What would a Federer loss to Murray tomorrow mean to you?

cueboyzn said:
IMO - Federer is getting older - and only -really- now cares about GS titles - (at his point in his career with 13 GS & 1 behind Sampras, nothing else really means too much, not even Masters Series (MS) shields (tournaments such as Doha being even less that an ATP MS on the scale of importance).

Yeah, he still says he wants to win this and that and so on and so forth, but the fact remains the only things that he cares about now are those 4 GS. The rest is just for him by now so non-important that its only natural his performances in smaller tournaments will not have the same spark or desire as when he plays in a GS.

Contrast this to a guy like Murray who is young and hungry for even these smaller tournaments like the 1 he just won. Which is natural, he is young and wants to prove himself.

So when Federer losese to people like Murray and Djokovic and so on, i think having proved in New York that he still has more than enough game to beat either of them over 5 sets on the big stages, one should just remember you cannot expect the same level of effort from Roger in all the rest of the tournaments as he puts into a GS campaign.

I personally don't take it as a shock anymore when I see him lose in some or other non-GS tournament, or even a MS tournament. Stepanek beat him in a Clay MS event last year, and then look what Roger did to him i New York on Arthur Ashe stadium, he took him apart in straight sets. Same goes for Djokovic and Murray in the semi and finals. Bottom line is Roger playing in a GS is just different. That's all you can really say about it.
Click to expand...

In general I agree, but I do remember Federer saying in an interview how he doesn't like losing to the same player twice in a row. Also remember the MC match, where Federer played super hard against Murray. Obviously his back was hurting and he served poorly because of that, but still gave it his all.

I guess Australian Open will be a good indicator of Roger's form.
 
IvanAndreevich said:
In general I agree, but I do remember Federer saying in an interview how he doesn't like losing to the same player twice in a row. Also remember the MC match, where Federer played super hard against Murray. Obviously his back was hurting and he served poorly because of that, but still gave it his all.

I guess Australian Open will be a good indicator of Roger's form.
Click to expand...
You can really take it seriously when he says he doesn't like being beaten several times in a row. It almost never happens to him. Trivia question: since 2004, how many players have beaten Federer more than 2 times? You'll see, not many...
 
Last edited:
IvanAndreevich said:
In general I agree, but I do remember Federer saying in an interview how he doesn't like losing to the same player twice in a row. Also remember the MC match, where Federer played super hard against Murray. Obviously his back was hurting and he served poorly because of that, but still gave it his all.

I guess Australian Open will be a good indicator of Roger's form.
Click to expand...
No, he said he would prefer to lose to one player who is on a hot streak many times, than many random players indiscriminately.
 
LanceStern said:
Murray's a bad matchup for Nadal, Fed, Roddick, ust about everyone except Djokovic I think.
Click to expand...

Nadal is the only top player that didn't lose to Murray before the US Open.
Murray had beaten Federer and Djokovic twice before he beat Nadal.
Murray got better so he could also beat Nadal on hardcourts, who is naturally a worse matchup for Murray than Federer and Djokovic.
 
Zaragoza said:
Nadal is the only top player that didn't lose to Murray before the US Open.
Murray had beaten Federer and Djokovic twice before he beat Nadal.
Murray got better so he could also beat Nadal on hardcourts, who is naturally a worse matchup for Murray than Federer and Djokovic.
Click to expand...

Do you have any naturally obvious reason for saying that?
 
Zaragoza said:
Their head to heads and the fact that Nadal straight setted Murray on hardcourts when Murray had already beaten Federer and Djokovic on hardcourts. Basically what I said on my previous post.
Click to expand...
Match-ups can change because all players are evolving all the time. Hewitt used to have Federer's number, but that switched around. I've always thought too much emphasis was placed on the h2h on this site, to the neglect of everything else. For me, the most important thing to look at is who is where, in terms of current form, and pedigree. What happened in the last match, last year or 2 years ago is less important.
 
IvanAndreevich said:
Link? I can't find the link to where he says what I claim.
Click to expand...
Okay, found it. It was after his loss to Nadal in the 2007 Monte Carlo final, but I think there is another interview after this where he repeats the same thing in more detail. In my search I came across some other quotes which give an indication of Federer's mindset after multiple losses to the same person, so I've added them below for good measure. As all good contenders should be, he is accepting and philosophical about losses, which are inevitable in sport, but positive about better outcomes in the future. Contrary to what some might believe, players, including Federer, do not go around expecting to win every match they play. They would like to win every match, but accept they will have losses.

MASTERS SERIES MONTE-CARLO

April 22, 2007

Q. You played 19 sets against him and you won only 5. What that means? I mean, almost one out of three. That's big, big difference apparently. The reason, explanation is only technical or sometimes mental? Do you get nervous when things are not going well?

ROGER FEDERER: Are you talking about clay?

Q. Clay, clay.

ROGER FEDERER: Well, I don't know. You've seen his record on clay?

Q. Yeah.

ROGER FEDERER: Well, he's won a few in a row. He's an excellent player, let's not forget. You're talking like he's playing around with me. That's not the case. It came very close the last few times, but clay is his number one surface; it's not mine, and still I come so close.
It's for me a good -- still a good thing to do, you know, to play, I don't know, four finals in a row on clay now. Okay. I lost four times against Rafa. I'd rather have that than lose against four different guys.
I feel like I'm in good shape for the rest of clay court season, and it's going to come down to the French Open to see who wins.

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=42567
Click to expand...

SONY ERICSSON OPEN

March 27, 2007

Q. You had 54 unforced errors. Could you still think it was a great match?

ROGER FEDERER: Yeah, because the statistics guys have no clue what an unforced error is. I was checking it out. They take incredible unforced errors, you know, which is a forced error. I only had about half that.

Q. How much did you think about your defeat two weeks ago?

ROGER FEDERER: Not too much actually. I took it as a new match. I had some blister issues, but I could have, should have maybe won the first set there, as well. Ended up not finding my rhythm into the match in the second set.
I knew this was going to be totally different. It did feel like it, too. I played so much better than last week, a couple weeks ago, and that was obvious for me. I was really expecting myself to win tonight, but it's one of those matches I should have never lost.

Q. Is there any way that you can up the technique, or do you have everything down in your game, it's just a matter of executing it on the day against that particular guy?

ROGER FEDERER: I should not lose the first set in the first place. That puts me against the wall, not to make another mistake. I did make another mistake in the third set. I should have gone up with double break, then gave it away easily to let him come back into the match.
Then of course it's a tight match, but I should never be at 4-All in the third set in the first place. But he dug deep and played well, and like I said, I was just not in the end very happy with the way things went.
I could have won, but I didn't do it, so it's disappointing.

Q. Do you feel that he's less intimidated by you than maybe some higher ranked players? Do you feel that on the court?

ROGER FEDERER: No. I mean, everybody gives 100 percent against me and believes in their chances. You know, I have a feeling sometimes players play better against me than they would against other players because they have less to lose.
Yeah, so I definitely beat myself at Indian Wells, and here I got unlucky maybe to a point, but he played well again.

Q. (Indiscernible)?

ROGER FEDERER: Well, it's not the first time. I'll be okay for the clay court season. I'm looking forward to that one. That is obviously the huge goal for me. Since the Australian Open everything has been planned down so I play well at the French Open.
So you got to expect a loss here and there, you know, what I did the last couple of years to win back to back Indian Wells and Miami.
I knew that was not going to happen until the end of my career, so it's okay. It's just of course a disappointing loss here, and physically something was wrong last week. It's obviously disappointing coming from so far away, but it happens. I'm going to be fine for clay, that's for sure.

Q. Guillermo's being away, you've consolidated your place at the top has maybe in some way helped him because he's not sort of aware of whatever aura you bring on the court?

ROGER FEDERER: No, that's a similar question to what I answered before. I've beaten him and lost to him in the past, as well, when I was actually favored already against him. He just plays tough. I should have beaten him here twice in the States but I didn't do so.

Q. Your breakpoint conversion today was only 25 percent; you only converted 4 out of 16. That really hurt you today.

ROGER FEDERER: Yeah, of course it killed me in the end. I should have been up double break and then things are routine after that. Maybe he played well on a few points. I think I messed up also the situation at Love-30, not just the breakpoints. The big points didn't go my way in today's match, but that happens.

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=42143
Click to expand...

TMS - MONTE-CARLO

April 23, 2006

Q. Three losses in a row against Nadal. Does it mean anything?

ROGER FEDERER: Well, I mean, I wish I could have won them, but they don't break down my will or hope or anything because what I care about is looking at the -- well, trying not to lose against him in Grand Slams, and then be ahead of him 2,000 points in the ranking, that's what I care about, and not really losing tonight. I made points against him, so he's under pressure.
But, yeah, it would have been nice to beat him. But I don't know, you guys have to have more to write about than I have to talk about. So this is for me one night and then I'll be on the road and I'll forget about it, so...

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=35903
Click to expand...
 
Nadal has not played Murray since the US open (unless you count Abu Dhabi), Federer has played him 3 times since (4 if you include Abu Dhabi).
Murray has improved vastly since the summer.
Had there been more Nadal/Murray matches between then and now, i think Murray would have been closer to bridging that gap by now.

Anyway, there's a whole tennis season ahead of us. Who knows what could happen.
 
David L said:
Okay, found it. It was after his loss to Nadal in the 2007 Monte Carlo final, but I think there is another interview after this where he repeats the same thing in more detail. In my search I came across some other quotes which give an indication of Federer's mindset after multiple losses to the same person, so I've added them below for good measure. As all good contenders should be, he is accepting and philosophical about losses, which are inevitable in sport, but positive about better outcomes in the future. Contrary to what some might believe, players, including Federer, do not go around expecting to win every match they play. They would like to win every match, but accept they will have losses.
Click to expand...
Everytime Federer loses, he claims that the match wasn't meaningful and his main objective is something else, so after Monte-Carlo his main objective (or what he really cares about as he said vs losing that final which was no big deal if you believe him) was "not losing to Nadal in slams and staying 2000 points ahead of him"? Ouch. (this is actually a reply to the Monte-carlo interview)
 
Last edited:
veroniquem said:
Everytime Federer loses, he claims that the match wasn't meaningful and his main objective is something else, so after Monte-Carlo his main objective (or what he really cares about as he said vs losing that final which was no big deal if you believe him) was "not losing to Nadal in slams and staying 2000 points ahead of him"? Ouch. (this is actually a reply to the Monte-carlo interview)
Click to expand...
Federer admits that he would prefer to win, as we all would, but losses at smaller events are not a big deal. I see no difficulty in reconciling these two sentiments. Also, the 2nd Monte Carlo quote is from 2006, so Federer was successful in maintaining those objectives through 2006 and 2007, years in which he lost to Nadal at Roland Garros, but also beat him at Wimbledon and remained at No.1. On top of that, he also took care of Nadal at the World Championships in those years. 2008 was more of a struggle because of the glandular fever and everything, but he did very well here too when you consider everything.
 
Leublu tennis said:
Hey, I'm with you all the way except that I don't think Federer will take many GS. The odds are one yes, two maybe, more no.
Click to expand...

If you consider how old Roger is compared to when Agassi, Sampras won their last GS titles, you will see that Roger has plenty of time to win the 2 GS titles that he needs for the GS record. He is 27 now. Sampras won the US Open (his last GS) when he was 32. Agassi did very well (in large part due to his excellent physical conditioning) in his late 20's/early 30's. It is safe to say that Roger's physical conditioning is excellent. So Im sure Federer is not pushing the panic button yet-by a long shot. He knows that if he wins 1 GS, perhaps Australia, then all he needs to break the record is 1 more, maybe at the US Open. This guy is no dummy, he is maybe the smartest player ever in modern days, he knows his game and what it takes to win GS titles. Saying he will win only 1 or 2 more is ignoring all these facts.
 
Personally I think out of the BIG 3 (Nadal, Djokovic, Fedrer), Roger is the best at this moment. Djokovic and Nadal seem to be not what they were last season. So if all that is standing in his way on Rod Laver arena is Murray, I would bet on Roger to beat him on that stage over a best of 5. IMO Murray, while he is doing well in these smaller ATP events, has yet to prove he is physically (and mentally) able to beat these guys on such huge stages and over such distances. The exception maybe to this is Nadal on a hard court, since it his not his best surface. In a GS I would also still give Djokovic an edge over Murray as well.
 
cueboyzn said:
Personally I think out of the BIG 3 (Nadal, Djokovic, Fedrer), Roger is the best at this moment. Djokovic and Nadal seem to be not what they were last season. So if all that is standing in his way on Rod Laver arena is Murray, I would bet on Roger to beat him on that stage over a best of 5. IMO Murray, while he is doing well in these smaller ATP events, has yet to prove he is physically (and mentally) able to beat these guys on such huge stages and over such distances. The exception maybe to this is Nadal on a hard court, since it his not his best surface. In a GS I would also still give Djokovic an edge over Murray as well.
Click to expand...

No offense, but I don't know how you can claim that Djoker and Rafa are "not what they were last season" just one week into this season. Fanboying much? :lol:
 
Zaragoza said:
Nadal is the only top player that didn't lose to Murray before the US Open.
Murray had beaten Federer and Djokovic twice before he beat Nadal.
Murray got better so he could also beat Nadal on hardcourts, who is naturally a worse matchup for Murray than Federer and Djokovic.
Click to expand...

I don't consider Murray to be a bad match-up for Djokovic,remember Djokovic leads the h2h 4-2 with a few blowouts(like 6-1 6-0 in Miami).
 
David L said:
Federer admits that he would prefer to win, as we all would, but losses at smaller events are not a big deal. I see no difficulty in reconciling these two sentiments. Also, the 2nd Monte Carlo quote is from 2006, so Federer was successful in maintaining those objectives through 2006 and 2007, years in which he lost to Nadal at Roland Garros, but also beat him at Wimbledon and remained at No.1. On top of that, he also took care of Nadal at the World Championships in those years. 2008 was more of a struggle because of the glandular fever and everything, but he did very well here too when you consider everything.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I didn't see the comment was in 2006, my mistake. Still, it's a pattern for Fed to say the match he just lost is not as important as something else and it's not always true IMO.
 
edmondsm said:
Small note: Murray and Nadal are 4-1.
Click to expand...
Absolutely not, they're 5-1 in favor of Nadal. Nadal won 3 on hard (2 in 2007, 1 in 2008), one on clay and one on grass. The only match Murray has won vs Nadal is the USO 2008 one.
 
Last edited:
veroniquem said:
Sorry, I didn't see the comment was in 2006, my mistake. Still, it's a pattern for Fed to say the match he just lost is not as important as something else and it's not always true IMO.
Click to expand...

Interesting you should say this, given what you say below haha. Obviously, Federer would like to win every match and every tournament he plays, but some matches and tournaments are less important than others. When you have 50+ titles and 13 Slams at age 27, you can stomach a few losses at less important events. Stepanek, who is a former top 10 player and currently No.23, won the 3rd title of his career at age 30 last week. He was so pleased it was like he had won a Slam. This is not where Federer is at.

veroniquem said:
You can really take it seriously when he says he doesn't like being beaten several times in a row. It almost never happens to him. Trivia question: since 2004, how many players have beaten Federer more than 2 times? You'll see, not many...
Click to expand...

Below is another example of Federer's perspective regarding losses and the greater determination he brings to Slams.

U.S. OPEN

September 5, 2007

Q. Andy declined to answer when I asked him if he thought you were getting better. Do you think you're getting better?

ROGER FEDERER: I don't know. I mean, it would be nice if I improve. I think I've gotten better over the years. I think my serve has improved again. I was struggling with my serve, I think it was during the summer, the clay court season maybe.
I mean, not tremendously, you know. But I wasn't getting the free points I was looking for.
Really since Wimbledon and here now again I'm serve-volleying my second serves consistently and I'm moving well. For a while I thought my movement was off sometimes. I was just picking the wrong shots maybe in defense. Now I feel really I can cover a lot of ground, you know, and even be aggressive still.
I'm happy actually where my game's going. I know, I mean, I can't play every season and win, I don't know, almost 80, 90 matches, hardly lose any. Obviously you're going to lose once in a while.
But I'm happy the way I'm maintaining this great ability of coming up with the important wins when I have to. I'm at my best always at the Slams. This is where the focus is the biggest.

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=45370
Click to expand...
 
David L said:
Interesting you should say this, given what you say below haha. Obviously, Federer would like to win every match and every tournament he plays, but some matches and tournaments are less important than others. When you have 50+ titles and 13 Slams at age 27, you can stomach a few losses at less important events. Stepanek, who is a former top 10 player and currently No.23, won the 3rd title of his career at age 30 last week. He was so pleased it was like he had won a Slam. This is not where Federer is at.



Below is another example of Federer's perspective regarding losses and the greater determination he brings to Slams.
Click to expand...
He always brings his best to the slams, that's for sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Nadalgaenger
Three reasons Murray may actually have a chance tomorrow?
Replies
35
Views
4K
Rozroz
Rozroz
clayrules
Exhausted Murray would have beat Federer if not for dumb challenge and double fault
Replies
36
Views
2K
wyutani
wyutani
T
if murray wins and federer loses before the finals
Replies
2
Views
627
GPG
GPG
tennis_pro
  • Poll Poll
Federer-Murray - Cincinnati 2015 MS - SF
19 20 21
Replies
1K
Views
54K
Fedex
Fedex
P
Great match by Federer : Never been happier even after a Federer loss
Replies
49
Views
5K
Talker
Talker
Back
Top