Reason's why Murray has been beating Federer.

[Mr Topspin]

1. Murray has fantastic returns and causes Federer to play more balls than he prefers. Federer has even started double faulting with each match he plays Murray - signs that Fed is going for more on 2nd serves.

2. Federer has huge dips in his 1st serve percentage against Murray. Federer usually starts at 64% but often in sets 2 and 3 vs Murray in the last few meetings he go's down to below 50%.

3. Murray serves very well nowadays and with a lot of variety and placement. He has also found a weakness on the Federer fh return which is currently giving Murray a ton of free points.

4. Murray can handle the Federer bh slice and gives Federer a lot of his own medicine with his own effective slice both down the line and crosscourt.

5. Murray can breakdown the Federer bh in a variety of ways. Murray uses flat, spin, loopers and topspin to breakdown the Federer bh.

6. Murray can move as efficiently as any of the top movers on court. This makes life hard for Federer as it is very difficult to overpower Murray due to his nimble movement and great hands.

7. Murray's bh is so solid on bh to bh exchanges and wins most of their cross court exchanges.

8. Murray is 6 years younger than Federer and is hungry, determined and full of beans. Murray wants success at any cost and is motivated to achieve all his goals,Which, as he puts it '.it's all about winning slams'.

When combine all the above you have a unstoppable package that will trouble any top player at any given time. The only player that could match the considerable talents of Murray in Federer's generation was Nalbandian and it is no secret that Nalbandian always gives Federer a run for his money. Unfortunately, for Nalby he never put himself in enough positions to meet Federer in the big grandslams on a consistent basis. I get the feeling Murray wont make that mistake. Thoughts?

 

[Halba]

and he's also great at the net, great hands and feel.

forehand has also improved, and theres a greater weight of shot and accuracy on this wing, has reduced his errors. also mentally he doesn't get down on himself anymore .he's a more even player.

 

[LanceStern]

I agree with all of these.

He's like Federer when he was younger. Only his game is not as eye-pleasing and has a little bit less power off the forehand wing.

 

[scs96ajr]

I think that Federer is just making too many unforced errors, and he is missing too many break points as well. That is sending him in the downwards spiral these days I think.
So, a consistent and clever player as Murray is beating him.

 

[GameSampras]

Murray is more talented than the hacks of Fed's prime years like Davydenko, Roddick, Blake, maybe not Nalbandian but Murray is just AS talented and is a hardworker, Baghaditis, Gonzales etc.

Murray would have been a great rival to Roger at 22-25 years of age as well had he primed at that time. He did defeat Roger at Cincinatti during Fed's peak years. Its too bad he wasnt around. Fed may have a had a legit rival other than players like Roddick and Hewitt who posed no threat

 

[iamke55]

If Murray had traded eras with someone like Hewitt, you would be saying Hewitt is way more talented than those hacks of Federer's prime years.

 

[Connors]

Murray needs to follow through on this great play and win a major. He should be able to win the Australian if he plays like this. Without taking this level of play and winning a major, it'll be a bit hollow in the big picture. He needs to win one now.

I don't think Murray can win at Roland Garros because of Nadal. He will be under enormous pressure to win at Wimbledon and may not be able to handle the expectations, like Henman. The time is now for him to win at Australia. It could be the best chance he'll ever have to get that first major. The longer a player goes and doesn't win one, the more pressure they feel and the less likely it happens.

 

[moonbat]

Good points. Murray has bulked up, too, which has added weight to his shots. Djokovic might want to try that as well.

 

[Dan007]

Fed has trouble with fast guys who can get the ball in play that would actually be winners against most guys. Ex. Canas in 2007, Indian Wells and Miami, Nadal, and now Murray

 

[The_Punisher]

8. Murray is 6 years younger than Federer and is hungry, determined and full of beans. Murray wants success at any cost and is motivated to achieve all his goals,Which, as he puts it '.it's all about winning slams'.

i do not think this is a good point to make because there is nothing federer can do about it. federer cannot fight the fact that he's older than murray. and federer is just as determined to reclaim the #1 spot as murray is to win and succeed.

and also, 4, 5, and 7 are all redundant.

 

[SempreSami]

 

[swedechris]

what a nice add..

 

[oneleggedcardinal]

Meh, he's just a...how you do Brits say it...'miserable git.' Great player, but a git nonetheless.

 

[SempreSami]

Meh, he's just a...how you do Brits say it...'miserable git.' Great player, but a git nonetheless.

No one says git anymore tbh.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

1. Murray has fantastic returns and causes Federer to play more balls than he prefers. Federer has even started double faulting with each match he plays Murray - signs that Fed is going for more on 2nd serves.

2. Federer has huge dips in his 1st serve percentage against Murray. Federer usually starts at 64% but often in sets 2 and 3 vs Murray in the last few meetings he go's down to below 50%.

3. Murray serves very well nowadays and with a lot of variety and placement. He has also found a weakness on the Federer fh return which is currently giving Murray a ton of free points.

4. Murray can handle the Federer bh slice and gives Federer a lot of his own medicine with his own effective slice both down the line and crosscourt.

5. Murray can breakdown the Federer bh in a variety of ways. Murray uses flat, spin, loopers and topspin to breakdown the Federer bh.

6. Murray can move as efficiently as any of the top movers on court. This makes life hard for Federer as it is very difficult to overpower Murray due to his nimble movement and great hands.

7. Murray's bh is so solid on bh to bh exchanges and wins most of their cross court exchanges.

8. Murray is 6 years younger than Federer and is hungry, determined and full of beans. Murray wants success at any cost and is motivated to achieve all his goals,Which, as he puts it '.it's all about winning slams'.

When combine all the above you have a unstoppable package that will trouble any top player at any given time. The only player that could match the considerable talents of Murray in Federer's generation was Nalbandian and it is no secret that Nalbandian always gives Federer a run for his money. Unfortunately, for Nalby he never put himself in enough positions to meet Federer in the big grandslams on a consistent basis. I get the feeling Murray wont make that mistake. Thoughts?

I agree with your Observations.

In my opinion, Federer always had trouble against Class players with Solid Backhands. Players like Lleyton R Hewitt,Andre K Agassi, Marat N safin besides David R Nalbandian have given some trouble to Federer at some point in time.

My belief is always that in order to beat Federer, One needs to have exceptional backhand and then have a well rounded top class game.Dont mistake my comments as to beating Federer with just a backhand.

When Fernando Gonzo beat Federer, Federer commented that Gonzo's backhand was on fire and he was hitting lines etc.We all know about Gonzo's Forehand prowess!!. Once he connected on his backhand on that match, he was able to match and overcome Federer.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

Fed also has problems with lefties with great forehands.

 

[miyagi]

Fed also has problems with lefties with great forehands.

How old are you? :evil:

Not everything is about Nadal you know.....

 

[flyer]

murray has been playing absolutely lights out tennis but he really hasn't won anything of great significance yet...

djokovic was basically in the same position last year and although he did win the AO he has since lost focus and faded...

so it good hes playing great tennis but hes still just at the beginning of that long hard journey band there no guarantees he'll will not faulter

 

[Nadal_Freak]

How old are you? :evil:

Not everything is about Nadal you know.....

Is it that hard for you to admit? For some reason, the OP wanted to avoid talking about Nadal. But yeah righties with great backhands and lefties with great forehands are the keys to beating Federer.

 

[Oui c'est moi.]

Is it that hard for you to admit? For some reason, the OP wanted to avoid talking about Nadal. But yeah righties with great backhands and lefties with great forehands are the keys to beating Federer.

Maybe because this topic has NOTHING TO DO WITH NADAL.

Read title again: Reason's why Murray has been beating Federer.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

Maybe because this topic has NOTHING TO DO WITH NADAL.

Read title again: Reason's why Murray has been beating Federer.

Ok but he mentioned Nalbandian and said only him was troubling Fed. Seriously, he was mentioning other players that trouble Fed but avoided the biggest one. lol

The only player that could match the considerable talents of Murray in Federer's generation was Nalbandian and it is no secret that Nalbandian always gives Federer a run for his money.

 

[veroniquem]

Maybe because this topic has NOTHING TO DO WITH NADAL.

Read title again: Reason's why Murray has been beating Federer.

Since Murray and Nadal are the only 2 guys who have a big lead in their head to head with Federer, it may make sense to examine if they have some things in common that would bother Federer in particular...

 

[miyagi]

Is it that hard for you to admit? For some reason, the OP wanted to avoid talking about Nadal. But yeah righties with great backhands and lefties with great forehands are the keys to beating Federer.

I am a Nadal fan....so I am fully aware of what Nadal is capable of.....however I dont see it necessary for me to mention his name at every opportunity.

The OP has the right not to talk about Nadal if he doesn't want to...if you dont like that he HASN'T mentioned your idol then go create your own thread.....if not Stay on topic and try to be less annoying!

 

[OTMPut]

Since Murray and Nadal are the only 2 guys who have a big lead in their head to head with Federer, it may make sense to examine if they have some things in common that would bother Federer in particular...

Both players are great retrievers and make Federer play one more ball than otherwise all the time.

Anyways lets wait and see if Murray can do something at AO.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

Since Murray and Nadal are the only 2 guys who have a big lead in their head to head with Federer, it may make sense to examine if they have some things in common that would bother Federer in particular...

Yeah like I said. They both are great on the left side. The OP decided to ignore that but I guess he felt no need to examine that but rather pick Nalbandian. Nalbandian is a higher risk type of player and Nadal is a lower risk player. They all are great on the left side though and not really weak on the right side either. No obvious flaws.

 

[Oui c'est moi.]

It was one example, he/she was trying to illustrate a point.
Perhaps it was deliberate on the OP's part because he/she did not want people like yourself to turn this into a fanboy flame war thread.


Maybe the OP mentioned Nalbandian because he/she is a big fan of Nalby so the initial thought is to talk about him in relation to Fed, I know a few people who are like that...

 

[Nadal_Freak]

It was one example, he/she was trying to illustrate a point.
Perhaps it was deliberate on the OP's part because he/she did not want people like yourself to turn this into a fanboy flame war thread.


Maybe the OP mentioned Nalbandian because he/she is a big fan of Nalby so the initial thought is to talk about him in relation to Fed, I know a few people who are like that...

He can be ignorant but Fed has a winning record against Nalbandian and a losing record to Nadal. Btw I think Djokovic plays more like Murray then Nalbandian.

 

[Oui c'est moi.]

Since Murray and Nadal are the only 2 guys who have a big lead in their head to head with Federer, it may make sense to examine if they have some things in common that would bother Federer in particular...

Nalbandian had a big lead on Fed too. It may make sense to examine things in retrospect. The OP makes a decent analytical post and yet the first reaction of certain people is to nitpick because he doesn't mention a guy they worship.

I am a Nadal fan....so I am fully aware of what Nadal is capable of.....however I dont see it necessary for me to mention his name at every opportunity.

The OP has the right not to talk about Nadal if he doesn't want to...if you dont like that he HASN'T mentioned your idol then go create your own thread.....if not Stay on topic and try to be less annoying!

Precisely. I'm glad i'm not alone in thinking this.

 

[Oui c'est moi.]

He can be ignorant but Fed has a winning record against Nalbandian and a losing record to Nadal. Btw I think Djokovic plays more like Murray then Nalbandian.

Do you consider Djokovic to be of Federer's generation? The OP selected a guy who is from Fed's age-group. Also, Djokovic does not cause as many problems for Fed as Murray, yet Nalby (when he's on) can.


"When combine all the above you have a unstoppable package that will trouble any top player at any given time. The only player that could match the considerable talents of Murray in Federer's generation was Nalbandian and it is no secret that Nalbandian always gives Federer a run for his money. Unfortunately, for Nalby he never put himself in enough positions to meet Federer in the big grandslams on a consistent basis. I get the feeling Murray wont make that mistake. Thoughts?"

 

[klementine]

Besides the mere technical attributes that have improved in Murray's game, I believe his psychology and confidence have matured.

I remember watching Murray two years ago and it seemed like his parents were forcing him to play a major. (smiley face). Today, he actually looks as if he wants to be there, as he knows he deserves to be there and is showing that cool confidence that I just don't see in NADAL (evil smiley face). Maybe thats why the oddsmakers in vegas have 1.Federer at +225 and 2. Murray at +250 to win the australian open, with NADAL in 4th at +350.

I predict a short reign for NADAL as world #1.(really evil smiley face)

 

[Oui c'est moi.]

Where can i find this amazing selection of smiley faces please? I particularly like the really evil one.

 

[klementine]

....NADAL, NADAL, NADAL, NADAL,NADAL, NADAL, NADAL,NADAL,..the smiley faces aren't for sale.. RAFA,RAFA,RAFA,RAFA,RAFA,RAFA,RAFA,RAFA.....

 

[veroniquem]

Nalbandian had a big lead on Fed too. It may make sense to examine things in retrospect. The OP makes a decent analytical post and yet the first reaction of certain people is to nitpick because he doesn't mention a guy they worship.


Precisely. I'm glad i'm not alone in thinking this.

I'm sorry but other than at the very beginning of his career (before Federer made a mark on the tour and became who he is) Nalbandian never had a big lead over Federer. Since the end of 2003 (and I'm sure you'll agree that's really early days in Fed's career), Fed has beaten Nalby every single time (and that's 13 times, no less!) they have met except for 3, which is why Fed is leading their head to head today. So as a player whose skills or style would bother Federer, Nalby is not a good example.

 

[Oui c'est moi.]

I'm sorry but other than at the very beginning of his career (before Federer made a mark on the tour and became who he is) Nalbandian never had a big lead over Federer. Since the end of 2003 (and I'm sure you'll agree that's really early days in Fed's career), Fed has beaten Nalby every single time they have met (except for 3), which is why Fed is leading their head to head today. So as a player whose skills or style would bother Federer, Nalby is not a good example.

1) The level at which Fed is playing today is far from his best. He reminds me more of his pre-TMC '03 self these days than the inbetween years in which he reversed the trend with Nalbandian.
2)Those 'except 3' matches lend support to OP's contention that "it is no secret that Nalbandian always gives Federer a run for his money". They happened during Fed's best years. Even twice in a row at one point.

 

[SempreSami]

Maybe because this topic has NOTHING TO DO WITH NADAL.

Read title again: Reason's why Murray has been beating Federer.

There's a grammatical error in it.

 

[Oui c'est moi.]

Marcus Brigstocke gave the best answer for that.

 

[veroniquem]

1) The level at which Fed is playing today is far from his best. He reminds me more of his pre-TMC '03 self these days than the inbetween years in which he reversed the trend with Nalbandian.
2)Those 'except 3' matches lend support to OP's contention that "it is no secret that Nalbandian always gives Federer a run for his money". They happened during Fed's best years. Even twice in a row at one point.

I'm sorry again but I don't think those 3 matches happened during Fed's peak time. Only one did, the one in 2005 and it was a super tight 5 setter that could have gone either way, and what is 1 match when in that same period Fed beat him 10 times? The other 2 times happened at the end of 2007 when IMO Fed was already starting to decline, this is the year when he lost to Canas, Volandri, Djokovic, Gonzalez, and although he was still strong in slams you could see some problems appearing in his game and anyway as I said before 3 losses is nothing compared to the 10 victories scored by Fed vs David in the same period. In other words those 3 matches do not lend support to the OP's contention very significantly.

 

[veroniquem]

I'm sorry again but I don't think those 3 matches happened during Fed's peak time. Only one did, the one in 2005 and it was a super tight 5 setter that could have gone either way, and what is 1 match when in that same period Fed beat him 10 times? The other 2 times happened at the end of 2007 when IMO Fed was already starting to decline, this is the year when he lost to Canas, Volandri, Djokovic, Gonzalez, and although he was still strong in slams you could see some problems appearing in his game and anyway as I said before 3 losses is nothing compared to the 10 victories scored by Fed vs David in the same period. In other words those 3 matches do not lend support to the OP's contention very significantly.

I have to add (and I know that's gonna irritate you but that's the way it is), the ONLY player to beat Federer several times and score significant victories during his peak years (2005, 2006) is Nadal.

 

[Oui c'est moi.]

I'm sorry again but I don't think those 3 matches happened during Fed's peak time. Only one did, the one in 2005 and it was a super tight 5 setter that could have gone either way, and what is 1 match when in that same period Fed beat him 10 times? The other 2 times happened at the end of 2007 when IMO Fed was already starting to decline, this is the year when he lost to Canas, Volandri, Djokovic, Gonzalez, and although he was still strong in slams you could see some problems appearing in his game and anyway as I said before 3 losses is nothing compared to the 10 victories scored by Fed vs David in the same period. In other words those 3 matches do not lend support to the OP's contention very significantly.

So if someone wins 3 slams in '07 (with one slam final) instead of 2 in '05 (with 2 slam semis) and the TMC instead of being runner-up to (you've guessed it!) Nalbandian, they were in decline in '07 whereas in '05 they were at their peak? Granted his win-loss record was not as impressive in '07 as in '05 but where it mattered most Fed performed better. In retrospect (see there's that word again) his losses to Canas, etc in the space of one/a couple of years hold less weight than Nalbandian's record against Fed over several years. (I mean, he didn't even meet Canas for 3 years at one point.)
3 losses is nothing? Like i said these happened during his best years. If you could win 3 against Fed on 2 of his better surfaces within his best years, that to me lends support to the OP's point.

I think people are forgetting now why the OP made the Nalbandian comparison in the first place, since this has turned into another this-that-the other type of thread.
So back to the topic - Murray vs Federer

I have to add (and I know that's gonna irritate you but that's the way it is), the ONLY player to beat Federer several times and score significant victories during his peak years (2005, 2006) is Nadal.

Why would this irritate me?

 

[ThugNasty]

I have to add (and I know that's gonna irritate you but that's the way it is), the ONLY player to beat Federer several times and score significant victories during his peak years (2005, 2006) is Nadal.

Yea only on one surface, clay . He was getting his butt handed to him every where else. Nadal had nothing on feds dominance in those years.

 

[fgzhu88]

two reasons:
1. Federer is not who he used to be
2. Murray is the future of tennis!

Murray has always been a huge talent threatening anyone he played, but nowadays he has gotten much more consistent and has increased his physical and mental endurance.

He is also multi-dimensional. He can slice his backhand better than most 1-handers and has great drop shot lob combinations. He can redirect a powerful shot into the open court for a winner just by taking a short jab, or he can take a semi-full swing and load it with heavy topspin. And he scrambles like a madman!

Although his strokes aren't the prettiest, and his serve looks almost zombielike, he has almost no weaknesses at the moment.

 

[Mr Topspin]

It was one example, he/she was trying to illustrate a point.
Perhaps it was deliberate on the OP's part because he/she did not want people like yourself to turn this into a fanboy flame war thread.


Maybe the OP mentioned Nalbandian because he/she is a big fan of Nalby so the initial thought is to talk about him in relation to Fed, I know a few people who are like that...

Firstly, many thanks to Oui, c'est moi for correctly interpreting my post. I mentioned Nalbandian as a comparison to Murray in term of an all round game and a contemporary to Federer. I do not see why that is so difficult for Nadal supporters to understand.

Secondly, Nalbandian has and may well continue to be a tough match up for Federer despite the fact that Federer is leading the series. Nalbandian has won all their big finals and that dates back to their junior days. All commentators, experts and tennis analysts have stated that if Nalbandian had met federer in GS finals Federer would most likely have split his 13 slams with Nalby.

Finally, i do not need to mention Nadal under any circumstances when discussing Federer.

Nadal fanboys get over yourself. Your man just won the doubles u should be celebrating that fact and get off the Federer bashing.

 

[srinrajesh]

he has lost that invincible aura after losing so many times to nadal and losing the no.1 ranking as well.
He is a fraction slower and less confident which would put him in trouble agaisnt the top players like Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and also the others when he is not playing his best.

 

[caulcano]

It is a combination of things that has led to Murray playing better than Federer at this moment in time. But I believe Murray is a type of player that frustrates Federer when they play by not allowing Federer to find any rhythm.

If you look at the stats between Murray v Federer, most of their matches that Murray have won have gone the distance. Yet, most of the matches that Federer has won have been fairly one-sided.

 

[P_Agony]

Is it that hard for you to admit? For some reason, the OP wanted to avoid talking about Nadal. But yeah righties with great backhands and lefties with great forehands are the keys to beating Federer.

Sure, that's why Dveydenko has so many wins over Roger. Yet another crappy post by Nadal's Freak.

 

[phoenicks]

A standard Fedtart reply would be, " it doesn't matter, Federer couldn't care less with this tournament, Federer will beat him when it matters most, and will beat him hard in the slams. Heck, even MS is not serious enough for Federer to beat Murray. "

 

[thejoe]

Sure, that's why Dveydenko has so many wins over Roger. Yet another crappy post by Nadal's Freak.

To be fair, the guy has a point, but his constant thread hijacking is annoying.

Murray is beating Federer a lot at the moment, as he keeps the ball in play with interest, and the current Roger has been making a lot of errors. He also has a great serve that troubles anyone, and he can play every shot in the book.

 

[slice bh compliment]

Great points about Murray, and how he pressures his opponents (incl. Roger) in many different ways.

This reminds me of Pete, circa 1993 - 1996. Not that Andy and Sampras are similar players, but they both embody the greats of the era in which they came up.

Pete had power and movement like Lendl, he served like Boris and he had hands almost as good as Edberg and Mac. He even got to balls and made some passes like a more defensive artist.

Andy can play some stout Rafa-esque defense. And he's become just as powerful now. He can play like an artist from the baseline, one who can close out a point, like Roger. He has become a 1st class fighter like Rafa. When the time's right, he can flatten out a drive like Andre...and look smooth like Kucera or Rios.

Very impressive kid, this Murray.
The only way Roddick has a chance is if he serves and follows it up like a genius. THe only way anyone else (incl. Roger) has a chance is if Murray gets shaky in Melbourne.

I do think Murray will win on the hearty grass at Wimbledon. And we'll all 'cheers' with a tall

!

 

[wangs78]

1. Murray has fantastic returns and causes Federer to play more balls than he prefers. Federer has even started double faulting with each match he plays Murray - signs that Fed is going for more on 2nd serves.

2. Federer has huge dips in his 1st serve percentage against Murray. Federer usually starts at 64% but often in sets 2 and 3 vs Murray in the last few meetings he go's down to below 50%.

3. Murray serves very well nowadays and with a lot of variety and placement. He has also found a weakness on the Federer fh return which is currently giving Murray a ton of free points.

4. Murray can handle the Federer bh slice and gives Federer a lot of his own medicine with his own effective slice both down the line and crosscourt.

5. Murray can breakdown the Federer bh in a variety of ways. Murray uses flat, spin, loopers and topspin to breakdown the Federer bh.

6. Murray can move as efficiently as any of the top movers on court. This makes life hard for Federer as it is very difficult to overpower Murray due to his nimble movement and great hands.

7. Murray's bh is so solid on bh to bh exchanges and wins most of their cross court exchanges.

8. Murray is 6 years younger than Federer and is hungry, determined and full of beans. Murray wants success at any cost and is motivated to achieve all his goals,Which, as he puts it '.it's all about winning slams'.

When combine all the above you have a unstoppable package that will trouble any top player at any given time. The only player that could match the considerable talents of Murray in Federer's generation was Nalbandian and it is no secret that Nalbandian always gives Federer a run for his money. Unfortunately, for Nalby he never put himself in enough positions to meet Federer in the big grandslams on a consistent basis. I get the feeling Murray wont make that mistake. Thoughts?

Great post, I agree with more or less all of your points.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

Yea only on one surface, clay . He was getting his butt handed to him every where else. Nadal had nothing on feds dominance in those years.

lol owned. Nadal beat Federer in both Dubai and Miami.

Sure, that's why Dveydenko has so many wins over Roger. Yet another crappy post by Nadal's Freak.

I didn't say all players with great backhands and good forehands beat Fed. Btw Davydenko usually kept it close but choked many times against Federer.