Murray's strategy against Federer

firstblud

Professional
It was clear that Murray's game plan was to pound away at Fed's backhand side, but, last night, Fed's backhand was the most consistent I've ever seen in a while. As the match wore on, Murray started hitting to both sides of Federer. Should Murray have stuck to the game plan the whole way?
 

Baikalic

Semi-Pro
I think it failed because his BH dtl was not on last night; without that, breaking down the BH doesn't work as well because he can't open up angles with a dtl shot, and Rog can just slice that crosscourt BH shot back all night.
 
He didn't take risks and bet on grinding Fed's backhand. Clearly did not work. That strategy only works for Nadal's heavy topsin lefty forehand.

Murray should have taken more risk and gone for his shots.
 

tennisdad65

Hall of Fame
In the first set, Murray hit one slow spiny forehand high to Fed's backhand. Fed promptly shanked that ball. I was surprised that Murray did not repeat that play. I guess Fed would have countered by running around and killing it. And this was the best I have seen Fed's backhand in about 2+ years.

But yes, Murray should have played the first 2 sets like he did in the 3rd and the match would likely be a 5 setter.
 

Don Felder

Semi-Pro
The announcers touched it on many times... you can't just work one side the whole time. This isn't a 4.5 player with a good FH and a glaringly weak BH. Fed easily got grooved with all the practice. Nadal not only bothers Fed with his lefty spin, but he also pulls him wide on the FH BEFORE working the BH corner. Murray was basically just giving him a crosscourt drill. In fact, the first two sets honestly looked more or less like Fed was having a leisurely practice session.
 

Halba

Hall of Fame
In the first set, Murray hit one slow spiny forehand high to Fed's backhand. Fed promptly shanked that ball. I was surprised that Murray did not repeat that play. I guess Fed would have countered by running around and killing it. And this was the best I have seen Fed's backhand in about 2+ years.

But yes, Murray should have played the first 2 sets like he did in the 3rd and the match would likely be a 5 setter.
he was too nervous to make any good shots..serve was pish
 

Kemitak

Professional
I think all that hitting to Federer's backhand in the first set just helped to warm up his backhand and give him a nice little rhythm. Instead maybe Murray should have jerked Federer around with a good mix of junk balls and angles, and hard, deep, aggressive balls, and never let Federer see the same ball twice. Murray's big problem was that he tried to beat Federer at his own game, rather than keep Federer from playing his game. (Easier said than done, I know, but Murray is perfectly capable of doing it.)
 

Ledigs

Hall of Fame
Murrays strategy was to hit the ball back down the center of the court and wait for fed to set up a winner
 
J

Justdoit10

Guest
Murrays strategy was to hit the ball back down the center of the court and wait for fed to set up a winner
well you clearly didnt see the match then as Murray hit overwhelmingly to Federers backhand side in hopes of breaking it down and getting errors but Federers backhand was rock solid and even lethal at times.
 

ALten1

Rookie
Fed made a great player look average. Murray grooved his bh without knowing. Murray should have went to plan b, act crazy!
 
J

Justdoit10

Guest
Murray tried to find the federer backhand every opportunity that he could get, the only problem was that Federer consistently hit his own backhand deep to Murray and picked the right moments to crank his forehands by running around the backhand.

Federer's forehand was nothing short of amazing in that match. Murray knew that he was screwed if he hit to federers forehand.
 

kevhen

Hall of Fame
Murray's first set strategy was to outrally Fed backhand to backhand. Late in the 2nd and into the 3rd set he started hitting harder and attacking the backhand or even attacking the forehand but otherwise would rally backhand to backhand.

But the way Murray beat Nadal was to always stay on the attack and I think he should have played this style against Federer.

I think the optimal strategy would be to serve and volley to Fed's backhand on the ad court with a deep kicker. He wouldn't have to do it all the time but enough to put pressure on Fed which he might hit some returns into the net worried that Murray is coming in. Murray needed to shorten points because you can't outrally Fed and Fed will hit a winner before he will make an error. Murray needs to go to net as much as possible and the easiest way to get there is under his own terms by hitting the kicker to Feds backhand and coming in right away. Murray is maybe not as smart as everyone gives him credit to be.
 

kevhen

Hall of Fame
As someone else said, hit spinny, loopy, heavy topspin shots to the one hand backhand is the way to go. One hand backhands struggle against lots of topspin, and you can get a floater to come back so you move in and volley away to the open court. I wish Murray would have changed up the pace and spin more. But mostly I wanted Murray to serve and volley a kicker to Fed's backhand. But now I won't cheer for Murray again unless he wakes up because it's frustrating to watch him not quite figure it out.
 

wilkinru

Professional
Too much analysis.

He just needed to hit the ball at the top of the arc or on the rise more often. Also move in more often.
 

LanceStern

Professional
He used the same strategy that he used to get his 4+ wins on Federer in the end of 2008 and beginning of 2009. But it stopped working at the end of 2009.

The third set was fun though
 

ChanceEncounter

Hall of Fame
As someone else said, hit spinny, loopy, heavy topspin shots to the one hand backhand is the way to go. One hand backhands struggle against lots of topspin, and you can get a floater to come back so you move in and volley away to the open court. I wish Murray would have changed up the pace and spin more. But mostly I wanted Murray to serve and volley a kicker to Fed's backhand. But now I won't cheer for Murray again unless he wakes up because it's frustrating to watch him not quite figure it out.
What pedantic analysis...

Federer's weakness against Nadal can't be duplicated so easily by Murray. Federer's backhand has to contend with Nadal's [very unique] forehand, a shot that can generate top spin unlike any other shot in the history of tennis. How do you expect Andy Murray in backhand-to-backhand rallies to generate anywhere near the spin needed to frustrate Federer, especially with a two-handed backhand that has enough trouble coming over the top of the ball as it is?

What works for Nadal won't work for Murray because, believe it or not, Nadal and Murray are different players. Murray needs to frustrate Federer with his defense and keep him guessing with his variety. His down-the-line backhand needs to be working. If he tries to 'be aggressive' and get into a slugfest with Federer, he's probably not going to win too many best of five matches against him. It's very hard to simply go up there and outhit Federer from the baseline. Federer does aggression better than Murray.
 

Polvorin

Professional
Doesn't Murray wish he were left handed? Unfortunately for him, he isn't, and this is not a winning strategy for a righty as Fed has shown time and time again.
 

namelessone

Legend
Doesn't Murray wish he were left handed? Unfortunately for him, he isn't, and this is not a winning strategy for a righty as Fed has shown time and time again.
Verdasco is left handed and he sucks against Federer. In fact most left handed players suck against Roger. What you need is a topspin junkie lefty with great determination and who moves like a madman on court. And even then you are not 100% sure it can workd
 

Polvorin

Professional
Verdasco is left handed and he sucks against Federer. In fact most left handed players suck against Roger. What you need is a topspin junkie lefty with great determination and who moves like a madman on court. And even then you are not 100% sure it can workd
Yeah, you're right, it's surely a combination of the amazing movement and the lefty-ness.
 
Top