Olympics 2012 Men's Singles Final: [1] Roger Federer vs [3] Andy Murray

Federer or Murray?

  • Murray in 3

    Votes: 28 15.0%
  • Murray in 4

    Votes: 25 13.4%
  • Murray in 5

    Votes: 7 3.7%
  • Murray Retires

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • Federer in 3

    Votes: 30 16.0%
  • Federer in 4

    Votes: 52 27.8%
  • Federer in 5

    Votes: 18 9.6%
  • Federer Retires

    Votes: 1 0.5%
  • The Roof in 5

    Votes: 15 8.0%
  • Don't care unless it's Novak

    Votes: 8 4.3%

  • Total voters
    187

Netspirit

Hall of Fame
His level was much higher at Wimbledon. He was running faster, his backhand was sharp and zippy, he rarely missed forehands - just watch the highlights again.

During the Olympics he looked flat and low on energy - from day 1. I wonder if his back bothered him early, or the long season took its toll. His withdrawal from the Rogers Cup speaks for itself.
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
His level was much higher at Wimbledon. He was running faster, his backhand was sharp and zippy, he rarely missed forehands - just watch the highlights again.

During the Olympics he looked flat and low on energy - from day 1. I wonder if his back bothered him early, or the long season took its toll. His withdrawal from the Rogers Cup speaks for itself.

Don't think it was his back. Just some days you are a bit flat. Today he needed to be at 100% to have a chance. It's hard to be up for every match especially after all the matches Federer has played. Murray was always going to have a shot the way he was playing today and Federer didn't play well enough to make it close.
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
Rafa's battling, apparently, both tendinitis and tendinopathy. There's no way he can be left out of a discussion about Roger and MAndy, in a Federer-Murray match thread?

:shock:

Okay.

:roll:

I'm talking to a troll who claims that you can't ever say federer playing a bad match contributed not to his loss, but the one sidedness of it. He would never admit that for nadal. Have a go at the idiot fed haters who insist he was playing his best if you're not unbiased..
 

ruerooo

Legend
Naturally.

It reminds me of Xavi yelling Viva Espana when Spain won the World Cup. Not all people appreciated that back in Catalonia.

That was ... kind of odd. Right up till they played it, irrespective of his colors, I really wasn't sure which anthem they were going to play, or if they'd raise both flags, or something.
 

ruerooo

Legend
Have a go at the idiot fed haters who insist he was playing his best if you're not unbiased..

I'm quite unbiased, but I'm not sure why you'd think I have to do what you say to prove it.

:-?

I don't argue with known idiots. Why would anyone who claims to have sense even expend the energy to do that?
 

Feña14

G.O.A.T.
As a big fan of Murray, you must be thrilled for Murray winning the Gold after having to deal with so many tough losses in the past.

Congratulation to you and all of his fans.:)

Thanks! Yeah, it's a relief to have something big in the trophy cabinet. Even if the unthinkable happens and he doesn't get his major title, he will always be an Olympic champion, and at Wimbledon of all places.

I think the manor in which he won it is just as satisfying at the moment, people questioned if he could play aggressive in the big matches and make it work for him, which was a legitimate question. To have a taste of him being able to do it on a big stage, that's just as sweet.
 
Del Potro was burning Federer alive with those forehands. It took a monumental effort to stop the Big Man. Entire day off to recover from what? Physical, Mental, Emotional? That was heartpounding and draining for fans that were watching, we have no idea how much it would have taken out of him, especially being 30 plus years old.

Murray deserved the win, but don't underestimate what that epic semi took out of Federer.


Don't pay attention to her blabbering.

Before the SF, she was SURE, that Federer will take the GM. Yeah, what do we know.

The truth is, that she was shaking, what she will have to say, if Federer wins it, so she jumped on the bandwagon, to at least can say, that she predicted the winner right. It is funny, that a member of the ************* jumps on the Federer's bandwagon from fear to not be teased, because she didn't choose her favourite's archrival.

Now, when she sees, that Federer did not get that GM, she is slowly back to her usual snarky self.

Don't worry vero, we will be paying tribute to your failed predictions and your cowardness at the same time.
 

kiki

Banned
Federer won and Del Potro lost.If somebody would have had a big burden today it is Del Potro, not Federer.

Federer lost and Del Potro won.Federer never had a chance while Del Potro beat last year´s nº1.a big lesson to all that say poor Federer was too tired menthally or physically.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Murray should watch that match every night before he plays one of the other big guys.

The dynamic is different though. The Olympic final had a noisy home crowd and the team factor. It's a different feel to a major final.
 

JeMar

Legend
The dynamic is different though. The Olympic final had a noisy home crowd and the team factor. It's a different feel to a major final.

Murray plays the way he did taking down Novak and Roger and the dynamic won't matter a whole lot. He was aggressive off his backhand AND forehand AND defended beautifully. Most of the time he one of those three things well, half-asses another, and completely ignores the third.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
You're making up things I never said. I didn't say Federer had to be off for Murray to beat him, I said that Federer's form was a factor in him losing EASILY.

Saying his form was a factor is just another way of saying he was off from his norm, Towser. It is anything other than saying he was playing at his best. To say he was not to any degree strongly suggests there was an excuse why Federer lost to Murray. It is all so clear.


What are you saying, that when one player wins, it means the other player was playing their best?


I've already provided an example of that from history--McEnroe was just beginning his history making year with next to no one able to touch him, and the preview was at the FO final, but Lendl was able to raise his own level in the face of a powerful McEnroe. This is easy to understand, and today's gold medal match supports the claim.


Regarding Nadal: again, he is not relevant to this discussion, but you are Hell-bent on dragging him into this, only because you feel the need to attack Fed fans' most hated enemy. That too, is easy to understand.
 
Last edited:

ruerooo

Legend
Where was Ivan Lendl in all this. He was no where in sight in friend's box ?

This did kind of confuse me. I mean, in a way, this was his triumphal moment, with all the work the two of them had put in to date.

OTOH, I've read he likes to keep pretty much a stoneface so MAndy takes his cues from himself, as opposed to his coach, about how the match is going ... so maybe this was just an extreme example of that.

Does anyone know where he was?
 

Nostradamus

Bionic Poster
He was at home with the Federer Voodoo doll.

I know what happened. in team olympic competition, it is against the rules to have your own coach there, coaching or otherwise. so Ivan had to stay away. it is the rule.
that is why Bartoli didn't play olympics. they said her father couldn't coach during olympics and Bartoli said shub it up where sun don't shine.
 

PrinceMoron

Legend
I know what happened. in team olympic competition, it is against the rules to have your own coach there, coaching or otherwise. so Ivan had to stay away. it is the rule.

They could have just covered him up with a big sticker. Even the soap dispensers in the toilets had white labels covering all the brand names as they weren't official Olympic sponsors.
 

ruerooo

Legend
I know what happened. in team olympic competition, it is against the rules to have your own coach there, coaching or otherwise. so Ivan had to stay away. it is the rule.
that is why Bartoli didn't play olympics. they said her father couldn't coach during olympics and Bartoli said shub it up where sun don't shine.

I don't understand. The team synchronized divers' coaches were there; I saw them cheering.

Or is this just a rule for Olympic tennis?
 

chrischris

G.O.A.T.
The Del potro match was about an hour too much for Roger . i feel he didnt get his stamina back in order to play well enough to stay with Murray today as Andy plyed very very well.

In the past Fed has benefited from Andys tough semis matches and breezed past him in the finals , especially at the US Open.

This final itwas the other way around!
 

Ico

Hall of Fame
Out of nowhere, NBC is playing the medal ceremony. I guess that's what they meant by "we'll show that to you in a a little while".
 

sabala

Semi-Pro
Out of nowhere, NBC is playing the medal ceremony. I guess that's what they meant by "we'll show that to you in a a little while".

All 30 seconds of it, lol. Started showing as the anthem played and cut after it finished...well, I can finally go outside now
 

CCNM

Hall of Fame
Still can't believe Andy won!!!!!!!!!! He so deserves this. What did he and Laura do in the mixed doubles?
 

Crisstti

Legend
Saying his form was a factor is just another way of saying he was off from his norm, Towser. It is anything other than saying he was playing at his best. To say he was not to any degree strongly suggests there was an excuse why Federer lost to Murray. It is all so clear.

I've already provided an example of that from history--McEnroe was just beginning his history making year with next to no one able to touch him, and the preview was at the FO final, but Lendl was able to raise his own level in the face of a powerful McEnroe. This is easy to understand, and today's gold medal match supports the claim.

I don't see anything wrong with what Towser said about this. I don't see what that McEnroe RG final has to do with this...

Didn't really see this match (it wasn't on TV here), but I would think that had Fed played at his best the scoreline would have been somewhat closer, which is not to say he would have won.
 

Feña14

G.O.A.T.
Still can't believe Andy won!!!!!!!!!! He so deserves this. What did he and Laura do in the mixed doubles?

Murray and Robson played great in the first set, like they have done all tournament. In the second Robson did her usual trick of falling away, double faults and errors not even reaching half way up the net etc..

Murray did what he could in the super tie-break, mainly through trying to win points with 1 punch. He served big and went for it on returns. They lost 10-8 in the tie-break.
 

Rippy

Hall of Fame
I know what happened. in team olympic competition, it is against the rules to have your own coach there, coaching or otherwise. so Ivan had to stay away. it is the rule.
that is why Bartoli didn't play olympics. they said her father couldn't coach during olympics and Bartoli said shub it up where sun don't shine.

Annacone and Luthi were watching Federer, as far as I remember.
 

CCNM

Hall of Fame
Murray and Robson played great in the first set, like they have done all tournament. In the second Robson did her usual trick of falling away, double faults and errors not even reaching half way up the net etc..

Murray did what he could in the super tie-break, mainly through trying to win points with 1 punch. He served big and went for it on returns. They lost 10-8 in the tie-break.
Oh darn!!!!! Well, a gold and a silver is not too shabby.:)
 

pound cat

G.O.A.T.
Fed said he would play until the 2012 Olympics ( i presume so he could win a gold medal) Sooo.. what will he do re: tennis now????
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
Saying his form was a factor is just another way of saying he was off from his norm, Towser. It is anything other than saying he was playing at his best. To say he was not to any degree strongly suggests there was an excuse why Federer lost to Murray. It is all so clear.





I've already provided an example of that from history--McEnroe was just beginning his history making year with next to no one able to touch him, and the preview was at the FO final, but Lendl was able to raise his own level in the face of a powerful McEnroe. This is easy to understand, and today's gold medal match supports the claim.


Regarding Nadal: again, he is not relevant to this discussion, but you are Hell-bent on dragging him into this, only because you feel the need to attack Fed fans' most hated enemy. That too, is easy to understand.

Obviously it's not clear to YOU, because I've said it several times and you are too lacking in intelligence to understand it. I never ssain he lost because he didn't play well, i said he lost heavily because he did not play well. If he played well he could have still lost but in a close match.

Also you are hellbent on bringing Mac and Lendl into this. John MacEnroe and Lendl has nothing to do with this match. You brought up another match, so why can't I bring up another match with Nadal? Yes, hypocritical biased crap from you as usual. That match does nothing to "support the claim" - pure gibberish, and Federer was not in any sort of Godlike form like Mac was.

You didn't answer me about whether when a player wins a match, is his opponent always at his best, and furthermore does the opponents form play any part in the outcome? I mean you really believe the way your opponent plays has nothing to do with the outcome of the match :lol:

You used Mac and Lendl as an example so I will use some examples myself.

In the WTF 2011, did Nadal lose 6-3 6-0 just because Federer was so good, or was nadal playing poor to get beaten that easily? In Hamburg 2007 would Nadal have avoided being bagelled in the final set if he was playing better?

Every bit as relevent as your Mac and Lendl example. The only reason I bring up Nadal is 1- I know you won't apply the same rules to him, which you have proved by avoiding the question, and 2 - it was a good example of a player winning more easily than normal because his opponent was poor, but still being true that he was playing well enough to win in any case.
 
Last edited:

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
I don't see anything wrong with what Towser said about this. I don't see what that McEnroe RG final has to do with this...

Didn't really see this match (it wasn't on TV here), but I would think that had Fed played at his best the scoreline would have been somewhat closer, which is not to say he would have won.

Thanks Crissti.

Nevermind Thundervolley I guess, can't really expect trolls to see sense. I never claimed Murray won cos Federer wasn't his best, just that it was a factor in him winning so easily. I don't really think one of the top 4 can win a match that easily agaisnt another top 4 player if they're both near their best. I mean I can say for a fact Nadal would never have lost 3 and 0 at the WTF if he played well. Federer would still be favourite, but not 3 and 0.
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
I'm quite unbiased, but I'm not sure why you'd think I have to do what you say to prove it.

:-?

I don't argue with known idiots. Why would anyone who claims to have sense even expend the energy to do that?

I'm not having a go at you. The thing is I brought up some cases where Nadal lost while not being at his best. These are just examples of another player where I can say they were not at their best - proving i don't just say this about Federer. Nadal isn't my favourite player, and though I don't troll about him or hate him, just being a Federer fan puts me in opposistion with Fed haters who a large percent of the time champion Nadal. Just showing I can freely admit Nadal has lost matches heavily where if he'd been playing well he'd be more competitive. And seeing whether he'd even answer the question, especailly about WTF 2011 and Hanburg 2007. Which of course he didn't because it would either mean contradicting himself or giving credit to a Federer win.
 

Crisstti

Legend
Thanks Crissti.

Nevermind Thundervolley I guess, can't really expect trolls to see sense. I never claimed Murray won cos Federer wasn't his best, just that it was a factor in him winning so easily. I don't really think one of the top 4 can win a match that easily agaisnt another top 4 player if they're both near their best. I mean I can say for a fact Nadal would never have lost 3 and 0 at the WTF if he played well. Federer would still be favourite, but not 3 and 0.

Yeah, I see what you mean. I agree (and we don't agree too aften when it comes to Rafa and Fed, do we? :))
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Murray and Robson played great in the first set, like they have done all tournament. In the second Robson did her usual trick of falling away, double faults and errors not even reaching half way up the net etc..

Murray did what he could in the super tie-break, mainly through trying to win points with 1 punch. He served big and went for it on returns. They lost 10-8 in the tie-break.

Murray made a terrible volley error at 30-30 in the crucial service game in the second set, so it wasn't just Robson making mistakes.
 
Lol. This commentator is an idiot. Says this is the "best tennis match he has ever seen".. And "Federer has won Wimbledon 5 times" and this pearler.. "As Federer played *his best*, Murray just turned him away"..

Lol WTF???

Bad commentating at its finest.

The commentator is technically correct. Federer has won Wimbledon 5 times.

Anyways, great win for Andy.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Yeah, I'm sure that is what he looks at when thinking back on his career...:) Obviously that afterall, is the summation of his career :)

Being 2-8 vs Nadal in slams, it's not everything but it's a big part of his career, sure. His h to h vs Murray and Nadal show how less dominant he would have been if he had had those guys to deal with from the beginning of his career. He's lucky they're 5/6 years younger.
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
Yeah, I see what you mean. I agree (and we don't agree too aften when it comes to Rafa and Fed, do we? :))

Not too often :lol:

but look, I don't hate the guy, have a lot of respect for him, and I have criticisms for every player out there. Which means I get called a *******, *********, fedhater, Djokohater as well as a nadalhater. Which is pretty funny.

But you are a reasonable poster even if I don't always agree. It's not blind bias like with some people.
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
Being 2-8 vs Nadal in slams, it's not everything but it's a big part of his career, sure. His h to h vs Murray and Nadal show how less dominant he would have been if he had had those guys to deal with from the beginning of his career. He's lucky they're 5/6 years younger.

Murray is 0-3 against a post-prime Federer in slams. How is Federer lucky that he faces a younger player closer to his prime? If anything Murray is a little luckier to have faced a Federer who isn't the world beater he was from 2004-2007 (not degrading Murrays wins but I don't see how he was any less fortunate than Fed).
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
Being 2-8 vs Nadal in slams, it's not everything but it's a big part of his career, sure. His h to h vs Murray and Nadal show how less dominant he would have been if he had had those guys to deal with from the beginning of his career. He's lucky they're 5/6 years younger.

True in a way, but at the same time they now only have to deal with an older Federer when they're in THEIR primes. Federer is still a good player but I don't think he has the mental stamina or will power across a whole season anymore. He's effectively number one because neither Djokovic nor Nadal could dominate the season,instead sharing it and lowering the target of titles/ranking points to be number one. Even in 2008, at 2-0 down to Nadal at Wimbledon he fought back. Couldn't do that today. And in the next few years Murray Djokovic and maybe nadal will benefit from him tailing off further.

So he got the benefit earlier, they get it later. If they were all prime at the same time they all lose. Judging by how hard Djokovic had to work to beat Federer at the US Open,I'm not sure he'd have won there after Federer got into his stride (assuming they were the same age as him) though he might have won when they were both 20-22
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Murray is 0-3 against a post-prime Federer in slams. How is Federer lucky that he faces a younger player closer fortunate than Fed).
Yep but he is 9-5 vs Fed outside of slams, so Nadal would have dominated Fed in best of 5 and Murray in best of 3 + Djoko would have given problems to Fed as well especially on slower hard courts like AO and Miami and on clay. Fed is lucky to be older than these guys because his record would be considerably less flamboyant if those had been his main rivals from the get-go. Instead he got injured Hewitt, flash in the pan Safin, brave but limited Roddick, slam impotent Davydenko (quite the late bloomer as well) and erratic Nalbandian. Of course he cruised. With Nadal, Djoko and Murray as contemporaries, Fed would still have won masters and slams no doubt but nowhere as many. He would have had to share. Those guys are blatently more consistent and competent than the former batch and would have presented far more obstacles .
 
Top