Reason's why Murray has been beating Federer.

[thejoe]

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

No, not owned. Nadal owns Roger on clay, but he owns everyone on the dirt. Roger has the winning record on the other surfaces. 2 Wimbledon victories, 2 victories in Shanghai, and another in Miami.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

No, not owned. Nadal owns Roger on clay, but he owns everyone on the dirt. Roger has the winning record on the other surfaces. 2 Wimbledon victories, 2 victories in Shanghai, and another in Miami.

Did you read Thugnasty's comment? He said Nadal was getting his butt handed to him on hardcourts. At the time, Nadal had a 2-1 record against Federer on hardcourts. Those were in Fed's prime years.

 

[1st Seed]

Roger should start giving murray the respect that's due.A loss is a loss,Wether it be Doha or Wimbledon.
Fed saying after the loss that it's no big deal,

 

[Nadal_Freak]

Roger should start giving murray the respect that's due.A loss is a loss,Wether it be Doha or Wimbledon.
Fed saying after the loss that it's no big deal,

Fed has always been a sore loser. Don't ever expect him to credit his opponents. It's more of the exception rather then the norm for Fed to do that.

 

[1st Seed]

I ' feel Roger's in for a brutal year,for his standards.Early exit's are going to be the norm for him.

 

[ThugNasty]

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

:lol: owned loser. Nadal did not beat fed in miami in 2005. He won one match against federer in 2006 on hardcourt ( Fed whooped his ass in shanghai real good) but had nothing to show for it the rest of the season. Learn your facts before talking momo.

 

[oneleggedcardinal]

I ' feel Roger's in for a brutal year,for his standards.Early exit's are going to be the norm for him.

Like semifinals?

 

[edberg505]

I ' feel Roger's in for a brutal year,for his standards.Early exit's are going to be the norm for him.

A semi is an early exit? I'd be shocked if he doesn't continue his streak for consecutive semi-finals in slams.

 

[SoCal10s]

winning 2 out of 3 ain't the slams

winning 2 out of 3 ain't the slams,there's a hugh difference to win 3 out of 5 in the slams, I don't know if Murray has what it takes to suck it up and endure in those 5 setters.. AO can be grueling if the heat goes up ,just like the U.S. open.. it takes a well condition athlete to win when that happens...

 

[Nadal_Freak]

:lol: owned loser. Nadal did not beat fed in miami in 2005. He won one match against federer in 2006 on hardcourt ( Fed whooped his ass in shanghai real good) but had nothing to show for it the rest of the season. Learn your facts before talking momo.

2004 doesn't count? Lmao. Fed had 3 great years. Not 2.

 

[zagor]

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?

Some great points but since you mention Nalbandian,where Murray really has him is in serve department.Murray has a very big first serve(I've seen him crank it up to 220+km/h lately)something Nalbandian never had and had to rely on winning the match purely with his ballstriking from the baseline and amazing return of serve.

I still feel that what troubles Fed the most when he plays Murray is Murray's return of serve(he forces Fed to "earn" every point and gets an amazing amount of balls into play against anyone,even Fed,Roddick and Karlovic)and amazing defense and court coverage(Fed always had trouble against great) defenders).Murray's ability to breakdown Fed's BH and his hands are just the icing on the cake.

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. "

What has this got to do with topic? Sure the fact that Fed lost in Doha matters but Murray still has to back all of his recent wins(not just against Fed)at AO,I'm sure that is his goal as well.I know see why the OP ommited to include Nadal in his post,he didn't want to attract his fans and let this thread to go down the toilet and he was right.

Did you read Thugnasty's comment? He said Nadal was getting his butt handed to him on hardcourts. At the time, Nadal had a 2-1 record against Federer on hardcourts. Those were in Fed's prime years.

Nadal has a 2-3 record against Fed on HC but yes but I also disagree with Thugnasty's comment.Nadal was always a bad match-up for Fed.

Roger should start giving murray the respect that's due.

He said that Murray is tough to play for him and that he has a shot at number one this year,what more do you want him to do? Kiss his ass?

A loss is a loss,Wether it be Doha or Wimbledon..

A loss in Wimbledon and a loss in Doha really isn't comparable.Doha is a warm up tournament,Wimbledon is the most prestigious grand slam ever,no comparison.

I ' feel Roger's in for a brutal year,for his standards.Early exit's are going to be the norm for him.

Way off topic again,there are quite a few "Fed is done" threads around here,you could resurrect some of them or even make your own.I'm sure that is not the discussion the OP had in mind here.

 

[ThugNasty]

2004 doesn't count? Lmao. Fed had 3 great years. Not 2.

I was talking specifically about 2005 and 2006. But if you would like to throw in that fluke nadal win in miami after fed had won indian wells you can right ahead.

 

[TennezSport]

If Murray..............

Murray has really improved his all around game and solidified his talent. If he can continue to grow from here he will be a threat at all GS tourny's. And, if he can consistently do this to Fed, think of what he will do to the Dirt King :twisted: in the future.

Spin will not hurt Murray and he can defend and move just as well. Murray also has more variety/options in his shot selection, which will give anyone trouble. While he is not as graceful as Fed, he has the variety and the court sense so I think we may have a new #1 on the rise.

Cheers, TennezSport

 

[Deleted member 25923]

Murray is on fire now.

He's been pretty much unstoppable for a while. He needs to back it up at AO like Djoker did.

 

[miyagi]

Murray has really improved his all around game and solidified his talent. If he can continue to grow from here he will be a threat at all GS tourny's. And, if he can consistently do this to Fed, think of what he will do to the Dirt King :twisted: in the future.

Spin will not hurt Murray and he can defend and move just as well. Murray also has more variety/options in his shot selection, which will give anyone trouble. While he is not as graceful as Fed, he has the variety and the court sense so I think we may have a new #1 on the rise.

Cheers, TennezSport

Yep Murray is a great player right now but I doubt he will do much to Nadal on clay....I dont think he game is that well suited to clay and even if it was Nadal is a granite on clay I dont see ANYONE deposing him on that surface.

Plus grass is such a short season Murray has to be really on to make an impact on that surface....I see Murrays game more tuned into HC than anything else.

Who knows A.O and U.S.O could be his this year...

 

[edberg505]

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.

It's unfortunate they don't hand out slam titles for H2H's.

 

[veroniquem]

It's unfortunate they don't hand out slam titles for H2H's.

They don't but it's still fun to remember that in 2006 Nadal and Murray were the only players to beat Federer. Coincidence? (Murray once on hard, Nadal several times on hard and clay)

 

[veroniquem]

Yep Murray is a great player right now but I doubt he will do much to Nadal on clay....I dont think he game is that well suited to clay and even if it was Nadal is a granite on clay I dont see ANYONE deposing him on that surface.

Plus grass is such a short season Murray has to be really on to make an impact on that surface....I see Murrays game more tuned into HC than anything else.

Who knows A.O and U.S.O could be his this year...

I agree 100%. Murray is gonna become THE man to beat on hard but not on clay and grass (where he doesn't move that well) but especially not on clay.

 

[Vermillion]

I haven't seen Murray's matches in awhile. Does his serve speed dip from time to time? below 100mph i mean

 

[veroniquem]

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.

Stating that if Federer had met Nalby more often in slams, he would have lost to him is a completely gratuitous assertion that nothing backs up. Actually Nalby has generally been weak in slams. I also don't need to be a Nadal fan to interpret numbers. During Federer's best years (2004, 2005, 2006) Nalby won 1 match out of 8 encounters with Fed, Nadal won 6 matches out of 9 encounters. Now those are numbers noone can argue with IMO.

 

[veroniquem]

2004 doesn't count? Lmao. Fed had 3 great years. Not 2.

Definitely, Fed had 3 peak years (something quite amazing in itself): 2004, 2005 and 2006: every single one of those years he won 11 or 12 tournaments of which several slams. Actually, 2004 was even better for him than 2005 (he had 1 more slam and mastercup in 2004 that he didn't get in 2005). Those were "monstruous" years during which the only player to beat him more than once or twice was Nadal.

 

[oneleggedcardinal]

Stating that if Federer had met Nalby more often in slams, he would have lost to him is a completely gratuitous assertion that nothing backs up. Actually Nalby has generally been weak in slams. I also don't need to be a Nadal fan to interpret numbers. During Federer's best years (2004, 2005, 2006) Nalby won 1 match out of 8 encounters with Fed, Nadal won 6 matches out of 9 encounters. Now those are numbers noone can argue with IMO.

OK, I'm going to save everyone the trouble and get this over with so veroniquem will be satisfied: Nadal is awesome, best ever, yeah woopie hooray.
There you go.

 

[anointedone]

Stating that if Federer had met Nalby more often in slams, he would have lost to him is a completely gratuitous assertion that nothing backs up. Actually Nalby has generally been weak in slams. I also don't need to be a Nadal fan to interpret numbers. During Federer's best years (2004, 2005, 2006) Nalby won 1 match out of 8 encounters with Fed, Nadal won 6 matches out of 9 encounters. Now those are numbers noone can argue with IMO.

Totally agree. Nalbandian is a talented player of course but stating Federer and Nalbandian would have split Federer's slams if Nalbandian could have just made finals is beyond insanity. As you said Nalbandian hardly ever beat Federer during the peak of Federer's dominance of 2004-2006. Excluding the injury WD vs Federer in the French Open semis Nalbandian is still 1-3 in slam semis with the only win being in 5 sets, and none of his opponents were even close to the caliber of Federer (Gaudio, Roddick, Baghdatis, Malisse). Furthermore despite his fluke Wimbledon final in 2002 Nalbandian is sh1t on grass and that is already 5 of Federer's 13 slams so to "split" had they met in all those slam finals as Topspin suggests Nalbandian would have had to win almost all the hard court finals. Please.

 

[SempreSami]

I haven't seen Murray's matches in awhile. Does his serve speed dip from time to time? below 100mph i mean

His first serve still deserts him occasionally.

 

[swedechris]

murray has really picked up his fitness.he suffered from a tough tough going the 2 day semi against Rafa which left him done and spent in the final. i doubt he would have won even if rested BUT what is vital is that he learnt that he needed to work on the fitness so it wouldnt be a concern next time.. his hard work is now paying dividends.

 

[veroniquem]

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.

Wrong again! During Federer's peak years: 2004, 2005, 2006, Nadal is the ONLY player to have beaten Federer more than 1 time on hard (I know, those numbers are quite mindboggling). In the course of those amazing 3 years, here are the players who accomplished the feat of beating Federer on hard ONCE: Berdych, Hrbaty, Henman, Safin and Murray. So Nadal with his 2 victories was Federer's biggest challenge( so to speak , I just mean compared to the rest of the tour) on hard during his peak years. (Nalbandian's only win vs Fed during that time was on carpet, not on hard.)

 

[edmondsm]

Stating that if Federer had met Nalby more often in slams, he would have lost to him is a completely gratuitous assertion that nothing backs up. Actually Nalby has generally been weak in slams. I also don't need to be a Nadal fan to interpret numbers. During Federer's best years (2004, 2005, 2006) Nalby won 1 match out of 8 encounters with Fed, Nadal won 6 matches out of 9 encounters. Now those are numbers noone can argue with IMO.

What is your definition of "weak". Since Nalbandian has been to the semifinals of all four slams, I would say your standards for what is weak are pretty high.

For some reason you do not consider 2007 a strong year for Federer even though he won 3 slams. I am assuming that you did this because Federer beat Nadal on all 3 surfaces that year, and that would taint your numbers.

 

[TennezSport]

Well................

I doubt he will do much to Nadal on clay....I dont think his game is that well suited to clay and even if it was Nadal is a granite on clay I dont see ANYONE deposing him on that surface....

That is currently true but that's the beauty of tennis and up and coming players. Remember that Murray spent a good deal of time in Spain on clay so he is very familiar with the surface. Murray has the perfect tactics to frustrate Rafa, along with the new found confidence. With Raf having to play so hard to maintain last years results, he could blow a tire trying to stay even; Raf is already worried about his knees and one never knows the future. Raf is the current KoC but all kings are eventually dethroned; just ask the mighty Fed :wink:

Plus grass is such a short season Murray has to be really on to make an impact on that surface....I see Murrays game more tuned into HC than anything else. Who knows A.O and U.S.O could be his this year...

We agree in this is one area where I don't think Murray will do well for awhile as his footing on grass in not there yet and the pressure at Wimbly may be too high at the moment. AO and USO are his best chances to make a mark but he will be dangerous at the FO with experience. He has the game, talent and now the confidence, but can he do it? Time will tell.

Cheers, TennezSport

 

[veroniquem]

What is your definition of "weak". Since Nalbandian has been to the semifinals of all four slams, I would say your standards for what is weak are pretty high.

For some reason you do not consider 2007 a strong year for Federer even though he won 3 slams. I am assuming that you did this because Federer beat Nadal on all 3 surfaces that year, and that would taint your numbers.

No, I'm doing it because that year Federer lost to more players and won fewer tournaments than the previous years, so I don't put it in the peak years even though it was still an excellent year. If you want to add 2007 then 2 players beat Fed twice on hard that year: Canas and Nalbandian. (We can add Djokovic to this list since he beat Fed once in 2007 + once at the start of 2008.) Clearly that year doesn't compare to the former years' level of perfection for Fed. (It doesn't take anything away from those 3 players' performance of course, kudos to them). I never meant to insult Nalbandian's talent. Weakness may have been a poor choice of word, I just meant he underachieved compared to people's expectations (that he would win slams), I didn't mean he was bad but nowhere near Fed's level IMO.

 

[JeMar]

Could we start issuing warnings when the fanatics of any one player in particular go and hijack a thread that's NOT about the object of their obsession, please? I really like this site, but this is getting out of hand. There's plenty of threads devoted to "This player sucks and this is why," or "This player is done: My reasons," etc. They don't need to go unto other threads and spread their dogma.

 

[LanceStern]

I agree that 2007 was not a peak year for Federer.

He was still hard to stop, but it definitely was not his peak years, he was going down some.

 

[Mr Topspin]

Stating that if Federer had met Nalby more often in slams, he would have lost to him is a completely gratuitous assertion that nothing backs up. Actually Nalby has generally been weak in slams. I also don't need to be a Nadal fan to interpret numbers. During Federer's best years (2004, 2005, 2006) Nalby won 1 match out of 8 encounters with Fed, Nadal won 6 matches out of 9 encounters. Now those are numbers noone can argue with IMO.

I never stated anything I said respected opinion suggests that it was LIKELY not definite based on h2h and their junior days. I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that Nalbandian playing with the confidence of winning a slam may be a different proposition to what he has become now. In the end it is all conjecture and and cannot be disproved or proved either way.

 

[veroniquem]

I never stated anything I said respected opinion suggests that it was LIKELY not definite based on h2h and their junior days. I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that Nalbandian playing with the confidence of winning a slam may be a different proposition to what he has become now. In the end it is all conjecture and and cannot be disproved or proved either way.

I can't disagree with that and that's why I prefer commenting on what actually happens because anything else is pure conjecture and I can't see the point in wasting time and energy on pure conjecture.

 

[paulorenzo]

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.

the only reason that the OP mentioned nalbandian because he was part of fed's generation. the OP clearly tried to illustrate that roger didnt really recieve much trouble from anyone back then, with the exception of nalbandian.
rafa is a grand specimen and we all know what he is capable of, but you should definitely go reread what the OP stated and try to make people think that you are a mature, reasonable human being by not turning another thread into another one your "nadal's my idol" rant.

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?

 

[veroniquem]

the only reason that the OP mentioned nalbandian because he was part of fed's generation. the OP clearly tried to illustrate that roger didnt really recieve much trouble from anyone back then, with the exception of nalbandian.
rafa is a grand specimen and we all know what he is capable of, but you should definitely go reread what the OP stated and try to make people think that you are a mature, reasonable human being by not turning another thread into another one your "nadal's my idol" rant.

The OP is entitled to his opinion and I'm grateful to him to post it here as it opened up a debate which is very good. But the board is not a dictatorship, anybody also has a right to challenge that opinion if they don't find it accurate. To me, in 2001, 2002, 2003, when Nalby outplayed Fed, tons of other players were doing the same (I'm not gonna post here the list of people beating Fed during those years but pretty much everybody did even Hewitt and Roddick, Hewitt was leading Fed 7-2 in their htoh before 2004). Once Federer became really good, Fed completely dominated his head to head with Nalby (as he did with most other players), so I'm not convinced that Nalby was the most talented player (other than Fed) in his generation. I may be wrong of course but I still have a right to express that opinion.

 

[thalivest]

in 2001, 2002, 2003, when Nalby outplayed Fed, tons of other players were doing the same (I'm not gonna post here the list of people beating Fed during those years but pretty much everybody did even Hewitt and Roddick

I know that means little to your overall point which is very good but Roddick definitely never had an edge on Federer even back then. By the end of 2003 their head to head was 4-1 Federer.

 

[paulorenzo]

The OP is entitled to his opinion and I'm grateful to him to post it here as it opened up a debate which is very good. But the board is not a dictatorship, anybody also has a right to challenge that opinion if they don't find it accurate. To me, in 2001, 2002, 2003, when Nalby outplayed Fed, tons of other players were doing the same (I'm not gonna post here the list of people beating Fed during those years but pretty much everybody did even Hewitt and Roddick, Hewitt was leading Fed 7-2 in their htoh before 2004). Once Federer became really good, Fed completely dominated his head to head with Nalby (as he did with most other players), so I'm not convinced that Nalby was the most talented player (other than Fed) in his generation. I may be wrong of course but I still have a right to express that opinion.

i absolutely agree, everyone is entitled to their opinion, especially posters like you back them up with reason. i agree with a lot of players beating fed in 2001- 03, with the exception of roddick. hewitt especially was still a major favorite. but i guess i just want to add that when federer actually broke away from the pack, to the point where people would be surprised if he loses a match, nalbandian had a good chance of giving federer trouble, in the few occasions that they met.

back in 2004-2006 federer would routinely face hewitt, roddick, and others deep within tourneys. and the outcome would be just that: routine. federer would usually be the victor. but nalby has an uncanny ability to somehow give roger trouble any time they face, whether it's 2003 or 2007, and no matter how comparatively unfit he seems, or how badly he does in the last tournament he played 3 months prior.

 

[paulorenzo]

I know that means little to your overall point which is very good but Roddick definitely never had an edge on Federer even back then. By the end of 2003 their head to head was 4-1 Federer.

true indeed.

 

[veroniquem]

I know that means little to your overall point which is very good but Roddick definitely never had an edge on Federer even back then. By the end of 2003 their head to head was 4-1 Federer.

Ha ha you're right, at least he could beat him once, he won't be able to do that again until Fed starts faltering in 2008!

 

[veroniquem]

i absolutely agree, everyone is entitled to their opinion, especially posters like you back them up with reason. i agree with a lot of players beating fed in 2001- 03, with the exception of roddick. hewitt especially was still a major favorite. but i guess i just want to add that when federer actually broke away from the pack, to the point where people would be surprised if he loses a match, nalbandian had a good chance of giving federer trouble, in the few occasions that they met.

back in 2004-2006 federer would routinely face hewitt, roddick, and others deep within tourneys. and the outcome would be just that: routine. federer would usually be the victor. but nalby has an uncanny ability to somehow give roger trouble any time they face, whether it's 2003 or 2007, and no matter how comparatively unfit he seems, or how badly he does in the last tournament he played 3 months prior.

I agree that in several matches they played, Federer had trouble even when he won in the end, in others however he kind of crushed Nalbandian like USO 2005 or Madrid 2006. It was on clay I know but in Monte-Carlo 2008 Nalbandian played a remarkable first set against Fed, it kept me on the edge of my seat it was so good, but after that, Federer just rolled over him, such a shame.

 

[oneleggedcardinal]

Sigh...might as well go all the way:

Nadal Nadal Nadal Nadal Nadal Nadal Nadal Nadal

Wow, look at those pecs!

 

[veroniquem]

Sigh...might as well go all the way:

Nadal Nadal Nadal Nadal Nadal Nadal Nadal Nadal

Wow, look at those pecs!

Can't see what that has to do with this thread but yes Nadal is easy on the eyes, pecs and all...

 

[ThugNasty]

Sigh...might as well go all the way:

Nadal Nadal Nadal Nadal Nadal Nadal Nadal Nadal

Wow, look at those pecs!

man nadal has a puny right arm

 

[GameSampras]

Talk about being disproportioned look at Nadals right arm compared to his left.

Before I thought Nads would be a viable candidate to Roids or Doping. His body isnt that impressive to be honest looking at that picture. Certainly doesnt look like a "roid body." His chest isnt that impressive or lack thereof

 

[JankovicFan]

The thread is not about Nadal.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

Federer had some trouble against Haas too. Though their head to head is 8-2, some of the matches were lot tougher for Federer. Incidentally Haas also has one of the great Backhands. So did Richard Gasquet (though their head to head is 6-1).

My point once again is, if you have a great all round game and an exceptional backhand, you can win against Federer.

 

[World Beater]

Federer had some trouble against Haas too. Though their head to head is 8-2, some of the matches were lot tougher for Federer. Incidentally Haas also has one of the great Backhands. So did Richard Gasquet (though their head to head is 6-1).

My point once again is, if you have a great all round game and an exceptional backhand, you can win against Federer.

8-2 and 6-1 is pretty pathetic buddy.

there have been some close battles but also some thumpings from federer.

federer's bh is very good and it only tends to get exploited by players like nadal and murray but that is because these guys have exceptional all around games and fantastic left sides.

murray's bh is built for hardcourts and faster surfaces...lets see how federer deals with it on slower surfaces. federer hits his bh with much more spin that murray does.

nadal gives hell to all players bhs. haas, gasquet are not spared from nadal's fh.