Why did Murray trouble Prime Federer but not Nadal or Djokovic?

[King No1e]

Genuine question, no hidden MuryGOAT agenda here. Murray was 6-2 against Federer at one point in 09, what made him match up so well against Federer? And why did Nadal and Djokovic never have the same trouble with Sir Andy?

My initial guess would just be Murray's grinding style drawing errors out of Federer, much like Nadal but without the heavy spin. What other factors played a role in this?

Discuss.

 

[Red Rick]

Fed not having refined his game/not having max focus in Bo3. Murray loved the style Federer played at his C game basically.

 

[StrongRule]

I wouldn't say he didn't trouble them. He also won 3 matches in a row against Djokovic back then. Also beat Nadal in USO 2008 semifinal and Rotterdam 2009 final, and played very well against him in Monte Carlo 2009 semifinal. Ironically, Murray in 2008-2009 was a bigger threat to the top players than any other of his versions except for (probably) 2012. Some actually called him the favorite for AO 2009. I don't think there EVER was another slam where he was considered the main favorite.

Anyway, Federer always owned him at the slams which is what really matters.

 

[King No1e]

I wouldn't say he didn't trouble them. He also won 3 matches in a row against Djokovic back then. Also beat Nadal in USO 2008 semifinal and Rotterdam 2009 final. Ironically, Murray in 2008-2009 was a bigger threat to the top players than any other of his versions except for (probably) 2012. Some actually called him the favorite for AO 2009. I don't think there EVER was another slam where he was considered the main favorite.

Anyway, Federer always owned him at the slams which is what really matters.

I'd say he was a top favorite for Wimbledon 2014 and maybe 2017, too.
But overall, agreed. Murray was a huge threat to the Big 3 overall back in 2008-09. 6-2 against Peak Federer is just mind-boggling.

 

[StrongRule]

I'd say he was a top favorite for Wimbledon 2014 and maybe 2017, too.

He was clearly not ready to win a slam in 2014.

 

[Krish0608]

Tennis is all about matchups

 

[NatF]

Fed not having refined his game/not having max focus in Bo3. Murray loved the style Federer played at his C game basically.

One of the rare times we agree on Murray

 

[flutzingitaway]

It is hard to say. The mysterious thing was he troubled him in best of 3 but couldn't seem to much or any in best of 5. I think some of that was Murray's nerves in big slam matches, not bringing the same level he brought to best of 3 matches and Masters. And Federer also having a growing slight (not severe, just slight) growing disinterest in the non slam events, and feeling the urgency to win every match he played. That is not to devalue Murray's Masters and best of 3 wins over Federer in anyway, as they were all impressive and his early head to head with Federer was very impressive, but Federer by now I think was much harder to beat in a slam final or semi than just a regular match, moreso than say in 2005-2007.

I think as time went on Federer figured out Murray's game which he had not quite gotten a full hold on before when Murray was playing well. And Murray for whatever reason was not able to counter adapt to this turn of events. I think Djokovic also seperating himself clearly from Murray (when they were quite close prior to 2011) impacted Murray's confidence when playing the so called Big 3, and also impacted and emboldened the Big 3 when playing Murray now that he was firmly the 4th person. Do not underestimate the psychological aspects of this sport.

 

[Red Rick]

One of the rare times we agree on Murray

Murray did play way better in Bo3 in those days though.

 

[NatF]

Murray did play way better in Bo3 in those days though.

For sure. I think he was good in the slams too but ran into some tough opponents - it was only in slam finals that he really underperformed. I'm 2012-2013 it felt like he traded his powers in masters to be better at the slams.

 

[King No1e]

It is hard to say. The mysterious thing was he troubled him in best of 3 but couldn't seem to much or any in best of 5. I think some of that was Murray's nerves in big slam matches, not bringing the same level he brought to best of 3 matches and Masters. And Federer also having a growing slight (not severe, just slight) growing disinterest in the non slam events, and feeling the urgency to win every match he played. That is not to devalue Murray's Masters and best of 3 wins over Federer in anyway, as they were all impressive and his early head to head with Federer was very impressive, but Federer by now I think was much harder to beat in a slam final or semi than just a regular match, moreso than say in 2005-2007.

I think as time went on Federer figured out Murray's game which he had not quite gotten a full hold on before when Murray was playing well. And Murray for whatever reason was not able to counter adapt to this turn of events. I think Djokovic also seperating himself clearly from Murray (when they were quite close prior to 2011) impacted Murray's confidence when playing the so called Big 3, and also impacted and emboldened the Big 3 when playing Murray now that he was firmly the 4th person. Do not underestimate the psychological aspects of this sport.

I find the Fed-Murray reversal completely counterintuitive - Murray really shines against aggressive players and big servers, yet that's exactly what Federer became with the post-2013 bigger racquet. And somehow Federer did better against Murray than 2008-13 Baselinerer did.

 

[flutzingitaway]

I find the Fed-Murray reversal completely counterintuitive - Murray really shines against aggressive players and big servers, yet that's exactly what Federer became with the post-2013 bigger racquet. And somehow Federer did better against Murray than 2008-13 Baselinerer did.

Very good point. I agree with that. That is also why Murray is less effective vs an older Federer.

And of course Nadal has changed/had to change his game to become more agressive since he has less speed but that plays into Federer's wheelhouse as he is never going to win a battle of agression vs Federer, hence why he has suddenly become an old Federer's pigeon off of clay for the first time ever really.

 

[JaoSousa]

I think he just made Federer impatient by getting so many balls back in play that Roger went for the lines to much and started to miss.

Back in the day, there was this one annoying kid at my club who was really fast but didn't have any weapons, and I would always lose to him. I would come home crying to my mom and be like, "But I'm so much better than him!", and my mom would be like, "You can't be better if you keep losing to him...".














Conclusion: MuryGOAT

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

Is it that hard to understand why when you consider style of play and Feds serve?

It’s too obvious to explain.

 

[King No1e]

I think he just made Federer impatient by getting so many balls back in play that Roger went for the lines to much and started to miss.

Back in the day, there was this one annoying kid at my club who was really fast but didn't have any weapons, and I would always lose to him. I would come home crying to my mom and be like, "But I'm so much better than him!", and my mom would be like, "You can't be better if you keep losing to him...".














Conclusion: MuryGOAT

Damn, I didn't know Lleyton Hewitt played in your local club as a kid

 

[clout]

I wouldn't say he didn't trouble them. He also won 3 matches in a row against Djokovic back then. Also beat Nadal in USO 2008 semifinal and Rotterdam 2009 final, and played very well against him in Monte Carlo 2009 semifinal. Ironically, Murray in 2008-2009 was a bigger threat to the top players than any other of his versions except for (probably) 2012. Some actually called him the favorite for AO 2009. I don't think there EVER was another slam where he was considered the main favorite.

Anyway, Federer always owned him at the slams which is what really matters.

2013 Wimbledon and maybe 2017 Australian Open were the only times where Murray seemed like the guy to beat

 

[King No1e]

2013 Wimbledon and maybe 2017 Australian Open were the only times where Murray seemed like the guy to beat

No way 17AO. Djokovic was the runaway favorite there every year since 2011, barring 2018 when he was AWOL.

 

[Mainad]

2013 Wimbledon and maybe 2017 Australian Open were the only times where Murray seemed like the guy to beat

Also 2016 Wimbledon (and don't forget a lot of the British media had him as favourite for 2009 AO ).

 

[ForehandCross]

Here I compared their slam match AO 2010 with Masters. I had made a thread for it


So was watching highlights of random young Murray vs Fed, ended up watching couple of sets from these matches (AO 2010, Toronto 2010).

Murray's ability to use varieties is so underrated. People say Federer doesn't let anyone have rhythm, I will claim that young Murray never let Federer have rhythm. Federer was always miscalculating/ misfiring against murray due to this fact. Murray persistently refused to go away and would drop brilliant returns on a dime while retrieving like 80% of Federer's would be winner. For Federer ,young Murray was mystery, with young Djokovic he had an easy plan : outhit Djokovic or hit it out. But unlike Djokovic, Murray refused to indulge in "Who finds a more acute angle or blasts a winner first" pattern of a typical Federer-young Djokovic match , he would keep running side to side retrieving, while asking different passive aggressive questions , no wonder it drove Federer mad.


But in slams, it was a completely different match up. Federer used to come in with a " Nah not getting into your chess games, I amma blast you off the court, if not that I just pull a impossible shot outta thin air" mentality. And this worked, unlike in bo3s, Federer's attacking approach basically broke Murray's will in USO 2008 and AO 2010. In USO 2008 Federer went off with his FH in the first few games just to intimidate Murray. It feels like Fed basically cut down the errors on aggression like 50% from Murrderer bo3 matches in bo5


The most astonishing thing is the same pattern of play that won Murray points in bo3 would mostly turn on its head in bo5. The same shots Federer misses in BO3 he, for some godforsaken reason ,ends up making in slams. Federer's focus goes up like a level or two in slams.

Case in point There is one point in Toronto final second set, where Murray keeps hitting to Federer BH, till Federer runs around and hits a half baked inside out FH, Murray promptly fires BHDTL.
In AO 2010 F, Murray at one point does the same thing, keeps going to Federer BH, and of course Federer ain't having the time of his life with that, but unlike in Toronto, on the 4th ball to his BH, but Fed goes for a extremely acute angled winner of the Backhand.

2010 AO F (Highly recommended to watch this , effing high quality in first 3-4 minutes)

compare to

 

[Mainad]

Genuine question, no hidden MuryGOAT agenda here. Murray was 6-2 against Federer at one point in 09, what made him match up so well against Federer? And why did Nadal and Djokovic never have the same trouble with Sir Andy?

My initial guess would just be Murray's grinding style drawing errors out of Federer, much like Nadal but without the heavy spin. What other factors played a role in this?

Discuss.

It's a bit of a pinch to say he never troubled prime Djokovic considering he beat him in the finals of 2 Slams and 5 Masters and beat prime Nadal in 2 Slams although his record against Federer back then was certainly remarkable in Bo3 matches.

 

[flutzingitaway]

Also 2016 Wimbledon (and don't forget a lot of the British media had him as favourite for 2009 AO ).

The British bookie had Murray the favorite for a lot of majors in 2009-2010. They also had him as the favorite going into the 2011 Australian Open final after Djokovic had destroyed Federer in the semis. Not that I think Murray had no chance at all, but having him as the actual betting favorite for that match was a huge for me. I must confess when I saw that I bet a ton of money on Djokovic winning and won.

 

[Fabresque]

It’s just a matchup issue. Djokovic and Nadal are harder for Murray to push back against due to Nadal’s loopiness and Djokovic’s depth. Federer just kinda gives it to his opponents strike zones more than those 2. Which is also why I believe Federer has more bad matchups than Nadal/Djokovic (for example, Coric is bad for Fed but not so much the other 2).

 

[Mainad]

The British bookie had Murray the favorite for a lot of majors in 2009-2010. They also had him as the favorite going into the 2011 Australian Open final after Djokovic had destroyed Federer in the semis. Not that I think Murray had no chance at all, but having him as the actual betting favorite for that match was a huge for me. I must confess when I saw that I bet a ton of money on Djokovic winning and won.

That early hype from the British media put unnecessary pressure on the younger Murray. They should have realised that nobody is a favourite to win a Slam until he has actually won one (I still recall Federer's and Djokovic's sarcastic responses to making him a favourite for 2009 AO).

 

[Mike Sams]

Murray's beaten all 3 of them numerous times in Masters and Grand Slams.

 

[zagor]

I wouldn't say he didn't trouble them. He also won 3 matches in a row against Djokovic back then. Also beat Nadal in USO 2008 semifinal and Rotterdam 2009 final, and played very well against him in Monte Carlo 2009 semifinal. Ironically, Murray in 2008-2009 was a bigger threat to the top players than any other of his versions except for (probably) 2012. Some actually called him the favorite for AO 2009. I don't think there EVER was another slam where he was considered the main favorite.

Anyway, Federer always owned him at the slams which is what really matters.

Yep, Murray was the bookies favourite for 2009 AO.

 

[Sysyphus]

He beat the other two in majors before he finally got over the Fed hurdle and generally was more competitive against them.

The gap between Murderer in bo3 and bo5 is indeed interesting, though. Surely partly a case of Fed caring less in bo3 and Murray also playing freer with less pressure (his masters success testifies that he's a great bo3 player).

 

[zagor]

The mysterious thing was he troubled him in best of 3 but couldn't seem to much or any in best of 5.

It's not really that big of a mistery. Like most ATGs (especially those in the 10 slam range) Fed is harder to beat in slams and Murray's defensive playing style is less conductive to winning slams. It's why someone like Stan will end up with the same number of slam titles despite not having anywhere near Murray's overall career and why Murray was by far the most dangerous for the top players under Lendl (who turned his FH into a weapon). People make a mistake of grouping Nadal, Djokovic and Murray as defensive players, yes Djokodal have great defense but on average force the issue/control the rally far more than Murray does. You're not gonna beat an in-form Fed in deep stages of the slams by milking him for unforced errors. Add to all that Murray's nerves for his first few slam finals and there you go.

It's the main reason some of us are often accused of not giving Murray his due (and why it's so hard to rate him as a player in general), there's a discrepancy between Murray's amazing consistency and his top level, it's easily explained by his big 3 opposition but I don't buy that, not fully atleast. For example, I don't believe for a moment Fed's overhyped 2015 Wimbledon SF performance would have been possible against even a guy like Goran who won "only" one Wimbledon. Granted 2012 Murray would have done much better as well but that's why I claim that Murray in 2012-2013 under Lendl played by far the best tennis in his career.

 

[zagor]

I find the Fed-Murray reversal completely counterintuitive - Murray really shines against aggressive players and big servers, yet that's exactly what Federer became with the post-2013 bigger racquet. And somehow Federer did better against Murray than 2008-13 Baselinerer did.

Fed isn't really more aggressive from the baseline with the bigger racquet, if anything he's much less aggressive off the FH side, didn't really see him go that much to the net either aside from isolated cases like 2014 Wimbledon. He's just hitting more cleanly off the BH side (both in play and on the return) which made it harder for Murray (and well, Nadal), his BH holds up in longer rallies instead of dropping the ball short or making an error. His 1st serve % also seems to have gone up with the new stick but that's just an impression on my part, didn't really look at the stats.

 

[mike danny]

It’s just a matchup issue. Djokovic and Nadal are harder for Murray to push back against due to Nadal’s loopiness and Djokovic’s depth. Federer just kinda gives it to his opponents strike zones more than those 2. Which is also why I believe Federer has more bad matchups than Nadal/Djokovic (for example, Coric is bad for Fed but not so much the other 2).

Not really more bad match-ups.

Sure, Fed at 36+ has more bad match-ups due to his age, nothing more.

But Djokovic's bad match-ups were more damaging for him as they actually took slams away from him. Federer's didn't.

 

[mike danny]

Murray was a very good player and a difficult opponent for Fed in BO3. I was watching their Madrid 2008 and YEC 2008 matches and saw how Federer wanted to win, but just couldn't. I don't believe he didn't give it his all. The man had a bad back and still did everything he could to try to beat Murray at the 2008 YEC. Murray was just too solid back then.

In slams, of course Fed was still supreme because he always brought a higher level in slams than in BO3.

After that early 6-2 lead though, Fed has been 12-5 against Murray, so he has figured out the match-up.

 

[Wurm]

The Murray - Novak H2H was 8-11 pre-back surgery and Novak won the first 4 from 2006-2008. I'd say he gave Novak quite a bit of trouble before the back surgery. Rafa was the big headache for Murray, particularly at Wimbledon.

As to why he specifically caused Federer problems early on. It was almost the reverse of early career and Henman saying "if I could push him back I felt I could beat him" (then Federer learned how to defend and worked out he was a ludicrously skilled counter puncher) as Murray was really good at rope-a-doping Federer into unwise attacks that Murray could counterpunch through.

Allied to this was Federer struggling with the idea that you need(ed) caution to go at Murray's backhand and that Murray had a good read on Federer's serve Federer was susceptible to Murray catching him out when his focus/form wasn't 100% there. The problem with that approach of "sucker the other guy into making a mistake" is it runs the risk of the other guy taking the match out of your hands. When you're as good at it as Murray is/was then against almost everyone else he could ride out any storms (e.g. Cilic, US Open 2012) and then reel them in. It doesn't work when the other guy is in the kind of form where they can keep it up for the next 5 hours, if need be. At the business end of slams, when Federer's form and focus was there (and he was likely mentally fresher than Murray), it was a flawed strategy.

There was an amusing tale when Sam Allardyce was at Newcastle Utd - Allardyce's tactics were so focused on nullifying the opposition that one of the players piped up with "boss, but what are we meant to do when we get the ball?". It kinda sums up Murray until Lendl got him to put more focus on a game plan that would force his opponent to deal with him rather than the other way round.

The British bookie had Murray the favorite for a lot of majors in 2009-2010.

I do remember Murray being talked up as the favourite for the USO in 09, which was all a bit previous. His run to the final the year before and his ranking being up to #2 going into the tournament had them a bit over excited.

 

[mike danny]

Also 2016 Wimbledon (and don't forget a lot of the British media had him as favourite for 2009 AO ).

Well, Murray was unlucky to run into Goatdasco in the 4th round at AO 2009. Also unlucky to run into an in-form Roddick at Wimb.

Murray would have reached a slam finsl and a semi without those goating opponents.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Couldn't really believe what I was seeing when A Rod took Murray to school in 2009. Like that Rafa Nadal song, Wimbledon 2009 is the one that got away from Roddick. A chance to not be left in the middle of nowhere.

 

[Fabresque]

Not really more bad match-ups.

Sure, Fed at 36+ has more bad match-ups due to his age, nothing more.

But Djokovic's bad match-ups were more damaging for him as they actually took slams away from him. Federer's didn't.

I think even back in the day Fed had more bad matchups than the other 2. Berdych was his boogeyman for a little and Tsonga would trouble him as well. Both of them took slams and masters from Fed. Birdman took away an OSG from him back in ‘04.

 

[mike danny]

I think even back in the day Fed had more bad matchups than the other 2. Berdych was his boogeyman for a little and Tsonga would trouble him as well. Both of them took slams and masters from Fed. Birdman took away an OSG from him back in ‘04.

True.

Berdman became a bad match-up after Fed lost a bit of his ability to deal with big hitters consistently. One win in 2004 doesn't prove anything though. Just a freak loss.

Tsonga was a bad match-up for Djoko too. He lead the H2H at one point.

 

[tennis_pro]

He didn't really trouble Fed, Fed just didn't care about tournaments outside of the Slams in 2007-2010 that much and that's here Murray got more than half of his wins - best-of-3 on HC in 2008-2010.

 

[zagor]

Murray was a very good player and a difficult opponent for Fed in BO3. I was watching their Madrid 2008 and YEC 2008 matches and saw how Federer wanted to win, but just couldn't. I don't believe he didn't give it his all. The man had a bad back and still did everything he could to try to beat Murray at the 2008 YEC. Murray was just too solid back then.

In slams, of course Fed was still supreme because he always brought a higher level in slams than in BO3.

After that early 6-2 lead though, Fed has been 12-5 against Murray, so he has figured out the match-up.

The Madrid match stands out to me, just because of the way Murray served Fed off court basically. Sometimes forget Murray used to have a big 1st serve before back issues started creeping in.

 

[NatF]

The Madrid match stands out to me, just because of the way Murray served Fed off court basically. Sometimes forget Murray used to have a big 1st serve before back issues started creeping in.

I feel like end of 08 was pretty close peak Murray on the quicker courts, he didn't put his best foot forward in the USO final but his match versus Nadal in the SF was maybe his best match at the USO.

 

[zagor]

I feel like end of 08 was pretty close peak Murray on the quicker courts, he didn't put his best foot forward in the USO final but his match versus Nadal in the SF was maybe his best match at the USO.

Yeah, probably. He showed so much variety in that USO match with Nadal, shame he sort of morphed into merely a super consistent baseliner later on. I don't think Murray ever really fulfilled his potential as a player, though of course you can say that for so many of the players throughout different eras.

 

[NatF]

Yeah, probably. He showed so much variety in that USO match with Nadal, shame he sort of morphed into merely a super consistent baseliner later on. I don't think Murray ever really fulfilled his potential as a player, though of course you can say that for so many of the players throughout different eras.

He became just another consistent baseline bot, it got him a lot of runner-up plates at slams though...

A lot of players seem to go in that direction as they get older, Djokovic did that himself comparing his 2011 to 2015. A guy like Berdych probably went in that direction, he never had the variety of a guy like Murray but he blunted his aggressive to become more consistent. Even Fed himself moving through from 2004/2005 to 2006 did the same - he still remained more aggressive than the other players I mentioned but he was essentially just an aggressive baseliner in 2006, where as in 2004 and 2005 I think he used more variety in his game. Should be no surprise that learning to play the percentages lends itself to more consistency - it's also a lot more boring though.

 

[Fabresque]

True.

Berdman became a bad match-up after Fed lost a bit of his ability to deal with big hitters consistently. One win in 2004 doesn't prove anything though. Just a freak loss.

Tsonga was a bad match-up for Djoko too. He lead the H2H at one point.

Tsonga at his best was a problem for everyone of the Big 3/4, none of them wanted to see his name in their quarter of the draw.

But, I firmly believe that Fed struggles more against other Top 10/fringe Top 10 players than the other two. There was one point where Raonic was giving him multiple issues on all surfaces, and he arguably stole Wimbledon 2016 from him (I think Fed would’ve done better than Raonic in the final v Murray). Not to mention the headaches random guys like Tiafoe and Millman would give him in 2017-2018. Even at his best, I think Cañas (??) beat him twice in 2 weeks, and ofc Murray in ‘06.

I just think it’s maybe easier for the other top players to play against Fed than the other 2, which is why Murray did better against him.

Not to say Djokovic and Nadal don’t have their random boogeymen (Djokovic v. Bautista Agut recently, Nadal v. Thiem pre-RG and any big server at Wimbledon).

 

[clout]

Also 2016 Wimbledon (and don't forget a lot of the British media had him as favourite for 2009 AO ).

Someone already mentioned that above so I was just adding onto that. Also, I’m pretty sure Novak was the favourite for ‘16 Wimbledon given he won the last 4 slams and the last 2 Wimbledon’s. Him losing to Querry was an absolute shocker, even tho it was inevitable he wasn’t going unbeaten forever.

 

[Mainad]

Someone already mentioned that above so I was just adding onto that. Also, I’m pretty sure Novak was the favourite for ‘16 Wimbledon given he won the last 4 slams and the last 2 Wimbledon’s. Him losing to Querry was an absolute shocker, even tho it was inevitable he wasn’t going unbeaten forever.

Murray was the form player on grass that year (had already won the Queen's title for the 5th time) and Djokovic, although fresh off his RG triumph, had yet to take a single set off Murray on that surface. They were at least joint favourites.

 

[clout]

Murray was the form player on grass that year (had already won the Queen's title for the 5th time) and Djokovic, although fresh off his RG triumph, had yet to take a single set off Murray on that surface. They were at least joint favourites.

Idk man I remember not even wanting to watch Wimbledon (Euro Cup was also going on) but mostly cuz I was expecting another Djokovic win

 

[clout]

No way 17AO. Djokovic was the runaway favorite there every year since 2011, barring 2018 when he was AWOL.

If they were to matchup again in the finals, I’d give the edge to Novak but Murray was the hotter player from his Wimbledon won onward

 

[mike danny]

Tsonga at his best was a problem for everyone of the Big 3/4, none of them wanted to see his name in their quarter of the draw.

But, I firmly believe that Fed struggles more against other Top 10/fringe Top 10 players than the other two. There was one point where Raonic was giving him multiple issues on all surfaces, and he arguably stole Wimbledon 2016 from him (I think Fed would’ve done better than Raonic in the final v Murray). Not to mention the headaches random guys like Tiafoe and Millman would give him in 2017-2018. Even at his best, I think Cañas (??) beat him twice in 2 weeks, and ofc Murray in ‘06.

I just think it’s maybe easier for the other top players to play against Fed than the other 2, which is why Murray did better against him.

Not to say Djokovic and Nadal don’t have their random boogeymen (Djokovic v. Bautista Agut recently, Nadal v. Thiem pre-RG and any big server at Wimbledon).

Murray did better against Djokovic than Federer though.

And this stuff about the top 10 fringe players being more trouble for Fed is only a recent thing. Not true overall, IMO.

 

[Wurm]

Tsonga at his best was a problem for everyone of the Big 3/4, none of them wanted to see his name in their quarter of the draw.

Tsonga has picked up the following wins against members of the big 4. Guess which is which?

6
6
4
2

 

[mike danny]

Tsonga has picked up the following wins against members of the big 4. Guess which is which?

6
6
4
2

In order from top to bottom without looking them up:

Federer
Djokovic
Nadal
Murray

I know Murray is his worst match-up. Only got one win at AO 2008 before Murray became a top player and another win in Toronto 2014 when Murray was struggling with his form.

 

[Phoenix1983]

He troubled Novak Djokovic, a lot. To wit:

- 2012 Olympics SF
- 2012 USO final
- 2013 W final
- 2016 YEC

And these are just the big matches he won. He also troubled him mightily in i.e. the 2012 AO SF and 2012 Shanghai final.

 

[metsman]

I never got why this was a big deal. Fed was lollygagging in smaller events from 04-06 too for the most part unless it was a big match or a late round against a good opponent. Watch him, he's not moving his feet at the same intensity, barely bending his knees, etc. Clear difference between Fed in the big matches and any other Fed for pretty much any version of Fed before late 11/2012 when he knew he had to go all out in the small events to get #1 and keep his ranking cause he couldn't count on 4 slam finals a year or clay for points.

Sure, Fed starting in 08's half baked level was no longer good enough to beat Murray, but he lost to tons of people outside slams in 08-10, not just Murray.

At the end of the day Murray has barely troubled the late prime/post prime Fed at big events when Fed wasn't seriously physically shot. That's all there is to it, it is what it is. Peak for peak he'd probably be even less of a problem than Hewitt was because Murray has more random mental fluctuations, isn't as quick around the court, and is probably even easier to coax short balls out of. If Murray had one of his good serving days he'd pose some more issues, but who knows how often that would be and Fed returned way better in those days too. The 2nd serve would be a much bigger liability than against the 08-12 mid court chip returnerer too.