consistency is a keyMurray is just more consistent than those two. That's all.
RodDick+Hewitt vs Federer... 0-16 at slams... Titans of the sport... Great competition...
It's thin line between being super dominant and winning in extra weak era... Rafole soon proved it was just pathetic era...It's because Federer was so superior at peak, actually. No one bar Nadal on clay could touch him.
It's thin line between being super dominant and winning in extra weak era... Rafole soon proved it was just pathetic era...
@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.
Ok, you know I was talking about prime Fed so what does 2013 AO have to do with it?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.
Oh let's throw in the odd AO and the Olympics too (on grass on Centre Court at Wimbledon that is).
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.@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.
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.
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.@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.
You mean Claydal?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.
First sentence is example how Federer fan are blind considering Federer "peak" era...@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's whole 4 sets in 8 tries really pushed Fed to his limits. He was almost averaging a set every other time.
did it at AO after Fed was begging him to take the set so I'll give him benefit of doubt.Would Murray even push prime Fred to TB at WB/USO at all, is the question.
?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
did it at AO after Fed was begging him to take the set so I'll give him benefit of doubt.
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
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.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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
2004 is considered as Roddick best by most people.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.
Then again some rate it as one the best levels Fed faced or the best so I might be wrong.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.
I seriously need to give a rewatch to 2004 final, because now I feel that match is the overrated one.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.
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.
Seen your thread about that match already quite insightful.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.
Federer Roddick Wimbledon 2009 final stats
Federer def. Roddick 5-7, 7-6(6),7-6(5), 3-6,16-14 Aces :Federer : 50, Roddick : 27 DFs: Federer : 4, Roddick : 4 SWs: Federer : 4, Roddick : 10 FHWs: Federer : 36 (including 5 passing shot winners) Roddick : 22 (including 2 passing shot winners and 1 return passing shot winner) BHWs...tt.tennis-warehouse.com
also @InsideOut900
@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.
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.
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.
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.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.
Who was better 2009 Federer or 2014/2015 Federer at Wim to you?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.
Always so easy to ignore Murray destroying Federer at the Olympics.
Always so easy to ignore Murray destroying Federer at the Olympics.
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.Who was better 2009 Federer or 2014/2015 Federer at Wim to you?
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.