You are right, sir. Fed did have a positive H2H of 1-0 with Murray at one point.
Not that it matters that much anyway, I only remember because Murray was talked about as a talented promising youngster, something that is completely and utterly lacking these days unfortunately, I've never seen a worse group of young players in all my years of watching tennis.
It's tough to tell, but you are probably right. Do you think RoFed is just hunting for a higher slam count at this point, regardless of any other considerations?
In short yes, I think he wants to win as many slams as possible and is also one of those guys who truly enjoy the tennis life, not just the game itself but all that comes with it in a package.
This is an extremely interesting topic. You have to consider that the implications (in his matchup with Nadal, for example) are not so detrimental for Federer.
Did you mean to say are detrimental for Fed?
The age difference should have benefited Federer at the beginning of their history, because Nadal was 17 while Federer was 22 and entering his prime.
To be honest I consider Nadal to be a special case in how he matches-up with Fed so while the age difference should have benefited Fed in theory when he was at his peak and Nadal a young up and comer the reality is that Nadal's game even in it's rawest form presented so much trouble for Fed that he sort of needed to adapt and try to modify his game to successfully counter what Nadal's game brings to the table in this specific match-up.
I actually feel Fed these days plays Nadal much better tactic/gameplan wise but his diminished physical skills make it harder for him to execute successfully.
I think Fed would have benefited the most against Nadal if both were the same age for several reasons:
-More time to figure it out the best tactic against him.
-Nadal would not be coming on the scene as an underdog against Fed which is the type of mentality he (Nadal) is most comfortable in.
-Their matches would be more evenly distributed across different surfaces (and Fed would be facing Nadal in off clay slams at Fed's absolute peak) which helps everyone (Fed included) against Nadal almost by default since even though he's great on most surfaces today he's not an unstoppable juggernaut of destruction on them like he is on clay.
-Expected (obviously a guess on my part, the jury is still out on that one) better longevity from Fed, I don't think Nadal would be able to put on kind of performance Fed did last year at FO for example at the age of 30.
Obviously this is all highly hypothetical.
I am aware of the clay imbalance, and that it plays a huge factor in the case of Nadal.
That's the way it is, very few match-ups tennis are evenly distributed across different surfaces, clay is a legit surface as any other.
But the same can be applied to Murray and Djokovic. Federer would have benefited from the age difference at the beginning of the matchups, although now in theory the trend should have been reversed.
Yes, but every benefit Fed had isn't IMO comparable to Novak and Murray facing a 30-31 Fed at the ages of 24-25.
The problem is that this is not the case. For example, Murray had a 6-2 advantage in the first half of their matchup, which goes against the common wisdom that Fed's age has hurt him. It's rather the opposite.
True, but it isn't just about age but mileage, playing level etc. for example Murray got a series of wins over Fed in BO3 format in 2008 when Fed was losing (even badly at times like IW SF to Fish) to people whom he owned under any conditions before (Roddick, Blake, Karlovic, Fish etc.)
At no point during 2004-2006 for example (and even 2007 despite his losses to Canas) Fed looked so vulnerable in BO3 format on HC, in 2008 he was losing to people who barely took sets off him before.
Funny thing is, even say in 2011/2012 (so far) Fed seemed considerably more solid in BO3 matches than he did in 2008, goes to show I guess how many variables go into every year making it unique even though we as fans have a tendency to simplify things (peak Fed, baby Rafa, weak era, strong era etc.)
Yes, it is debatable in all sorts of ways. Extremely debatable. I personally think Fed has been tested more in the latter part of his career, but that is a (biased) opinion.
Well it's a fact Fed was more tested in the latter part of his career, people just have different opinions on whether that was because of his decline, stronger opposition or some combination of both.
The matchup is of relative importance, but someone could argue so are the slams. It's dangerous to relativize things too much. The best thing to do is get the data and try to explain why things are the way they are.
Well obviously it depends on one's viewpoint which is affected by various things, for example the fact that I grew up (more or less) watching Sampras probably influenced my view on the importance on slams because the best player of that era valued it so much highly above everything else (more than any other player today even).
I think Fed is extremely talented, but I also think he has more weaknesses than many people realize, starting with his mental strength. I can't help to notice sometimes that it seems as if Federer has been told he's destined for greatness so often, that he has believed it to a point that sometimes he feels he shouldn't have to suffer on the court or exert himself to the level that those other "lowly contenders" do.
Every player has chinks in his/her armour, that's inevitable, Fed is no exception (even if some Fed fans go overboard with Fed's game is perfect nonsense).
