Murray: "Give Djokovic a break"

[CremoCream]

Novak was not a greater rival than Federer, he was a LESSER rival than Federer was for Roddick for one of two reasons.

1) Federer was a better player than Djokovic.
2) Murray is a better player than Roddick.

I'm not saying Roddick had a better mentality than Murray but that part of your post irked me quite a lot. Then I remembered I had you on IL so you must be one of those crazy Djokovic goons.

Why was I on your IL? Oh yeah, when i called you out for not giving Nole and Federer the respect they deserve. To disrespect Fed by calling him GRamperer or whatever because he performs extremely high yet loses to djokovic is the highest insult you can give to Federer. What validates his greatness even more his longevity till NOW. Yet instead of praising him for that you insult him to take away from djokovic. Yet you somehow call yourself a Fed Fan. Fed losses to djokovic doesn't take away from what he did in the past. IT doesn't take away from his crazy records, like consecutive weeks at number 1 , 9/10 GS finals, SF streaks, QF streaks, total weeks at number 1, or Total GS. It means he lost to djokovic when djokovic was better on that day. That's why you put me on your IL. lmao. And that shows more about your character than mine.

On the main point we are talking about: how "the Andys" they performed against their greatest rival. Murray has performed exponentially better against Nole than Roddick has against Federer. Yes Federer > djokovic and Murray > Roddick, but that Gap isn't so wide enough to explain Roddicks being Fed's pidgeon for his entire career, not beating him at any F, let alone a GS F, and not beating Federer at a GS in any round, or even beating Federer in his prime (unless you think 2003, 2008, and 2012 is Feds prime, do you?) ....You yourself have argued that Andy Roddick is alot better than he is perceived. Than if that is the case the only reason for him to only beat Fed 3 times, never in when Fed was in his absolute prime (only beat him in 2003, 2008, and 2012), never beat Fed at any GS, never beat Fed in any Final (neither a final of a 1000, 500, 250 or GS), is because he was much more of a mental midget than Murray ever was.

 

[abmk]

Ma Federer is the GOAT Right? So if Federer is GOAT, which I Agree, he has the highest standards compared to anyone else, that includes the likes of Novak, Rafa, Pete, and so on. So how are we going to use the worst possible excuse ever for the player that has the highest standards ever in their prime? In 2006 after the Murray loss Fed still had 33 matches left that he played. Also, He had a week off between Cincinatti and Canada. He beat Srichaphan in the first round of Cincinatti. He faced Murray the next round. And he lost to Murray because of "fatigue?" If thats the excuse any fandom of any top player can make that excuse. That is not legit.

again, you've got everything wrong here.

a) there was no week off b/w Canada and Cincy

b) federer had played 4 3-setters at Canada masters.

c) there was no bye in masters at that time. So federer had to play his 1st round match vs srichapan immediately after flying in from Canada to Cincy.

d) Murray broke him 7 times in 14 service games, which is frankly a joke. Murray had zero break points in their cincy 09 encounter, 2 breaks in their cincy 14 encounter , again zero break points in their cincy 15 encounter. and Murray was a far better player in 09,14 and 15 than he was in 06. combined 2 breaks in 3 encounters at the same venue, with no break points in 2 of those matches.
Its a massive joke to bring up that win of Murray in Cincy 06 as indicative of anything serious.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/roger-federer/f324/player-activity
Check the year 2006

Novak is one of the toughest players to play against ever. Federer is as well. The point is, Murray's biggest rival is who, Djokovic, with Fed and Nadal also being rivals. Roddicks biggest rival was really Federer. Murray performed exponentially better against his rival than Roddick did against Federer.

Lets take a look: Roddick 3-21 h2h against Federer. Roddicks only 3 wins against Federer? Miami 2008 (ive heard the excuse that Fed suffered from "mono" during that time), 2003 Federer lost in canada to roddick, a baby Fed who, though won his maidan grandslam in 2003, truly peaked in 2006, and 2004, with greatness shown in 2005, 2007, and 2009 as well. Roddick has beaten Federer in his aged year in 2012, mono year in 2008, and unprimed year in 2003. Murray has greater wins against Fed than Roddick ever has had against Federer. But that's a side point. (14-11 h2h with Most of Murray's wins against Federer coming on surfaces Federer thrives in even till this day, like Cincinatti, Doha, etc,).

The main point is, how did these two play against their respective main rivals. 25-11 h2h for murray against Nole. That h2h is as bad as the FED - NADAL h2h. Yet Fed has won many GS titles against Nadal, and Murray won multiple GS against Nole. We can say that Nole and Nadal had both match up advantages against them for that skewed H2H. But we can't say that they are mental weaklings cause atleast they beat them occasionally, and even sometimes handily (Fed bageling Nadal at Wimbledon in a four set win, Murray straight setting Nole in the finals). So to some how equate Roddick and Murray, as if they are similar plays both mentally and consistently over the years, is extremely disrespectful to Murray.

again, a lot of that has to do with the fact that Murray is a better player than Roddick, federer being clearly tougher than djokovic and federer being a tougher matchup for Roddick than Djokovic is for Murray.

its nowhere an equal thing here, not even close.

Federer-nadal h2h is skewed because of clay and age. It was 10-18 by the end of 2012, with fed leading on grass, 2-1 and on HC, 6-5.

Not the case with murray-djokovic.

Murray is 11-14 vs federer, but he came up short on the biggest stages vs federer, 1-5 in slams and 1-3 at the YEC.

and you choose to ignore roddick being 5-4 vs djokovic, with one slam win. He could've possibly been to djokovic somewhat like what stan has been ( only the venues would be wim/USO instead of AO/FO )

not that murray is a "mental weakling" for being 11-25 for djokovic, but its the way in which he's lost some of the matches that makes him relatively weaker than roddick ... the meltdown vs nadal in wimbledon 2011 SF, vs djoko in AO 15 SF, vs djoko in miami 15 etc; his initial slam final performances in USO 08, AO 11 ( to a lesser extent AO 10 ) .....

as far as Roddick's wins vs federer go. 2003 Canada was essential for the #1 ranking and was a crucial win, else fed would've probably been YE #1 for 6 years, not 5 and roddick wouldn't be YE #1.

As far as Miami 12 goes, roddick himself was out of the top 10 at that time , federer had just won IW , so that win was a surprise and well earned.

if we're talking about mono for fed in miami 08, take out murray's win over him at dubai that year as well ....

 

[CremoCream]

again, you've got everything wrong here.

a) there was no week off b/w Canada and Cincy
b) federer had played 4 3-setters at Canada masters.
c) there was no bye in masters at that time. So federer had to play his 1st round match vs srichapan immediately after flying in from Canada to Cincy.
d) Murray broke him 7 times in 14 service games, which is frankly a joke. Murray had zero break points in their cincy 09 encounter, 2 breaks in their cincy 14 encounter , again zero break points in their cincy 15 encounter. and Murray was a far better player in 09,14 and 15 than he was in 06. combined 2 breaks in 3 encounters at the same venue.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/roger-federer/f324/player-activity
Check the year 2006




again, a lot of that has to do with the fact that Murray is a better player than Roddick, federer being clearly tougher than djokovic and federer being a tougher matchup for Roddick than Djokovic is for Murray.

its nowhere an equal thing here, not even close.

Federer-nadal h2h is skewed because of clay and age. It was 10-18 by the end of 2012, with fed leading on grass, 2-1 and on HC, 6-5.

Not the case with murray-djokovic.

Murray is 11-14 vs federer, but he came up short on the biggest stages vs federer, 1-5 in slams and 1-3 at the YEC.

and you choose to ignore roddick being 5-4 vs djokovic, with one slam win. He could've possibly been to djokovic somewhat like what stan has been ( only the venues would be wim/USO instead of AO/FO )

not that murray is a "mental weakling" for being 11-25 for djokovic, but its the way in which he's lost some of the matches that makes him relatively weaker than roddick ... the meltdown vs nadal in wimbledon 2011 SF, vs djoko in AO 15 SF, vs djoko in miami 15 etc; his initial slam final performances in USO 08, AO 11 ( to a lesser extent AO 10 ) .....

Thanks for the correction. Yes there was no week break, but rather a day break between Cincinatti and Canada. However, post wimbledon 2006, which ended 9th of July, there was a month break between Wimbledon and Canada, which started the 7th of August. So he still had a massive break between Wimbledon and Canada. True he had multiple 3 setters In Canada, but he thrashed most of those opponents with a , 6-0, 6-3, 6-3, 6-2 in the final sets. So you're saying if federer didn't have those extra 2 hours on court compared if he straight setted his opponents, he would beat murray? A prime 2006 Peakiest of the Peak Federer lost to Murray because of 2 hours of extra time on the court? On his favorite masters 1000 court? That's the worst excuse you can possibly come up with. Feds surely had many match winning streaks where he had overcome such similar difficulties. All the greats have, like lendl, borg, connors, mcenroe, and recently djokovic and Nadal. Fatigue will hit them when they have years of consistent greatness. Yet if fatigue is used for the primary reason for every loss, it takes away from their opponents showing up on that given day winning. That really isn't a valid excuse.

 

[abmk]

Thanks for the correction. Yes there was no week break, but rather a day break between Cincinatti and Canada. However, post wimbledon 2006, which ended 9th of July, there was a month break between Wimbledon and Canada, which started the 7th of August. So he still had a massive break between Wimbledon and Canada. True he had multiple 3 setters In Canada, but he thrashed most of those opponents with a , 6-0, 6-3, 6-3, 6-2 in the final sets. So you're saying if federer didn't have those extra 2 hours on court compared if he straight setted his opponents, he would beat murray? A prime 2006 Peakiest of the Peak Federer lost to Murray because of 2 hours of extra time on the court? On his favorite masters 1000 court? That's the worst excuse you can possibly come up with. Feds surely had many match winning streaks where he had overcome such similar difficulties. All the greats have, like lendl, borg, connors, mcenroe, and recently djokovic and Nadal. Fatigue will hit them when they have years of consistent greatness. Yet if fatigue is used for the primary reason for every loss, it takes away from their opponents showing up on that given day winning. That really isn't a valid excuse.

it was 4 3-setters in a row ...that makes a difference physically and mentally. and there was no real gap b/w the tournaments ...that makes another difference.

yes, his favorite masters court - you think he'd be broken 7 friggin times out of 14 there if he wasn't tired ? in his peak year?
not that Murray was GOATing or anything , he himself was broken 5 times ..

fatigue isn't the primary reason for every loss, but was for this one.

Murray broke him 2 times combined in their 3 encounters at Cincy after that. ( not even having BPs in 2 of those matches )
jeez, what a surprise after having broken him 7 times in 06 , isn't it ?

well, not if you actually know the reality that it was federer's tiredness that was the main cause of the loss .......