If Roddick/Hewitt couldn't beat prime Federer at AO/Wimbledon/USO, then why couldn't Murray?

mike danny

Bionic Poster
@The Guru, Murray has done far worse in slams against Fed than Roddick. Just because he beat Djokovic a couple of times, doesn't mean he'd beat Fed too. Not every Big 3 member is created equal.

Murray isn't beating prime Fed in slams unless Fed is really really bad and Murray is at his absolute best.

Murray has done worse at Wimb vs Fed than Roddick, but sure, kerp insisting how Murray can win.

This tough match-up that Murray represents is only in masters tournaments, that's it.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
@The Guru, Murray has done far worse in slams against Fed than Roddick. Just because he beat Djokovic a couple of times, doesn't mean he'd beat Fed too. Not every Big 3 member is created equal.
Not so. Murray beat Fed at the AO which trumps anything Roddick ever managed.

Murray isn't beating prime Fed in slams unless Fed is really really bad and Murray is at his absolute best.
You don't say.

Murray has done worse at Wimb vs Fed than Roddick, but sure, kerp insisting how Murray can win.
Now, you know you have to be very careful how you word that. :cool:

This tough match-up that Murray represents is only in masters tournaments, that's it.
Oh let's throw in the odd AO and the Olympics too (on grass on Centre Court at Wimbledon that is).
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Not so. Murray beat Fed at the AO which trumps anything Roddick ever managed.



You don't say.



Now, you know you have to be very careful how you word that. :cool:



Oh let's throw in the odd AO and the Olympics too (on grass on Centre Court at Wimbledon that is).
Ok, you know I was talking about prime Fed so what does 2013 AO have to do with it?

Congrats to Murray for beating a 31.5 year old Roger who by that point had already lost multiple slam matches to Tsonga and Berdych.
 

The Guru

Hall of Fame
@The Guru, Murray has done far worse in slams against Fed than Roddick. Just because he beat Djokovic a couple of times, doesn't mean he'd beat Fed too. Not every Big 3 member is created equal.

Murray isn't beating prime Fed in slams unless Fed is really really bad and Murray is at his absolute best.

Murray has done worse at Wimb vs Fed than Roddick, but sure, kerp insisting how Murray can win.

This tough match-up that Murray represents is only in masters tournaments, that's it.
Murray wiped the floor with Fed on CC in Bo5 in a year when Fed won Wimbledon so it's not impossible. Murray never got to face a Federer as poor as 2009 W F Federer so who knows how he'd fare. Of course Murray can only win if Fed is off and Murray is at his best. Murray is not as good as Fed lol glad we established that.

Clearly not all Big 3 member is created equal Nadal>Djokovic>Federer :p
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
The first time after reaching maturity that Federer even got close to losing to a Murray type player in a major was to Murray at 13 AO. And that's absolute peak Murray and worst Federer and he still couldn't avoid Federer stealing not one but two sets. Besides 2010 Wimby/USO and potentially 12 USO, I see zero coherent argument that any version of Murray would be favored to beat any version of 04-12 Fed. His peak level of play is simply not good enough and leaves too much in Fed's hands.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Ok, you know I was talking about prime Fed so what does 2013 AO have to do with it?

Congrats to Murray for beating a 31.5 year old Roger who by that point had already lost multiple slam matches to Tsonga and Berdych.
You said and I quote, "Murray has done far worse in slams against Fed than Roddick." I was just setting that particular record straight because, as you know, your bias against Murray can sometimes come across as very irritating!
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
@The Guru, Murray has done far worse in slams against Fed than Roddick. Just because he beat Djokovic a couple of times, doesn't mean he'd beat Fed too. Not every Big 3 member is created equal.

Murray isn't beating prime Fed in slams unless Fed is really really bad and Murray is at his absolute best.

Murray has done worse at Wimb vs Fed than Roddick, but sure, kerp insisting how Murray can win.

This tough match-up that Murray represents is only in masters tournaments, that's it.
Roddick has 3 wins over similar versions of Fed that Murray beat in B03, Murray just faced those versions much more often (as a result of timing as well as Murray's better consistency in B03), but in really doesn't mean anything when talking about slams where Roddick has played much better versions of Fed and still challenged those versions harder than Murray did. Roddick actually has game that can consistently put Fed on his heels although Federer can usually variety his way out of situations and take advantage of Roddick's weaknesses to play strong first strike tennis.

But at no point in Murray's career has he been able to show the ability to disrupt a half decent Fed's bread and butter game in majors. Not for prime Fed, not for when Fed was serve/FH reliant, not even when Fed was just serve reliant.
 

The Guru

Hall of Fame
Roddick's whole 4 sets in 8 tries really pushed Fed to his limits. He was almost averaging a set every other time.
 

beard

Legend
Nadal was there through most of that era.

Truth is, Federer passed his peak. That's the only reason Novak Djokovic was able to surpass him.
You mean Claydal?
Yeah, Fed passed his peak as soon as Rafole matured to 20 yo.... How convenient... Lol...
I call that being lesser player than them...
 

beard

Legend
@The Guru, Murray has done far worse in slams against Fed than Roddick. Just because he beat Djokovic a couple of times, doesn't mean he'd beat Fed too. Not every Big 3 member is created equal.

Murray isn't beating prime Fed in slams unless Fed is really really bad and Murray is at his absolute best.

Murray has done worse at Wimb vs Fed than Roddick, but sure, kerp insisting how Murray can win.

This tough match-up that Murray represents is only in masters tournaments, that's it.
First sentence is example how Federer fan are blind considering Federer "peak" era...
You obviously have a lot of tennis knowledge, but something is stopping you of being objective...
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS

RS

G.O.A.T.
Murray wiped the floor with Fed on CC in Bo5 in a year when Fed won Wimbledon so it's not impossible. Murray never got to face a Federer as poor as 2009 W F Federer so who knows how he'd fare. Of course Murray can only win if Fed is off and Murray is at his best. Murray is not as good as Fed lol glad we established that.

Clearly not all Big 3 member is created equal Nadal>Djokovic>Federer :p
?
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Murray wiped the floor with Fed on CC in Bo5 in a year when Fed won Wimbledon so it's not impossible. Murray never got to face a Federer as poor as 2009 W F Federer so who knows how he'd fare. Of course Murray can only win if Fed is off and Murray is at his best. Murray is not as good as Fed lol glad we established that.

Clearly not all Big 3 member is created equal Nadal>Djokovic>Federer :p
Wim 12 final fed wasn't better than 2009 W final federer.
People too immersed in Roddick dislike and propaganda of course tend to downplay fed's performance in Wim 2009 final.
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
Wim 12 final fed wasn't better than 2009 W final federer.
People too immersed in Roddick dislike and propaganda of course tend to downplay fed's performance in Wim 2009 final.
I might be the biggest Roddick fanboy on here and I think 2009 is Fed's weakest Wimbledon win. I really think the 2004 final was miles better.
 

RS

G.O.A.T.
Wim 12 final fed wasn't better than 2009 W final federer.
People too immersed in Roddick dislike and propaganda of course tend to downplay fed's performance in Wim 2009 final.
You do know that even Federer fans downplay it as well sometimes right? I know because I made a thread of two on it. Can’t really just blame it on non Fed fans.
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
One thing I honestly dislike about these threads is the linear portrayal of a players levels throughout his career i.e. 2009 is closer to 2003-2007 ergo Fed must have been better than later on. I think base level and consistency does go down but top performance honestly decreases less than that.
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
You do know that even Federer fans downplay it as well sometimes right? I know because I made a thread of two on it. Can’t really just blame it on non Fed fans.
2009 final is just weird to me, because I think it is also wrongly treated as Roddicks best ever level. What really happened is Federer had a **** poor returning day vs Roddick for once.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
I might be the biggest Roddick fanboy on here and I think 2009 is Fed's weakest Wimbledon win. I really think the 2004 final was miles better.
2012 Wim and 2017 Wim were weaker IMO tournament wise.
2004 was a clearly better final.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
You do know that even Federer fans downplay it as well sometimes right? I know because I made a thread of two on it. Can’t really just blame it on non Fed fans.
yes, some of them do. Probably those who only watched it once and expected fed to breeze through it.
Those who rewatched it will probably realise that the returning though not good, was not as bad as the 1st impression would give considering the conditions&level of serving.
 

RS

G.O.A.T.
2009 final is just weird to me, because I think it is also wrongly treated as Roddicks best ever level. What really happened is Federer had a **** poor returning day vs Roddick for once.
2004 is considered as Roddick best by most people.
 

RS

G.O.A.T.
yes, some of them do. Probably those who only watched it once and expected fed to breeze through it.
Those who rewatched it will probably realise that the returning though not good, was not as bad as the 1st impression would give considering the conditions&level of serving.
Then again some rate it as one the best levels Fed faced or the best so I might be wrong.

I think many people on here tend on to rewatch matches sometimes it’s hard to remember the level of certain matches I find some matches seem better when I rewatch them years later.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
People also tend to forget/miss Federer served nowhere near his best in Wim 12 final vs Murray and played a below par 1st set. Yeah, Murray returned great, no question, but Fed had only 29/131 serves unreturned (22.13%)

Federer in the semi vs Djokovic had 44/101 (43.56%) serves unreturned - served considerably better - even accounting for all sets being under roof as opposed to 2 sets in the final

Also fed in 15 semi vs Murray had 37/101 serves (40.66%) serves unreturned. Yeah, arguably his best serving match ever, but that's a big gulf b/w this and Wim 12 final.
 
Last edited:

InsideOut900

Hall of Fame
2004 was a clearly better final.
I seriously need to give a rewatch to 2004 final, because now I feel that match is the overrated one.

Having watched 2009 final a week ago, 1st time since it was played live, honestly, Roddick really put everything into it.

In between clutching Fed at the end of the 1st set(bit lucky, Federer missed like 3 shots on BPs at 5-5, all by a millimeter), playing very solid in the 2nd, hanging in the 3rd and playing a very good 4th, 2009 Roddick looked very good by the end of it.

Maybe I am downplaying the fact Roddick won a low % of return points(21% compared to 36% in 2004), but Fed's serving surely justifies it to some extent.

2004 literally went into pusher mode after the rain break and was 0/6 on BPs in the 4th, while Federer was 1/1. That stuck with me and it's why I don't feel like giving 2004 Roddick that much credit.

I see 2009 Roddick pushing 2004 Fed to 5 sets too.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
I seriously need to give a rewatch to 2004 final, because now I feel that match is the overrated one.

Having watched 2009 final a week ago, 1st time since it was played live, honestly, Roddick really put everything into it.

In between clutching Fed at the end of the 1st set(bit lucky, Federer missed like 3 shots on BPs at 5-5, all by a millimeter), playing very solid in the 2nd, hanging in the 3rd and playing a very good 4th, 2009 Roddick looked very good by the end of it.

Maybe I am downplaying the fact Roddick won a low % of return points(21% compared to 36% in 2004), but Fed's serving surely justifies it to some extent.

2004 literally went into pusher mode after the rain break and was 0/6 on BPs in the 4th, while Federer was 1/1. That stuck with me and it's why I don't feel like giving 2004 Roddick that much credit.

I see 2009 Roddick pushing 2004 Fed to 5 sets too.
Its the returning. I don't think Roddick went into pusher mode after rain break. Federer did play more aggressive though.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Then again some rate it as one the best levels Fed faced or the best so I might be wrong.

I think many people on here tend on to rewatch matches sometimes it’s hard to remember the level of certain matches I find some matches seem better when I rewatch them years later.
I also took the down the stats for the Wim 09 final while re-watching it.

So I know what I am talking about re this match.


also @InsideOut900
 

pj80

Hall of Fame
Murray gave Fed more trouble in 2006-2012 then from 2014 on. in fact he only won one tiebreak in 5 meetings since 2014 despite Murray being in his prime...shows you what an great level Fed was 2014-2018
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
@The Guru, Murray has done far worse in slams against Fed than Roddick. Just because he beat Djokovic a couple of times, doesn't mean he'd beat Fed too. Not every Big 3 member is created equal.

Murray isn't beating prime Fed in slams unless Fed is really really bad and Murray is at his absolute best.

Murray has done worse at Wimb vs Fed than Roddick, but sure, kerp insisting how Murray can win.

This tough match-up that Murray represents is only in masters tournaments, that's it.
I don't see Murray beating prime Fed in slams, period. Fishing for BH errors didn't work against Fed in slams for 2004-2012 (let's say that's Fed's prime).

There's a large gulf between Murray's performance against Fed in BO3 and slams (where Andy lost over half of his meetings in straights) and the mental aspect of it is very much overstated. It's an issue with the style of play, not mental strength.

Guys like Ivanisevic, Roddick, Krajicek, Korda etc. are objectively worse players than Andy but when zoning are/were more of a threat to the very best than Murray who'll let them dictate play.

There's a reason that for example 35 year old Agassi was able to push Fed more at USO in 2005 final than Murray was able to in 2008, Dre took Fed's time away while Murray was giving him all the time in the world.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
People also tend to forget/miss Federer served nowhere near his best in Wim 12 semi vs Murray and played a below par 1st set. Yeah, Murray returned great, no question, but Fed had only 29/131 serves unreturned (22.13%)

Federer in the semi vs Djokovic had 44/101 (43.56%) serves unreturned - served considerably better - even accounting for all sets being under roof as opposed to 2 sets in the final

Also fed in 15 semi vs Murray had 37/101 serves (40.66%) serves unreturned. Yeah, arguably his best serving match ever, but that's a big gulf b/w this and Wim 12 final.
Final but yeah. I also remember Fed was wearing an undershirt for his back(?) and his serving was off for the 1st set. Wimbledon 2012 was very up and down for Fed with his back issues, the only really exceptional performance he had in that tourney was semis against Novak where he was treeing on the serve (especially 2nd serve).

And this was Murray in the best period of his career.
 

The Guru

Hall of Fame
One thing I honestly dislike about these threads is the linear portrayal of a players levels throughout his career i.e. 2009 is closer to 2003-2007 ergo Fed must have been better than later on. I think base level and consistency does go down but top performance honestly decreases less than that.
2009 final is just weird to me, because I think it is also wrongly treated as Roddicks best ever level. What really happened is Federer had a **** poor returning day vs Roddick for once.
Couldn't agree more. I even think 2017 Fed was probably better. 09 Fed was just not very good in the final. 04 Rod was way better it's not close.
 

RS

G.O.A.T.
Couldn't agree more. I even think 2017 Fed was probably better. 09 Fed was just not very good in the final. 04 Rod was way better it's not close.
Who was better 2009 Federer or 2014/2015 Federer at Wim to you?
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Always so easy to ignore Murray destroying Federer at the Olympics.
Yeah because Olympics (like DC) is a specific tourney, slams are a different ballgame. James Blake of all people trounced Fed at Olympics.

At actual slams Murray got trounced by Fed most of the time and that's without even facing 2004-2007 Fed which was (objectively) best period of Fed's career.
 

The Guru

Hall of Fame
Who was better 2009 Federer or 2014/2015 Federer at Wim to you?
2014 Fed was definitely worse. It makes absolutely no sense to me that people think that he was better than in 2015. I'd probably go 14<09<15. I think 15 Fed beats Rod more handily but 09 Fed might be better equipped for Novak than 15 Fed because of the physicality. Splitting hairs between the two I'd say.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Couldn't agree more. I even think 2017 Fed was probably better. 09 Fed was just not very good in the final. 04 Rod was way better it's not close.
He was facing Roddick who was putting Ivanisevic like serve numbers the whole tourney and in dry hot conditions. That he wasn't able to tame Roddick's serve (for once) has little to no bearing on how he'd do against Murray who'd give him far more breathing room.
 
Top