Murray Magic: Back-To-Back Wins Against Federer & Nadal In Toronto

[Third Serve]

2013 Murray is top form and if he's still allowing 2013 Fed to sneak out tiebreaks he has 0 chance against 2006 Fed. Zero. 06 Fed is going to flat out run Murray over in 1-2 sets because he could still do that, and then Murray is going to make it count basically every opportunity he gets when Fed is off and not let Fed win any of the close sets? No chance, nothing about Murray ever suggests he could do that. Murray is more passive than Davydenko or Baghdatis and that plays into Fed's hands. And Fed can still reach a top level Murray simply can't match.

Eh, I say 2012 Muzz was better at the AO. He just ran into Djokovic early.

 

[Mainad]

2013 Murray is top form and if he's still allowing 2013 Fed to sneak out tiebreaks he has 0 chance against 2006 Fed. Zero. 06 Fed is going to flat out run Murray over in 1-2 sets because he could still do that, and then Murray is going to make it count basically every opportunity he gets when Fed is off and not let Fed win any of the close sets? No chance, nothing about Murray ever suggests he could do that.

Kind of an ironic thing to say when Murray was actually the only player other than Nadal to beat Federer in 2006.

Murray is more passive than Davydenko or Baghdatis and that plays into Fed's hands. And Fed can still reach a top level Murray simply can't match.

Hmmm.....well a H2H of 11-14 (including 3 tour finals 1 of them a Bo5) kind of suggests that he played considerably less into Fed's hands than did the likes of Davydenko, H2H 2-19 (no finals) or Baghdatis, H2H 1-7 (no finals).

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

No I meant that instead of feeling nervous even before the match, Novak would have felt confident and thrilled to play Rafa because he would have been sure that he was about to win Wimbledon. And that would have make him play better.

For your previous comment :
I chose this specific match because it is an extreme example to show my point of view better, maybe that was counterproductive. Basically I wanted to say that judging a player's level on a day to predict an other hypothetical (just like the other topic Rafa 08/Novak15) doesn't work because everything is influenced by what happened before the match (even every point during a match is influenced by the previous points).
And the player who shows the better level is not even necessarily the one who wins (you could use the example of the level of the 2 finalists of W19 to say that Roger wins the same hypothetical, which is conceivable but of course it didn't happen). Which leads me to say that I expect Djokovic to win most hypotheticals peak for peak against Roger in slam finals, just because of mental superiority, it doesn't matter to me that Roger shows a better level to decide who I expect to win).

As for Djokovic, having lost in 2014 against Stan makes me think that considering that his physical abilites were perfectly fine at the start of 2015, he would have raised his level as much as needed to win against anybody, just like Nadal did in RG17. Maybe that's what happened to Roger in AO07 too.

Noel's mental superiority is itself largely enhanced by Fred's decline. Prime Fred vs pre-prime Djo 12-1 in slam sets except the mono case (as well as it being prime level from Djo).

 

[Mainad]

I wouldn't go that far really. Murray wasn't a very difficult opponent for Federer and Djokovic in 2015-2016.

So he wasn't a very difficult opponent for Djokovic when he beat him in a WTF and 2 Masters finals and took away his #1 ranking in that period? Interesting.

Federer would have made minced meat out of him in 2004-2007.

Well, they never met in 2004. They played a reasonably close final in 2005 (Bangkok) when Murray first appeared on tour and then Murray beat him in their only encounter in 2006 (only player apart from Nadal to beat him that season). They never met in 2007 but when they next met in 2008, Murray beat him again. Guess Fed's mincer must have been malfunctioning during that time?

Honestly mike, your contempt for Murray's abilities as a player are truly comic at times if in a sadly depressing kind of way.

 

[Bumbaliceps]

Noel's mental superiority is itself largely enhanced by Fred's decline. Prime Fred vs pre-prime Djo 12-1 in slam sets except the mono case (as well as it being prime level from Djo).

I think Fed is a much better tennis player than he is a stereotypical champion, which is why he is not as good as you could expect from him when things are being very tight. I think Fed was clutch when he was younger because he had the confidence of being the king of tennis (which helped him raise his level, feeling free, maybe the same for Novak in 15), winning big streaks of matches, but as soon as he is rivaled it is more complicated in his head. Novak at the time had a great level but didn't have the experience. I just think that he would lose a great majority of 5 setters against Novak, even when at his peak. But I agree nonetheless that aging didn't help Roger's nerves for the most part.

 

[King No1e]

The mysterious case of Mury's BO3 domination of Fedr

 

[RS]

Would actually probably hand Safin the AO win. 2015 Djokovic was nothing too special at the AO. If a subpar Stan can take him to five, I see no reason why a zoning Safin wouldn’t.

He played well aside from the Stan match.

 

[RS]

Apparently, in the 2011 AO final, Djokovic had a poor BH win-loss ratio and still smashed Murray.

Errors are skewed.

 

[RS]

I wouldn't go that far really. Murray wasn't a very difficult opponent for Federer and Djokovic in 2015-2016.

Federer would have made minced meat out of him in 2004-2007.

Fed was in better form in most Slams yes.

 

[RS]

I mean sure but don't you think that it's a pattern in Djokovic's career that he often plays to the level of his competition good or bad. I also do think Djokovic stepped it up in the final so I think that shows he was capable of better than what he showed in the semi. I also think it's totally fair to say Safin's level in 05 was better than Djokovic's in 15 full stop.

As far 05 being stronger than 15 I'm not really seeing it. AO is no doubt stronger but the rest? I'm taking the Crapdal/Murray/God Wawrinka combo over an 18 year old Nadal as good as he was. 15 Fed is much better than 05 Roddick and 15 Fed is much better than 05 Agassi. You could say Hewitt makes up some of that ground as he was better than Murray/Wawrinka in W/USO but I don't think that makes up the ground. I think 3/4 are solidly stronger in 2015.

2005 is a fantasy . 2004-06 and 2014-16 are comparable you could make a case for any being stronger than other. Saying one is way better is showing to much like for a player imo.