So much for Murray "owning" Federer

[davey25]

There was talk for awhile that not only Nadal, but even Murray owned Federer, despite that Murray had never come close to beating Federer in a slam. Well now Murray is only up 6-5 on Federer having lost 3 in a row, and has lost both slam finals (their only slam encounters of any kind to date) in straight sets. If anything Federer will probably have the winning head to head here before too long.

 

[rk_sports]

IMO, I think those meaningless wins probably hurt murray into thinking that he can win easy

 

[Legend of Borg]

IMO, I think those meaningless wins probably hurt murray into thinking that he can win easy

A false sense of security on his part?

 

[namelessone]

A false sense of security on his part?

Definitely,in their cincy match murray was acting on court like he was the one that was supposed to be winning in this match-up,like he was the favourite on that day. It was kinda funny actually. Nadal is supposed to be "owning" federer yet we never see this from him.

 

[davey25]

Definitely,in their cincy match murray was acting on court like he was the one that was supposed to be winning in this match-up,like he was the favourite on that day. It was kinda funny actually. Nadal is supposed to be "owning" federer yet we never see this from him.

I dont think anyone will be favoring Murray in his next matchup with Federer. He will have to earn that position back (not that I ever considered him the favorite when he played Federer even when he was building a head to head lead).

 

[DoubleDeuce]

His achievements are so great, and his records so out of reach that I promise you noone will remember his H2H against Nadal.

 

[davey25]

His achievements are so great, and his records so out of reach that I promise you noone will remember his H2H against Nadal.

I would have to disagree there. That wont prevent him from being the greatest ever to many people, but it still is a detraction some can use against his career. Even the greatest are nitpicked, especialy when compared to one another. I am sure he would like to change his head to head with Nadal before he retires and that will be one of his goals now to try and do.

 

[Legend of Borg]

I would have to disagree there. That wont prevent him from being the greatest ever to many people, but it still is a detraction some can use against his career. Even the greatest are nitpicked, especialy when compared to one another. I am sure he would like to change his head to head with Nadal before he retires and that will be one of his goals now to try and do.

A victory over Nadal at Roland Garros will certainly help to diminish what some people have called the "blemish" on his career.

 

[Mustard]

His achievements are so great, and his records so out of reach that I promise you noone will remember his H2H against Nadal.

:lol: Are you serious? The Nadal vs. Federer rivalry is legendary and arguably the best rivalry in tennis history. As a result, Nadal's current 13-7 advantage and especially Nadal beating Federer in 6 slams, is something that is never going to be forgotten.

A victory over Nadal at Roland Garros will certainly help to diminish what some people have called the "blemish" on his career.

It wouldn't eradicate it, though. Nadal has beaten "the GOAT" Federer in 6 slams, 5 times in finals.

 

[davey25]

A victory over Nadal at Roland Garros will certainly help to diminish what some people have called the "blemish" on his career.

Yes, I agree that alone would make a big difference in that blemish on his career to some.

 

[davey25]

:lol: Are you serious? The Nadal vs. Federer rivalry is legendary and arguably the best rivalry in tennis history. As a result, Nadal's current 13-7 advantage and especially Nadal beating Federer in 6 slams, is something that is never going to be forgotten.

This is true, but in that case most people would reasonably consider Federer and Nadal have played 4 of their finals at the French up to now and over half of their matches on clay. Their only 2 ever matches on a fast hard court/fast indoor surface which is Nadal's worst he lost in straight sets, and getting an 08 FO final like beatdown in the 2nd of those two. The only hard court slam final they played (even on Nadal's best hard court, so his best type of his worst surface) was during the best year period of tennis that Nadal has ever played, and probably will ever play, and some of the worst Federer has played. They have never played a U.S Open final, which is by far Nadal's worst surface and arguably Federer's best, and where Nadal's chances would probably be about as good as Seles playing Graf in a Wimbledon final. What if they had played 4 U.S Open finals and 0 French Open finals.

Right now Nadal has the clear edge for the simple fact he has beaten Federer in a slam final on every surface, and has held his own vs Federer on every surface while Federer has not done that vs Nadal on clay. If Federer improved his performances vs Nadal on clay, even a diminished Nadal who is 5 years younger and yet potentially wasnt able to last as long inspite of that, it would offset that pretty much.

 

[Emelia21]

Definitely,in their cincy match murray was acting on court like he was the one that was supposed to be winning in this match-up,like he was the favourite on that day. It was kinda funny actually. Nadal is supposed to be "owning" federer yet we never see this from him.

:shock: :shock: I have seen it

 

[bruce38]

:lol: Are you serious? The Nadal vs. Federer rivalry is legendary and arguably the best rivalry in tennis history. As a result, Nadal's current 13-7 advantage and especially Nadal beating Federer in 6 slams, is something that is never going to be forgotten.
.

You are so wrong about this. 20 years from now, no one will mention the H2H.

 

[ChanceEncounter]

I would have to disagree there. That wont prevent him from being the greatest ever to many people, but it still is a detraction some can use against his career. Even the greatest are nitpicked, especialy when compared to one another. I am sure he would like to change his head to head with Nadal before he retires and that will be one of his goals now to try and do.

The problem is that people don't see the whole picture. They only see the H2H and fail to see all those times that Nadal failed to keep his end of the bargain and actually meet up with Federer deep in tournaments; especially tournaments where Federer was playing better than Nadal. He may have won some of those matches if he made it that far, but he can't get the benefit of the doubt for failing to show up.

 

[bruce38]

The problem is that people don't see the whole picture. They only see the H2H and fail to see all those times that Nadal failed to keep his end of the bargain and actually meet up with Federer deep in tournaments; especially tournaments where Federer was playing better than Nadal. He may have won some of those matches if he made it that far, but he can't get the benefit of the doubt for failing to show up.

This is the whole point of it all. When Fed is not playing well he still makes it to slam finals where a very good player like Nadal playing red hot can beat him. When Nadal is not playing well he rarely makes it to the final.

 

[Mustard]

You are so wrong about this. 20 years from now, no one will mention the H2H.

They will mention the Nadal vs. Federer rivalry, and it can never be changed that Nadal has beaten Federer in 6 slams, 5 times in slam finals. Nadal was a constant thorn in Federer's side throughout his peak.

 

[bruce38]

They will mention the Nadal vs. Federer rivalry, and it can never be changed that Nadal has beaten Federer in 6 slams, 5 times in slam finals. Nadal was a constant thorn in Federer's side throughout his peak.

You're wrong. It will be forgotten, only the number of slams will be rememberd. Only the tennis geeks who keep their stats on cue cards will remember.

 

[davey25]

I think the head to head with Nadal would have even worse impact on Federer if Nadal were a future greatest ever contender which he isnt.

An example I can think of is the Navratilova and Evert rivalry. Evert nearly everyone has in the top 3 or 4 of all time. Yet nearly nobody considers her a possible choice for the greatest ever. Graf, Navratilova, Court, and even ones who the vast majority rank much lower all time like Connolly, Seles, and Serena have more "the greatest ever" backers than Evert. The reason for that seems pretty obvious to me. The fact she was owned by Navratilova head to head in such lopsided fashion in the 80s when Evert was still close to her prime, eliminates her from being considered above Navratilova, and thus from any real consideration as the greatest ever in most peoples eyes. When you have two people that are contenders for the greatest ever, and that person is perceived to have "owned you", it is a bigger mark against you. In fairness to Evert she only trails the overall head to head 43-37, but the perception from their matches is that prime Navratilova completely owns prime Evert, fairly or unfairly.

For Federer it is still a mark at this point IMO, but not as much as if Nadal was a greatest ever contender which he isnt even close to being, or will ever be realistically.

 

[Mustard]

You're wrong. It will be forgotten, only the number of slams will be rememberd. Only the tennis geeks who keep their stats on cue cards will remember.

Is Borg vs. McEnroe forgotten? Sampras vs. Agassi? No, thought not.

 

[Emelia21]

You're wrong. It will be forgotten, only the number of slams will be rememberd. Only the tennis geeks who keep their stats on cue cards will remember.

Whenever I think of tennis geeks I always think of Federer fans

 

[bruce38]

Is Borg vs. McEnroe forgotten? Sampras vs. Agassi? No, thought not.

Sure, ask the average tennis fan and they will not know what the h2h are. Forgotten! Think again.

 

[bruce38]

Whenever I think of tennis geeks I always think of Federer fans

Maybe you should stay away from thinking??

 

[DownTheLine]

The only reason that Nadal can beat Federer is the match-up. Nadal hits heavy high topspin to Federer's backhand causing Fed to have a huge disadvantage.

Look at what Murray did to Nadal and look what Federer did to Murrey.


Don't say that Nadal was injured because both said before going into the match they were just fine. Nadal had a crunch in his knee at the end of the second set and then retiring.

 

[DownTheLine]

Maybe you should stay away from thinking??

I second that.

 

[Emelia21]

Maybe you should stay away from thinking??

Perhaps you should as well

 

[bruce38]

Perhaps you should as well

Why?
.
.

 

[Emelia21]

Why?
.
.

Why should I ?? Are you only allowed to think?? and no other??

I don't follow your lead, so I can't think (ha) no chance

 

[bruce38]

Why should I ?? Are you only allowed to think?? and no other??

I don't follow your lead, so I can't think (ha) no chance

You obviously did follow my lead by first copying "stay away from thinking" and then copying "why". You have no original thought. Now do you understand why I say stay away from the high level brain activity?

 

[cork_screw]

He still owns him. Head to head, he's got one over fed. Today was a case of Choke Central. USO was a case of Exhaustion Central. Just stating the facts, btw, i'm a fed fan. If he's relaxed, he has the game plan to beat him.

 

[davey25]

He still owns him. Head to head, he's got one over fed. Today was a case of Choke Central. USO was a case of Exhaustion Central. Just stating the facts, btw, i'm a fed fan. If he's relaxed, he has the game plan to beat him.

Yes so being 6-5 vs someone, while being 0-2 and 0-6 in sets in slams when it really matters, and having lost your last 3 meetings, is "owning" someone? :lol: Do you even know the definition of the word.

Your excuse making is hilarious. Federer's best will always beat Murray no matter how Murray plays. If you want to put it that way do you really believe Federer was playing his best in any of Murray's wins either, LOL!

 

[pame]

They will mention the Nadal vs. Federer rivalry, and it can never be changed that Nadal has beaten Federer in 6 slams, 5 times in slam finals. Nadal was a constant thorn in Federer's side throughout his peak.

Any article written about Feder and tennis will begin "Winner of xx grand slams"... if the rivalry is even mentioned, it will be a footnote paragraph near the end of the article. And in 50 years time, while Fed's records may probably still be standing, that H2H will be a distant memory for only a comparative few. Most of us have to dig back through archives to find out Laver's H2H if Rosewall, and I'd bet 96% of tennis fans never have.

 

[pame]

Sure, ask the average tennis fan and they will not know what the h2h are. Forgotten! Think again.

I watched tennis from mid-sixties, and to be honest, I'd have to go look up the stats.

 

[lawrence]

Any article written about Feder and tennis will begin "Winner of xx grand slams"... if the rivalry is even mentioned, it will be a footnote paragraph near the end of the article. And in 50 years time, while Fed's records may probably still be standing, that H2H will be a distant memory for only a comparative few. Most of us have to dig back through archives to find out Laver's H2H if Rosewall, and I'd bet 96% of tennis fans never have.

Much more than 96%. You have to remember ALL the people on this forum make up less than 1% of the tennis fans around the world. And not all the people on this forum know Laver and Rosewall's H2H

 

[Cyan]

Lol.........

 

[joeri888]

Murray has the game to beat Federer's B-game. Not yet to beat his A-game. I doubt he can do that, heck.. I don't even think Nadal can do it outside clay, but Murray just needs to give himself opportunities to play Federer in Slams, or make those finals. Federer will have an offday too eventually. He's not so good anymore that he can beat 99% of players with his C game.

 

[All-rounder]

They will mention the Nadal vs. Federer rivalry, and it can never be changed that Nadal has beaten Federer in 6 slams, 5 times in slam finals. Nadal was a constant thorn in Federer's side throughout his peak.

On CLAY :roll:

 

[All-rounder]

Murray has the game to beat Federer's B-game. Not yet to beat his A-game. I doubt he can do that, heck.. I don't even think Nadal can do it outside clay, but Murray just needs to give himself opportunities to play Federer in Slams, or make those finals. Federer will have an offday too eventually. He's not so good anymore that he can beat 99% of players with his C game.

Aaaaaaaaahhhhhh the good old days I miss that

 

[Markov]

Damn if Fed knew in 2006 he wouldn't be GOAT because of those FO finals he would probably have lost intentionally in the semifinals for three years in a row and just won the final last year and he would be more widely regarded as the GOAT than he is now.

 

[Rippy]

Damn if Fed knew in 2006 he wouldn't be GOAT because of those FO finals he would probably have lost intentionally in the semifinals for three years in a row and just won the final last year and he would be more widely regarded as the GOAT than he is now.

Indeed. That's what strikes me as rather odd about those using the H2H against Fed so severly. It's strange to think that if he had lost earlier in those French Opens, some people would consider him a better player.

 

[JeMar]

Is Borg vs. McEnroe forgotten? Sampras vs. Agassi? No, thought not.

Lol, get real. I can think of at least 10 rivalries that have produced better matches. Great rivalries bring the best out of both players. The only thing Nadal brings out of Federer is Sir Shanksalot. Even their most "epic" match consisted of Nadal doing almost nothing but hitting crosscourt forehands.

Nadal fans just cannot see the quality of the tennis because Nadal won.

 

[davey25]

Lol, get real. I can think of at least 10 rivalries that have produced better matches. Great rivalries bring the best out of both players. The only thing Nadal brings out of Federer is Sir Shanksalot. Even their most "epic" match consisted of Nadal doing almost nothing but hitting crosscourt forehands.

Nadal fans just cannot see the quality of the tennis because Nadal won.

I am not a Nadal fan but the 2008 and 2009 Wimbledon finals were among the greatest matches ever. Experts on the game who have viewed it for many years have said so. Yeah on clay their matches mostly suck since even though most have been competitive 4 setters Nadal does use that simple strategy and rides on Federer's errors mostly.

 

[LameTennisPlayer]

Indeed. That's what strikes me as rather odd about those using the H2H against Fed so severly. It's strange to think that if he had lost earlier in those French Opens, some people would consider him a better player.

Although 18/19 GS finals, is probably not worth swapping for a better H2H record IMO atm....

 

[LameTennisPlayer]

Damn if Fed knew in 2006 he wouldn't be GOAT because of those FO finals he would probably have lost intentionally in the semifinals for three years in a row and just won the final last year and he would be more widely regarded as the GOAT than he is now.

Although 18/19 GS finals, is probably not worth swapping for a better H2H record IMO atm....

 

[LameTennisPlayer]

_________________

 

[MarcRosset1992]

I am not a Nadal fan but the 2008 and 2009 Wimbledon finals were among the greatest matches ever. Experts on the game who have viewed it for many years have said so. Yeah on clay their matches mostly suck since even though most have been competitive 4 setters Nadal does use that simple strategy and rides on Federer's errors mostly.

Wimbledon 2009, erh?

Clay court matches suck? Rome 2006 was their best match ever.

 

[JeMar]

Two great matches, one good match, and a bunch of crappy UE fests do not an all-time rivalry make. Vastly overrated.

 

[Mustard]

Two great matches, one good match, and a bunch of crappy UE fests do not an all-time rivalry make. Vastly overrated.

I suppose there had to be someone who doesn't like the Nadal vs. Federer rivalry.

 

[JennyS]

The problem is that people don't see the whole picture. They only see the H2H and fail to see all those times that Nadal failed to keep his end of the bargain and actually meet up with Federer deep in tournaments; especially tournaments where Federer was playing better than Nadal. He may have won some of those matches if he made it that far, but he can't get the benefit of the doubt for failing to show up.

Yeah, I'd like to see how Nadal would have faired against Federer in the 2004 US Open final or 2003 and 2005 Wimbledon finals

 

[JennyS]

Two great matches, one good match, and a bunch of crappy UE fests do not an all-time rivalry make. Vastly overrated.

I think there were three good ones: Wimbledons 2008 and 2007 and Rome 2006. Some of them (even the ones Federer won!) were pretty hard to watch (Miami 2005 was a clunker IMO).

 

[JennyS]

Damn if Fed knew in 2006 he wouldn't be GOAT because of those FO finals he would probably have lost intentionally in the semifinals for three years in a row and just won the final last year and he would be more widely regarded as the GOAT than he is now.

Yes, exactly. He should have just lost one round earlier at all those French Opens. I mean, Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Connors and McEnroe didn't win it. At least none of them went 0-4 at the French vs Lendl/Wilander/Guga/Borg!