Zverev on Murray and Federer

cknobman

Legend
During the post match presser Mischa Zverev was asked about his performance and the match against Roger Federer.

This is part of what he had to say:
“I think he did not really let me play,” said Zverev. “It's more like his shots were a little bit different than Andy's (Murray). It was definitely hard to read where he was going, where he's returning. He just has so many more options. How he can, like, outplay me or pass me. It was different, definitely different.”
http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/federer-zverev-australian-open-2017-tuesday

Interesting to hear that.

Dig at Murray or compliment to Roger?
 
So they both play different games. Others might find Murray difficult to face. Federer better serve and fh, murray stronger bh.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Some more interesting quips today :

Q. Andy Roddick stated you were lucky he retired because he won the last match. He was joking.
ROGER FEDERER: We joke a lot, the two of us

.@andyroddick on why Fed/Rafa final could be historic: if Fed goes up 18-14, unlikely to be caught. If 17-15 w/RG coming, it's a horse race.

"Please don't lose, Daddy, we want to stay here for longer!" - We love @Melbourne too, #Federer clan! #AusOpen

Ryan Harrison : Fed is one of the best at bringing you forward on his terms. He has amazing hands and passing shots


John McEnroe is certainly impressed by Mischa #Zverev's serve and volley game: "You did it old school." You are my favorite player
#AusOpen
 

tacou

G.O.A.T.
I do not see it as a dig. Murray likes being behind the baseline and finding rhythm. Fed plays forst strike tennis. His comments make sense
 

TennisLovaLova

Hall of Fame
Zverev politely said and meant what we all already know: Murray is an overrated #1, an overachiever in the Boring Era.
He also meant that everyone plays regular tennis while Federer plays something different, like chess or whatever, not the usual grindfest stuff.
 

BGod

G.O.A.T.
Point blank, Murray and Djokovic play a higher percentage game. It really is THAT simple.

The reason Federer doesn't play that same game is largely because he doesn't have the stamina for it. There's a reason he has a relatively poor 5 set record against top opponents, going back to his younger years before his prime but also in it. He could beat a Tommy Haas and an inexperienced Del Potro, but he would almost surely lose to a Nadal, more confidence Del Potro, Djokovic and even the odd Tsonga type match. So he plays a higher risk game.

The other thing to understand is Roger values adapting to different style and thus I suspect he spends more time on things Murray and Djokovic don't. They just keep practicing their shots for grinding baseline percentage.
 

Kalin

Legend
Its just reality. Federer has more shots than Murray and his intensity makes Murray look pedestrian.

Chinese TV commentator today: " See how easily Federer handles Zverev? Murray can do 80% of what Federer can, why couldn't he do it? It shows he still has a lot to learn to be a proper No.1" :cool:

BTW, the above is an actual quote; I'm not making it up.
 

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
Chinese TV commentator today: " See how easily Federer handles Zverev? Murray can do 80% of what Federer can, why couldn't he do it? It shows he still has a lot to learn to be a proper No.1" :cool:

BTW, the above is an actual quote; I'm not making it up.
I believe you. I don't necessarily agree with that qualification, though. What does "proper No. 1" mean exactly? The ranking doesn't change who he is. Murray is a hugely successful player who plays within himself and this has stunted his development. He could be number 1 for 10 years straight, it won't change that.
 

Kalin

Legend
I believe you. I don't necessarily agree with that qualification, though. What does "proper No. 1" mean exactly? The ranking doesn't change who he is. Murray is a hugely successful player who plays within himself and this has stunted his development. He could be number 1 for 10 years straight, it won't change that.

I think it was more of a compliment to Fed, to be honest, they love him here. It was also a criticism of Murray that he should have found a way to win that match. I agree that his exact ranking doesn't matter but they were comparing him to Fed who, of course, was also No. 1 for a little while :)

One wonders, though, how much better Murray would have got if he had learned to be just a tad more aggressive in his game. His defense and anticipation are incredible but he likes to make life hard for himself by being a little too passive and rely on scrambling and the other guy eventually messing up. Works for him most of the time, granted, but still...
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
During the post match presser Mischa Zverev was asked about his performance and the match against Roger Federer.

This is part of what he had to say:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/federer-zverev-australian-open-2017-tuesday

Interesting to hear that.

Dig at Murray or compliment to Roger?

That is pretty much how I read the two matches, i.e, what worked for Zverev against Murray that didn't against Fed. Fed was more proactive. Murray is not Fedal and probably never will be and this match made that pretty clear. If you saw the Brisbane whopping Nadal handed to Zverev, he too simply didn't let him play. He did it in his brutal 'vamos' style lol, but he did it alright. Murray couldn't hit a forehand past Zverev, period. This does not make him an undeserved no.1 considering messrs Roddick, Rios, Safin have been ranked that.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
I think it was more of a compliment to Fed, to be honest, they love him here. It was also a criticism of Murray that he should have found a way to win that match. I agree that his exact ranking doesn't matter but they were comparing him to Fed who, of course, was also No. 1 for a little while :)

One wonders, though, how much better Murray would have got if he had learned to be just a tad more aggressive in his game. His defense and anticipation are incredible but he likes to make life hard for himself by being a little too passive and rely on scrambling and the other guy eventually messing up. Works for him most of the time, granted, but still...

Perhaps his years on the tour are catching up with him even as he has reached his zenith. He beat Llodra in 2013 just by being able to run down volleys like a hare and basically being very agile. One or two more matches like this one and the book will be out on him. Then, just like Nadal got Rosol-ed at Wimbledon or even elsewhere (Klizan, for eg), players will start to make it a point to rush Murray esp if they know they can't beat him from the baseline.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
Zverev does not have as good a serve as Sampras or Karlovic, and he was not good at putting away many easy volleys
 

Kalin

Legend
Perhaps his years on the tour are catching up with him even as he has reached his zenith. He beat Llodra in 2013 just by being able to run down volleys like a hare and basically being very agile. One or two more matches like this one and the book will be out on him. Then, just like Nadal got Rosol-ed at Wimbledon or even elsewhere (Klizan, for eg), players will start to make it a point to rush Murray esp if they know they can't beat him from the baseline.

Great point. Of course, the faster surface helped; the sun being out also made it a bit tougher for him. It's a tiny bit harder to thread a passing shot with all the glare, making it harder to see the ball.

But I agree that his style isn't getting any easier once he, inevitably, ages and slows down a bit. We see the same with Rafa (his current good play notwithstanding) and even with Joker. Roger benefits so much by being aggressive and playing shorter points.
 

Flash

Rookie
Look at where Murray and Federer played, behind the baseline vs coming forward on returns and many other shots. Federer just took the time from Zverev and used some of his own weapons against him.

Not really a surprise looking back at the many Federer - Roddick matches, where Federer took every opportunity of Roddick approaching the net to produce half volley passing winners, much like he did today
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
I think it was more of a compliment to Fed, to be honest, they love him here. It was also a criticism of Murray that he should have found a way to win that match. I agree that his exact ranking doesn't matter but they were comparing him to Fed who, of course, was also No. 1 for a little while :)

One wonders, though, how much better Murray would have got if he had learned to be just a tad more aggressive in his game. His defense and anticipation are incredible but he likes to make life hard for himself by being a little too passive and rely on scrambling and the other guy eventually messing up. Works for him most of the time, granted, but still...
you and hypotheticals :rolleyes:

yea, it would be nice if Murray were more aggressive. it would be nice if Federer was less stubborn and more adaptable, like finally accepting the use of the drop shot to win his one FO, and then also maybe he wouldn't have such a lopsided losing record against his greatest rival.

see how that goes...
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
you and hypotheticals :rolleyes:

yea, it would be nice if Murray were more aggressive. it would be nice if Federer was less stubborn and more adaptable, like finally accepting the use of the drop shot to win his one FO, and then also maybe he wouldn't have such a lopsided losing record against his greatest rival.

see how that goes...
If Murray managed to expand his game by being more aggressive, he would have accomplished more and won more than 3 slams. This way, he would have more options or plan B when facing all different type of players on the tour.

I think Federer adapt the game pretty well throughout the course of his career when they started to slow down all the hard court and grass. He had to tweaked his game to adjust the unfavorable conditions and was successful(even on blue clay). While he wasn't able to adapt to Nadal's lefty and spin, but the important goal is to adapt to the playing field, which no player plays like Nadal. Since Federer is the most successful player(argument for Laver), no one can question his adaptability against the players, conditions, technologies, etc..
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
If Murray managed to expand his game by being more aggressive, he would have accomplished more and won more than 3 slams. This way, he would have more options or plan B when facing all different type of players on the tour.

I think Federer adapt the game pretty well throughout the course of his career when they started to slow down all the hard court and grass. He had to tweaked his game to adjust the unfavorable conditions and was successful(even on blue clay). While he wasn't able to adapt to Nadal's lefty and spin, but the important goal is to adapt to the playing field, which no player plays like Nadal. Since Federer is the most successful player(argument for Laver), no one can question his adaptability against the players, conditions, technologies, etc..
well again, Federer didn't really start to win slams until court-condition homogenization had already began, so...

I agree regarding Murray. I also think Federer has relatively recently been more adaptable, but for much of his career he was incredibly stubborn and simply refused certain tactics as if they were beneath him.
 

ibbi

G.O.A.T.
I mean it's obviously a Federer compliment. The fact that Roger is an aggressive, attacking player and gives you less time and chance to impose your will makes this a fairly obvious call. I also think Roger will have benefited from being able to watch and study the match with Murray, while I don't know that Murray will have had any reason to assume Zverev could play like that for 3 out of 5 sets.
 

okdude1992

Hall of Fame
Well Mischa is admittedly a big Fed fan, so that probably played a bit of a factor. Not to mention, Fed is probably the best ever at dealing with attacking players. The man loves a target. Really bad matchup for Zverev.

PS the memories of this couldn't have helped :
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
He fleshed it out more here. Not a dig at Murray at all. Some interesting points really. Confirms what many of us see: Fed has a unique wrist.

Mischa Zverev gave an interesting insight into why he was able to beat Andy Murray, yet made no impression on Federer. “Federer can accelerate with his wrist far more than Murray can,” explained the German after his 92-minute 6-1 7-5 6-2 defeat. “As a result, you can get a much better sense from Murray which way his shots are going, whether it’s down the line or cross court. With Roger, you have no idea. He also takes the ball so much earlier than Murray, he gets more spin on it, and he has eight different serves that he can use. Those differences really disturb the way I play, whereas when Andy plays Roger, he can use his greater strength to counter Roger’s advantages, whereas I don’t have the same strength.”
 

big ted

Legend
i only saw highlights but it looked like federer played the whole match on top of or inside the baseline, and making mischa hit his first volleys on his shoestrings. murray was standing too far back and not getting the ball back low, like he didn't know how to play or just isn't used to playing serve and volleyers. if you think about it federer is probably the only one on tour left that has enough experience playing that type of player since he's been on tour since the late 90's
 

Incognito

Legend
I like Mischa. He acknowledges greatness when he sees one. After Nadal beat him badly in Brisbane, he said: "He (Nadal) killed me. I never felt like I had a chance".

Fedal Love passing people at the net. They are among the greatest passers of all time.


Sir Murray was really horrible in that match though. It was probably his E-level.
 
Last edited:

watungga

Professional
Federer started on tour where the S&V game was still popular. His current strokes was a perfect tool against net aggressors. He has this eye-on-ball stroke impact trained actually for netter's very tight open targets. Zverev gave him a blast from the past and he loved it like it was the old days.
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
well again, Federer didn't really start to win slams until court-condition homogenization had already began, so...

I agree regarding Murray. I also think Federer has relatively recently been more adaptable, but for much of his career he was incredibly stubborn and simply refused certain tactics as if they were beneath him.
I agree, but let's also remember that the other top guys also have been stubborn about not changing - no one is more stubborn than Nadal. Murray and Djokovic are not adapting to a more aggressive game. Perhaps the best at changing tactics has been Wawrinka.
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
Zverev is just stating the obvious. Not even Judy Murray would claim Andy is a greater or more talented player than Roger. As Annacone used to say, "Roger has so many tools in his arsenal it's just sick." In fairness to Andy, he played a horrible match. 99/100 times he destroys Z-man out there.
 

donquijote

G.O.A.T.
When I was watching the highlights, first thing I noticed how Roger kept his options open until he hit the ball when Mischa was at the net. Even I, watching it from a comfortable chair was not able to read which way he was going to hit. But this was also partly because Mischa was not at the same level that he was against Murray and gave Federer some comfortable angles and extra time compared to the previous match.
 

mistik

Hall of Fame
It isnt fair to judge Murray by one bad loss. There was surprise factor in that match. As far Roger he was more ready. I can see Murray beating Zverev easily next time around.
 
C

Chadillac

Guest
A compliment to Fed. Murray is what he is, he isnt blowing anyone off the court.
 

jstr

Rookie
The Djokovic vs. Zverev match in Shanghai was also interesting.
3 different players and styles of dealing with this type of player.
 

oble

Hall of Fame
Zverev does not have as good a serve as Sampras or Karlovic, and he was not good at putting away many easy volleys
LOL. He is good at putting away easy volleys. He just wasn't getting many easy volleys from Federer with just about every return dipping at his feet. On the other hand, Murray's flatter groundstrokes gave Zverev way more easy first volleys.
 

Defcon

Hall of Fame
Murray has maybe 1/10th the variety and tactics of Fed and zero ability to generate his own pace, plus his game is to wait for errors or react, he's never going to take initiative.

When he faces a hot player who can handle his pushing, he'll lose.
 

smoledman

G.O.A.T.
Some more interesting quips today :

Ryan Harrison : Fed is one of the best at bringing you forward on his terms. He has amazing hands and passing shots

Fed hits that short slice to the deuce court that draws players in and he eats them up with the next shot. The only players it doesn't really work against is Nadal & Djokovic.
 

smoledman

G.O.A.T.
Murray has maybe 1/10th the variety and tactics of Fed and zero ability to generate his own pace, plus his game is to wait for errors or react, he's never going to take initiative.

When he faces a hot player who can handle his pushing, he'll lose.

I'm amazed that nearly 30yo Murray still has no forehand that anyone fears.
 

noobforehand20

Professional
in mischas perspective, against murray he can try to attack all the time and execute well because murray usually respond to that by stepping back on the court, roger does not do that, zverev can try to take it early all the time and yet federer won't give any court. that to me is the biggest difference zverev had to deal with in those 2 matches
 

NuBas

Legend
I wanna know what Zverev's ranking will be after this, he said he wanted to break his personal best of 45.

Mischa is a mature, polite, professional guy so I don't think he would purposely try to insult anyone. He was just complimenting RF.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Point blank, Murray and Djokovic play a higher percentage game. It really is THAT simple.

The reason Federer doesn't play that same game is largely because he doesn't have the stamina for it. There's a reason he has a relatively poor 5 set record against top opponents, going back to his younger years before his prime but also in it. He could beat a Tommy Haas and an inexperienced Del Potro, but he would almost surely lose to a Nadal, more confidence Del Potro, Djokovic and even the odd Tsonga type match. So he plays a higher risk game.

The other thing to understand is Roger values adapting to different style and thus I suspect he spends more time on things Murray and Djokovic don't. They just keep practicing their shots for grinding baseline percentage.
He'd probably beat Rafter prime for prime though.
 
Top