playing well.

Lets say we are entitled to our respective opinions then

 

[mike danny]

In fairness the way Murray was playing at the 2012 Olympics he would've been a handful for Federer no matter how long the semifinal with Del Potro lasted.

Yes, but he was a handful in their Wimb final too and it didn't end in a destruction.

No version of Murray trashes a well-playing Federer in BO5 on grass. Period.

 

[KINGROGER]

"When they were playing well" is the part where it seems too simplistic to say. Even though you would expect them to beat him more often than they beat him, Murray is a player that can hurt big 3 members on his day (and arguably should have done it more often) Even when the big 3 members play each other, once one gets into a dominant position, it's pretty difficult for the other to overcome him.

And regarding Federer, at the Olympics - Now one point that a lot of people fail to realise (or mention) is that the match between Federer and Del Potro was not physical at all. The match was a (rather boring) serve fest in which the vast majority of the points did not last very long. The only reason the match lasted longer than your usual 3 setter was because neither player could break each other.

If anyone is looking for an excuse for Federer then what he said at the end of the match about him not approaching it with the right mentality and being overwhelmed by the occasion is better. Some fans even tried to say that Federer let Murray win because he felt sorry for him after Wimbledon, lmao.

Honestly, that’s how it felt watching it live. It was like Federer won the main prize, and the gold medal was a consolation.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

So why does Fed struggle so much in Bo5 against Nole while holding his own in Bo3?

 

[mike danny]

So why does Fed struggle so much in Bo5 against Nole while holding his own in Bo3?

Age? Nothing more nothing less.

 

[JackGates]

So why does Fed struggle so much in Bo5 against Nole while holding his own in Bo3?

Different styles. Fed cruises to GS finals, so he never has tough matches, so he is never match ready. Nole has problems till finals, so he is always match ready. In bo3 Nole plays a lot less, so he isn't as tough. When Fed has a tough time to reach finals, he is usually doing pretty great in finals. See when Fed had tough semis, he always was great in finals.

 

[fedfan24]

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."

Sound arrogant but he was proven right. He ended up breaking his body to now grind it out at the lower end of the tour.

 

[Mainad]

Sound arrogant but he was proven right. He ended up breaking his body to now grind it out at the lower end of the tour.

No way, that was just typical arrogance from Fed who always found it difficult to credit opponents who beat him with a completely different style of tennis to his own and who had not yet won anything of note. When Andy started winning stuff he gradually changed his tone to something a bit more respectful.

PS. Don't forget Fed himself eventually had to give up because his own body had broken down.

 

[Cabeza del Demonio]

You can’t go into a best of 5 set grand slam
Final with a game plan of trying to make the other guy hit awkward shots and hope he hits enough unforced errors to beat himself.

That was Murray’s mistake against Federer in those slam finals.

You might be able to get away with it in a Best of 3 set tournament, where a top seed plays 5/6 matches total, but not in a slam.

I recall a certain Spaniard doing this against Fed in many Slam finals. If memory serves me right, he had some success with it too

 

[DSH]

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

Murray, in the language of BDSM, would be the passive subject and the Big 3 would be the active subjects, exemplified in the results in Grand Slam tournaments.

 

[mike danny]

I recall a certain Spaniard doing this against Fed in many Slam finals. If memory serves me right, he had some success with it too

Yeah, but Murray is no Nadal.

 

[Cabeza del Demonio]

Yeah, but Murray is no Nadal.

Of course. That's why Murray lacked the confidence to keep asking those questions of Fed in Majors. Federer would step it up a notch and Murray would go back into his shell every time (until AO 2013, IMO one of the most underrated Big 4 classics).