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

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
Sorry but that is simply not true. The first time Nadal beat Fed was in 2004 when Fed was as much in his peak as he could possibly be and Rafa was still very "green" (and on hard no less). Teenage Murray beat Fed for the first time in 2006, which is Fed's absolute peak year and that's also a year when Rafa beat Fed in 4 finals (including Dubai on hard...). Djoko beat Fed in Canada 2007 when Fed was not 26 yet. That is not old for a late bloomer like Fed and anyway 2007 (look at the stats) very much belongs to Fed's prime years. + Djoko and Nadal were rather precocious, so they would have made minced meat of Fed for years since Fed didn't really hit his stride until close to 22.
They would have had the upperhand in the early years, but when Federer hit his stride they wouldn't have it easy. Looking at Murray, Nadal and Djokovic now, they would certainly prefer to play 30+ Federer than 25 year old Federer.

You must be able to see they all have a better time against 30 plus Federer than a prime Federer, it doesn't really matter if they beat him in those years, just like it doesn't matter if Federer stil beats the 3 of them in their best years when he is past prime. The point is Federer had an advantage early on, but now they have the advantage. Djokovic for instance has beaten Federer by the skin of his teeth in 2 us open's. Against a 25 year old Federer, I don't think he'd have much chance to win (2 points away from having a 0-5 record vs Fed at the US Open), so his only chance would be to have won before that which he might not have done.

You go on about Murray beating Federer in 2006 (when Federer had made every final so far that year so might have been a bit tired) but he lost the first 3 best of 5 matches to him. Nadal beat him on hard in 2006, but the previous year had lost the only best of 5 HC match they had played,and they would not play another one til 2009, Djokovic beat him narrowly 7-6 2-6 7-6 but lost the US Open final to him.

Put simply 25 year old Federer vs 25 year old Nadal, Djokovic and Murray would be much more competitive than 30 year old Federer is. He can beat them but he can't bring out his big match game consistantly. So although Federer had it easy to begin with, now he's tailing off they finally get the age gap benefit


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 .
Wait a minute, most of Murray's wins were post 2008 when Federer was having his first real slump. Funnily enough as Murray has improved in the last couple of years, Federer has won more of the matches. Saying Murray would dominate prime fed in best of 3 because he dominated post prime Fed in best of 3 for pretty much ONE year is far from sound reasoning. 9-5 out of slams includes olympics which is not best of 3. In best of 3 it's 8-5 to murray, since 2009 it's 4-4. Likewise Nadal's close wins over Federer in the AO final and Wimbledon came as Federer was slightly dipping. Prime for prime, there is nothing to say Nadal would dominate. Djokovic would probably beat Federer at the AO, but has severly struggled at the US Open.
 
Last edited:

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
He barely had to face them on their prime when he was on his prime (except arguably Rafa on clay).
One just has too look at who Fed faced on slam finals and who Nadal, Novak and Murray have faced..
when did their primes start? On one hand people say Djokovic was more of an early bloomer than Federer, but Federer still owned him until 2011. So is 2011 the start of him prime or 2008? If it's 2011, all that can be said is from 22 to 24 Federer would have a clear advantage (as even post prime Federer had the advantage against 22-24 year old Djokovic) Djokovic has owned Federer since 2011, but he's still lost 2 out of 5 slam matches, and come within a point of losing 3 of 5. And that's against a Federer NOT in his prime anymore.

When did Murray's prime start? His period of dominace against Federer actaully came in 2008. Since then Federer has had the upperhand. Aagain all this while not being in his prime anymore.

Rafa is the only guy who consistantly beat Federer when Fed was prime, and even then it was not until Rafa peaked (according to most Nadal fans) in 2008/2009 and Federer dropped off a slight bit, that Nadal won 2 very close slam finals off clay. On clay Rafa was always better of course.

But again, if they were all the same age, when would they be entering their primes? Nole won a slam at 20, but didn't win another one until 23. Murray has claimed Olympic gold at 25. nadal is only becoming a consistant threat across all surfaces now (2010/2011/2012) so basically 24/25/26. And it's only now with Federer past 30 that he looks like he can be beaten easily on his favourite surfaces, yet he is still mostly competitive against them.

I'm not saying Federer wouldn't lose a few slams if they were all the same age, but I really doubt Nadal or Djokovic would have had 3 slam winning years either. Not with Federer at the top of his game. If they were all the same age, they would all lose out a bit.
 

Crisstti

Legend
It isn't going to be on youtube with all those corporate profiteering sharks everywhere.
I can't believe they didn't show the prize ceremony. They showed the whole thing here (Though they didn't show the match, lol). Can't believe it isn't on YouTube either. :-?
 

dimeaxe

Semi-Pro
They would have had the upperhand in the early years, but when Federer hit his stride they wouldn't have it easy. Looking at Murray, Nadal and Djokovic now, they would certainly prefer to play 30+ Federer than 25 year old Federer.

You must be able to see they all have a better time against 30 plus Federer than a prime Federer, it doesn't really matter if they beat him in those years, just like it doesn't matter if Federer stil beats the 3 of them in their best years when he is past prime. The point is Federer had an advantage early on, but now they have the advantage. Djokovic for instance has beaten Federer by the skin of his teeth in 2 us open's. Against a 25 year old Federer, I don't think he'd have much chance to win (2 points away from having a 0-5 record vs Fed at the US Open), so his only chance would be to have won before that which he might not have done.

You go on about Murray beating Federer in 2006 (when Federer had made every final so far that year so might have been a bit tired) but he lost the first 3 best of 5 matches to him. Nadal beat him on hard in 2006, but the previous year had lost the only best of 5 HC match they had played,and they would not play another one til 2009, Djokovic beat him narrowly 7-6 2-6 7-6 but lost the US Open final to him.

Put simply 25 year old Federer vs 25 year old Nadal, Djokovic and Murray would be much more competitive than 30 year old Federer is. He can beat them but he can't bring out his big match game consistantly. So although Federer had it easy to begin with, now he's tailing off they finally get the age gap benefit




Wait a minute, most of Murray's wins were post 2008 when Federer was having his first real slump. Funnily enough as Murray has improved in the last couple of years, Federer has won more of the matches. Saying Murray would dominate prime fed in best of 3 because he dominated post prime Fed in best of 3 for pretty much ONE year is far from sound reasoning. 9-5 out of slams includes olympics which is not best of 3. In best of 3 it's 8-5 to murray, since 2009 it's 4-4. Likewise Nadal's close wins over Federer in the AO final and Wimbledon came as Federer was slightly dipping. Prime for prime, there is nothing to say Nadal would dominate. Djokovic would probably beat Federer at the AO, but has severly struggled at the US Open.
Jesus, so many experts on forum these days. I mean 19 year old Djokovic took a set from prime Federer in '06 MC, and I watched this match and I will tell that if you put prime Djokovic or Djokovic from '11 he would destroy Federer in this match. So no more bringing these old stories about Federer in no competition era and current era, please.
 

Sartorius

Hall of Fame
I mean 19 year old Djokovic took a set from prime Federer in '06 MC, and I watched this match and I will tell that if you put prime Djokovic or Djokovic from '11 he would destroy Federer in this match. So no more bringing these old stories about Federer in no competition era and current era, please.
Hmm...

Jesus, so many experts on forum these days.
Indeed.
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
Jesus, so many experts on forum these days. I mean 19 year old Djokovic took a set from prime Federer in '06 MC, and I watched this match and I will tell that if you put prime Djokovic or Djokovic from '11 he would destroy Federer in this match. So no more bringing these old stories about Federer in no competition era and current era, please.
yeah and I saw old man Federer beat prime Djokovic at RG on clay, Wimbledon on grass and take 2 sets and get match points at US Open on hardcourts. You put prime Federer against Djokovic and he destroys him..

By the way, what is the difference between prime Djokovic and 2011 Djokovic?

Not saying Djokovic would never beat prime Federer, but prime for prime Federer bests him o grass, fast hardcourt and is probably at least equal on clay. Slow hardcourts go to Djokovic. Nadal would trouble Federer far more on all courts, but he would only ever dominate on clay
 

sabala

Semi-Pro
Anybody got video of the ceremony? NBC showed Walmart commercial then Olga Korbut. Can't find it on Utube as well:(
YES! I found the entire match replay at nbcolympics.com, (finally) by going to the tennis page, (under select a sport) - then - results - then click replay.

Singles final starts about the 2 hour mark and they show the ENTIRE ceremony and medalist photo ops after... which starts about 4:20:00 setting up podium :)


http://www.nbcolympics.com/video/2012/centre-court-w-doubles-m-singles-mxd-finals.html
 

rommil

Legend
Top