Federer's soft spot for Andy Murray

It is something I have noticed for some time, it was not always like that, quite the opposite infact. Federer disliked Murray's game style, feeling it was too negative.

However, the Swiss has begun to warm to the Scot as his respect for his talent grew. For Federer to tell Murray during the trophy ceremony, at the 2010 Australian open final, not worry about the defeat because he knows he will win one, is quite something. It was not just that he said it, but he picked up the microphone, turned, and looked him straight in the eye. It was not part of his acceptance speech, to just tell the crowd and appear humble. That was quite the statement.

Since then, Federer has continually called Murray a great player, sure he has done that with a lot of players but there is a different feel about it when he compliments Murray, a genuine affection.

When Murray "a great tactian" according to the former World number 1, was struggling after the Australian Open loss this year, Federer was asked if he was surprised with the Scots performances which he replied, "no, I struggled hugely between the ages of 17-23, it is tough and especially after a few big losses in his career, I am confident he will come back."

Even before all this Federer claimed he thought Murray would one day dominate the slams, "If Murray wins a first grand slam title, that could possibly open the floodgates, and he could start dominating and winning slams, but I guess you just never know until he does it."

"It's important that you believe that you can do it, and Murray clearly has the game to do it, as otherwise he wouldn't have a winning record against me or so many titles already."

After he confirmed he thought Murray was one of the favourites for London, he said "I think Andy is definitely strong enough right now, and I think he's going to have a really good next year as well. That's the feeling I have."

I have never seen Federer continually back a player like he does Murray, I feel he prefers Murrays game style to Novaks or Rafas. Murray does play negative at times but it is the insane natual talent that Federer relates to. The half volley winner on the baseline against Roddick that Murray pulled off today is something I believe Djokovic and Nadal would not be able to execute, I know another man who could though...

Federer and Murray do have a soft spot for one another...

2010 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZYSAl0-gHU
2010 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXB4rNjVrSs
2008 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6SLVlX96MY

Some great memories.

Federer has also suggested improvements that Andy should make to become a better player.

Two different styles, but two wonderful players.

I think one reason is that Federer was heavily criticised by the press and fans for his first comments about Murray's game. He is now trying to correct that.

I'd be surprised if Federer was a fan of Murray's game though I am sure he recognises his strengths.

The guy's just being gracious in victory and fulfilling his role as an ambasdsador for the game, I'm sure I recall Rafa saying similar stuff about Murray as did Novak at after the AO 2011 final.

Also it's one of the questions the whole tennis world is asking "Will or Can Murray win a slam?". What do you want them to say? "Murray's rubbish and should give up now cause he'll never win one".

I can cry like Roger but unfortunately i can't play like him

That must have opened Fed's heart

In terms of natural talent, I place Murray 2nd after Federer in the top 4. Certainly it's not his game plan to win by exhausting the other guy and he plays a varied game. Maybe that influences Federer.

bogbrush wrote:In terms of natural talent, I place Murray 2nd after Federer in the top 4. Certainly it's not his game plan to win by exhausting the other guy and he plays a varied game. Maybe that influences Federer.

This rally answers your post BB!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuFXqFifRew

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:In terms of natural talent, I place Murray 2nd after Federer in the top 4. Certainly it's not his game plan to win by exhausting the other guy and he plays a varied game. Maybe that influences Federer.

This rally answers your post BB!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuFXqFifRew

so because he does it once it means it's his game plan? I remember that match against Benneteau and Murray was awful, couldn't put the ball in play when attacking, so he changed tack in the second set and chose to just play pat-a-cake and hope Benny's long week would catch up with him, which it did. More a case of executing plan B.

I agree with BB on this, for me in terms of pure talent (ie what he can do with a tennis ball) Murray is 2nd to Federer in the top 4.

I disagree. Murray is massively overrated. If he was anything but British, you wouldn't hear much about him.
He is good but nowhere near as good as Djokovic, Nadal and Federer. If he was, he'd be in front of them.

Mad for Chelsea wrote: I agree with BB on this, for me in terms of pure talent (ie what he can do with a tennis ball) Murray is 2nd to Federer in the top 4.

I totally disgree with this.

Yes, probably Murray has more touch on the ball.

In terms of shotmaking talent Djokovic is way ahead of Murray.

It's not like he does it once, Have you been watching Murray?...that's very much his game. Same happened v Mayer at Rome 11, against Gasquet twice, against Federer, Wawrinka, Haas, Dolgo and many many other players. Just look at the last SHanghai final v Ferrer!

There is this belief that because Murray mixes it up and throws a drop shot there and then, he is talented. I think this is largely exaggerated.

I know I am going to have a fight with all the Murray fans for saying that but that's what I think....actually what many of us observe!

Murray doesn't win his matches thanks to his great BH, but thanks to his soft sliced BH and legs. Like the 3 physical players he relies heavily on his fitness. The soft BH provides a shot without pace a la Hewitt asking the opponent to generate all the pace, depth and angle. That gives the opponent a tough task cause nowadays it's tough enough to shake a fast opponent off with a nice pacy shot coming at you, it's even harder to do that when you have a soft sliced shot coming at you.

I recognise he can be agressive too at time but way too rare and few in between.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote: I agree with BB on this, for me in terms of pure talent (ie what he can do with a tennis ball) Murray is 2nd to Federer in the top 4.

I totally disgree with this.

Yes, probably Murray has more touch on the ball.

In terms of shotmaking talent Djokovic is way ahead of Murray.

Exactly. Just look at Djoko's drop shot for instance. They are at least as good as Murray's.

But I am not surprised cause many tennis fans haven't really grasped the importance physique has in a player's game and can't quite discern what is down to fitness and sheer talent....despite my constant talking about it.

Tenez wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote: I agree with BB on this, for me in terms of pure talent (ie what he can do with a tennis ball) Murray is 2nd to Federer in the top 4.

I totally disgree with this.

Yes, probably Murray has more touch on the ball.

In terms of shotmaking talent Djokovic is way ahead of Murray.

Exactly. Just look at Djoko's drop shot for instance. They are at least as good as Murray's.

DJokovic is certainly a more talented player and overall a better player. The only areas I can see Murray slightly ahead of him are: the net game and the first serve which is more explosive. But again: it's not as accurate and consistent as Djokovic's.

I can't see someone with as weak a forehand as Murray's as a particularly talented tennis player. Sure, he has some talents but not the core talents that make great tennis players. I'm inclined to view his as the least talented of the 'top 4', and his results concur.

I think there's no shame in it: Fed, Nadal and Djoko are all tennis monsters imo

Least that dispells any rumours of Roger being 'arrogant'

As for the discussion about 'natural' hitters of the ball, I wouldn't put the likes of Djokovic and Nadal ahead of even Gasquet. Not a chance.

The whole 'natural' thing in tennis is 'feel' for the racquet and the ball. Something Nadal and Djokovic don't have in spades. Murray does have good hands, but I think he lacks a lot of control too.

Djokovic yes has a great drop shot, but his FH doesn't have lots of variation compared to say Murray or Nadal. All have similar BH's. You never see Nadal or Djokovic play slices off their FH as much as Murray which I think is the point BB is alluding to.

I think with Murray, there are a few confusing points:
1) he is clearly better than the rest below him in ranking(not including Federer); his consistency and number of titles clearly prove it.
2) He gets undue coverage that elevates him on the same level as the other top three, merely because of his nationality. Compare him to Delpo ho HAS won a slam (and in some style) and you see the discrepancy. Commentators generally go over the top in praising him when he is playing.
3) There is a massive difference between playing in a slam final and actually winning it, even winning a set in three matches, just ask Tsonga, Soderling Berdych,all slam finalists, but nobody hassles Borg, Becker, Cash etc with when any of those other players are going to win a slam. EVERY TIME.
4)I'd sum Murray best with So close yet so far to the Djokovic, Nadal, Federer trio.

Having said all the above, I must say I am impressed with Murray's attitude and perseverance. He's still working on his game, and I have noticed quite a few improvements: he is more aggressive now and his serving is better, he is also a little better on court mentally; still sing foul language a lot more/louder than he should. He also improved his fitness hugely and that is obviously helping his to release his game better. He has started to use his forehand in attacking, but despite the hard-hitting of it, it is still behind Federer's deadly pace or Novak's placement; which is where he will be losing his matches against those two.
Nole's shot-making o n both wings combined is second to nobody's when he is healthy.
2012 should open up more opportunities for him, but again, the other three players are still playing at their peak, so it will be hard.
Still, he is closer than before and it will be good to see how he fares with this improved package should he carve out another slam final appearance.

Easy to have a soft spot for a player when they fail to trouble you in the slams.

legendkillar wrote:.

The whole 'natural' thing in tennis is 'feel' for the racquet and the ball. Something Nadal and Djokovic don't have in spades. Murray does have good hands, but I think he lacks a lot of control too.

Djokovic yes has a great drop shot, but his FH doesn't have lots of variation compared to say Murray or Nadal. All have similar BH's. You never see Nadal or Djokovic play slices off their FH as much as Murray which I think is the point BB is alluding to.

I disgree with this bit: I think Djokovic's FH is really impressive and does have a great deal of variations.

As regards to natural talent: we are talking about the top 4. There is no question in my mind that lost in the top 500 there are scores of tennis geniuses that didn't quite have the right equipment to rise to the top: Gasquet probably being one of them.

legendkillar wrote:Least that dispells any rumours of Roger being 'arrogant'

As for the discussion about 'natural' hitters of the ball, I wouldn't put the likes of Djokovic and Nadal ahead of even Gasquet. Not a chance.

The whole 'natural' thing in tennis is 'feel' for the racquet and the ball. Something Nadal and Djokovic don't have in spades. Murray does have good hands, but I think he lacks a lot of control too.

Agree with that. We can add, Wawrinka, Dolgo, Nalby, Davydenko and quite a few more.

Djokovic yes has a great drop shot, but his FH doesn't have lots of variation compared to say Murray or Nadal.

That I disagree. The most over rated FH is actually Nadal. The ratio of winners/number of FHs hit is probably one of the lowest ratio in the tour. However due to the spin and power, it's a very difficult to attack so it generates lots of UEs. Murray's FH is really poor. With a better one he would have won all his matches this year v Nadal like Djoko did.

Djoko's FH is unorthodox (the grip) which explains his volleys not as good as Murray's but they are not bad either. But Djoko has a much better FH than Nadal and Murray.

nitb - Murray has definitely established himself head and shoulders above the chasing pack, none of them can boast 8 TMS wins and 3 slam finals or 4 slam SF's in one year. He has also beaten Nadal/Djoko/Fed on a fair few occasions in biggish matches that they would not have wanted to lose.

From the point of view of anyone outside the 'big 4', seeing Murray in half-way decent form on the other side of the net is not much different to seeing any of the other three.

However, I agree with you that he is not in the same calibre as the other three when facing them, and in terms of what he has achieved he is way below them.

Delpo is something of an oddity - no TMS wins, but that Slam when (let's face it) he was lucky to play Nadal at a low ebb for the latter but (give him credit) he did what he had to in the final to take advantage of Federer stupidly self-combusting. Even so, I'd say that all told you have to rank Murray above Delpo.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

legendkillar wrote:.

The whole 'natural' thing in tennis is 'feel' for the racquet and the ball. Something Nadal and Djokovic don't have in spades. Murray does have good hands, but I think he lacks a lot of control too.

Djokovic yes has a great drop shot, but his FH doesn't have lots of variation compared to say Murray or Nadal. All have similar BH's. You never see Nadal or Djokovic play slices off their FH as much as Murray which I think is the point BB is alluding to.

I disgree with this bit: I think Djokovic's FH is really impressive and does have a great deal of variations.

As regards to natulal talent: we are talking about the top 4. There is no question in my mind that lost in the top 500 there are scores of tennis geniuses that didn't quite have the right equipment to rise to the top: Gasquet probably being one of them.

I would like to see examples of this. He has great control on his FH, but doesn't have variation like Murray or Federer.

Gasquet is boring though, he moves like he's got a lorry tied to his feet. He may hit 1 nice shot in a rally but then he surrounds the nice shot with several weak efforts.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Least that dispells any rumours of Roger being 'arrogant'

As for the discussion about 'natural' hitters of the ball, I wouldn't put the likes of Djokovic and Nadal ahead of even Gasquet. Not a chance.

The whole 'natural' thing in tennis is 'feel' for the racquet and the ball. Something Nadal and Djokovic don't have in spades. Murray does have good hands, but I think he lacks a lot of control too.

Agree with that. We can add, Wawrinka, Dolgo, Nalby, Davydenko and quite a few more.

Djokovic yes has a great drop shot, but his FH doesn't have lots of variation compared to say Murray or Nadal.

That I disagree. The most over rated FH is actually Nadal. The ratio of winners/number of FHs hit is probably one of the lowest ratio in the tour. However due to the spin and power, it's a very difficult to attack so it generates lots of UEs. Murray's FH is really poor. With a better one he would have won all his matches this year v Nadal like Djoko did.

Djoko's FH is unorthodox (the grip) which explains his volleys not as good as Murray's but they are not bad either. But Djoko has a much better FH than Nadal and Murray.

See I disagree on that point because Nadal can generate a lot of spin and Djokovic hits flat FH's. If both had both variations they would be unstoppable.

Murray and Federer can hit both. Murray doesn't down to lack of belief he has using more power in a flatter FH

noleisthebest wrote:... 2012 should open up more opportunities for him, but again, the other three players are still playing at their peak, so it will be hard. ...

Although some might disagree it seems to me that Roger Federer is past his career "peak" in terms of level of play. He seems a little slower to me.

Although some might disagree it seems to me that Roger Federer is past his career "peak" in terms of level of play. He seems a little slower to me.

Who in their right mind would disagree? Probably Djoko hangers-on who believe he beat Federer 2.0!

legendkillar wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

legendkillar wrote:.

The whole 'natural' thing in tennis is 'feel' for the racquet and the ball. Something Nadal and Djokovic don't have in spades. Murray does have good hands, but I think he lacks a lot of control too.

Djokovic yes has a great drop shot, but his FH doesn't have lots of variation compared to say Murray or Nadal. All have similar BH's. You never see Nadal or Djokovic play slices off their FH as much as Murray which I think is the point BB is alluding to.

I disgree with this bit: I think Djokovic's FH is really impressive and does have a great deal of variations.

As regards to natulal talent: we are talking about the top 4. There is no question in my mind that lost in the top 500 there are scores of tennis geniuses that didn't quite have the right equipment to rise to the top: Gasquet probably being one of them.

I would like to see examples of this. He has great control on his FH, but doesn't have variation like Murray or Federer.

http://tpatennis.net/is-djokovics-flat-forehand-the-key-to-his-success/

Basically Djokovic's FH has variations because he can hit spin and flat, like Fed does all the time, clearly at another level. Murray has problems in hitting the flat FH consistently. Nadal hit only the spin.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

Although some might disagree it seems to me that Roger Federer is past his career "peak" in terms of level of play. He seems a little slower to me.

Who in their right mind would disagree? Probably Djoko hangers-on who believe he beat Federer 2.0!

let's not go down that route JM, you know you can't stomach the truth !

legendkillar wrote:See I disagree on that point because Nadal can generate a lot of spin and Djokovic hits flat FH's. If both had both variations they would be unstoppable.

Murray and Federer can hit both. Murray doesn't down to lack of belief he has using more power in a flatter FH

Djoko doesn't hit flat at all. At times yes but rarely. He topspins quite a bit but his advantage over Nadal is that he can do it taking the ball earlier so he can create more pace than Nadal.

If you watch Nadal's game, his FH is actually terrible. So many times he could put the ball away but doesn't. I know a lot to do is to keep rallying and tire his opponent but he does it v Djoko too when he knows it doesn;t work in his favour. Nadal's inside out FH is good because it's easy for him. lower part of the net, longest diaginal and most players are dealing with his short angled CC FH. But he often needs to his 5 CC to surprise them with the inside out FH.

Nore Staat wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:... 2012 should open up more opportunities for him, but again, the other three players are still playing at their peak, so it will be hard. ...

Although some might disagree it seems to me that Roger Federer is past his career "peak" in terms of level of play. He seems a little slower to me.

Well I certainly disagree regarding 2011. 2012 might be a different story though.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

legendkillar wrote:.

The whole 'natural' thing in tennis is 'feel' for the racquet and the ball. Something Nadal and Djokovic don't have in spades. Murray does have good hands, but I think he lacks a lot of control too.

Djokovic yes has a great drop shot, but his FH doesn't have lots of variation compared to say Murray or Nadal. All have similar BH's. You never see Nadal or Djokovic play slices off their FH as much as Murray which I think is the point BB is alluding to.

I disgree with this bit: I think Djokovic's FH is really impressive and does have a great deal of variations.

As regards to natulal talent: we are talking about the top 4. There is no question in my mind that lost in the top 500 there are scores of tennis geniuses that didn't quite have the right equipment to rise to the top: Gasquet probably being one of them.

I would like to see examples of this. He has great control on his FH, but doesn't have variation like Murray or Federer.

http://tpatennis.net/is-djokovics-flat-forehand-the-key-to-his-success/

Basically Djokovic's FH has variations because he can hit spin and flat, like Fed does all the time, clearly at another level. Murray has problems in hitting the flat FH consistently. Nadal hit only the spin.

I think it this is for me to say I agree to disagree. I can't say that I see 'great' variation in the spin on Djokovic's FH. buts just me and I shall sit in the minority of 1 group

Nadal's forehand has enough pace and spin to drag opponents off court, in 2010 he had the rest of the tour on a string with his forehand. And Wimbledon 2011 VS Murray his forehand was creative, not at all one-dimensional.

Wow, how fast did my comment get deleted.....not liking it at all

droogle wrote:Nadal's forehand has enough pace and spin to drag opponents off court, in 2010 he had the rest of the tour on a string with his forehand. And Wimbledon 2011 VS Murray his forehand was creative, not at all one-dimensional.

He went through 2010 without meeting his usual opponents (bar in WTF) and Murray who we know hasn;t got the FH to hurt Nadal so it's not a good year to assess Nadal's FH. He played better in 2011 and his FH has been exposed by a player who can rally with him. The fact is if one can handle that CC FH of his (Delpo, Djoko, Davydenko), Nadal is a bit toothless.

LK

Obviously Nadal's FH is massive. just not as varied as others in the top 10.

Obviously Nadal's FH is massive. just not as varied as others in the top 10.

It doesn't need to be, when he plays at his top level, only Djokovic can beat him. Even with much less power than he normally uses, he was able to push Djokovic to a 4th set in the US.

BTW this topic is about Fed/Murray.

But I have never seen a shot (Nadal's FH) being so dependant on energy level. When Gasquet, Federer, Tsonga even Murray gets tired for instance, their FH or BH don;t drop in length. They shank a bit more maybe but to compensate for lack of strength, they hit flatter and try to hurt more. Nadal when tired has his shots falling before the T line and he get hammered by anybody almost. That to me is teh bog diference between Nadal an dteh other players. I don;t think he can "naturally" or efficiently generate pace.

When both Djoko and Nadal got tired in that USO's 4th set, the one with teh best shots won even more easily.

I haven't read all the posts above. Tevez, I am a pretty good fan of your persuasive argument without wholly agreeing with you. I do believe that all top 4s are talented, but that is not the point of this post. There is differential spacing of them in the talent hirearchy, in my view......

Do we find some evidence from great players' writings to support your theory about fitness being the sole 'talent' of these top 3? E. g. Do any autobiographical quotes help support you. Recall reading serious, and reading reference to others training harder than JM. I haven't read any hard back stuff, but would love to read quotes from the successful ones supporting your hypothesis.

I haven't read all the posts above. Tevez, I am a pretty good fan of your persuasive argument without wholly agreeing with you. I do believe that all top 4s are talented, but that is not the point of this post. There is differential spacing of them in the talent hirearchy, in my view......

Do we find some evidence from great players' writings to support your theory about fitness being the sole 'talent' of these top 3? E. g. Do any autobiographical quotes help support you. Recall reading serious, and reading reference to others training harder than JM. I haven't read any hard back stuff, but would love to read quotes from the successful ones supporting your hypothesis.

Tevez? surely, you mean Tenez

noleisthebest wrote:Tevez? surely, you mean Tenez

Same difference - one is a tyrannical anarchist and the other plays for Manchester City.

I'm outta here.......

Just a joke Tenez.

Starting Murray-Berdych in Paris now.

3 BPs for Berdych. Focus Andy.

Andy Murray breaks Berdych to lead 4-3.

Ha ha! Federer says something diplomatic about Murray and somehow its interpreted as Murray is better than Djokovic or even Murray is better than Nadal.

Manojchandra wrote:
Do we find some evidence from great players' writings to support your theory about fitness being the sole 'talent' of these top 3?

I never said physique is their "sole talent". What I am saying is that if you are extra fit, talent plays a very small role in the outcome of a match on those slower (or spiny) conds. That's all I am saying. And we don;t need to have anyone supporting this view, we just have to look at what players work on nowadays. And they all work on fitness essentially and are all very vocal about it. It did not matter how talented Djoko was last year, he coudl not last the distance and lost most of his matches v Federer and Nadal. Did Djoko get "more talented" in 2011 or fitter? And what makes him the player he is now? Murray understands that perfectly. You woudl think he would want to improve his FH don't you? But that's not his priority. In his interview he says clearly he needs to get as fit as teh other 2...or 3. What do you think makes the difference between Nadal going through the slams round pretty easily and then losing to Mayer in 2 sets in Shanghai? Mayer becoming more talented suddenly or Nadal's physique dropping? We can see that day in day out on the tour if you pay attention.

One woudl have to have more talent than Federer to win those guys without being as fit as him. Chances of having such player is very thin and then he would have to produce consistently to win a slam. Tall order when you have Murray, Djoko, Nadal and Federer to overcome in succession.

Tenez

You appear to favour something called talent over physical ability. Is it because of its innate or natural quality. Do you think talent is something players are born with? Or not born with...

If so do you think physical ability is also something you can be born with? I think it can be. I also think its something that hard work, diet etc can improve.

My question is (if you are still awake). Do you value "talent" because it is innate or natural. If so do you value innate physical ability above the sort that is "worked" at?

hawkeye wrote:Tenez

You appear to favour something called talent over physical ability. Is it because of its innate or natural quality. Do you think talent is something players are born with? Or not born with...

If so do you think physical ability is also something you can be born with? I think it can be. I also think its something that hard work, diet etc can improve.

My question is (if you are still awake). Do you value "talent" because it is innate or natural. If so do you value innate physical ability above the sort that is "worked" at?

Good questions HE. I certainly value talent more than physical aptitude, especially in this day and age where the physical aptitude can easily be acquired. If the physical aptitude was 100% naturel I would value it a lot. In boxing for instance, I might recognise than Ali was the more talented but I always prefered the natural physique of a Tyson or Foreman. I was a big fan of Borg whose footwork certainly was great for the time. Nowaday the top 100 can run as fast and as long as Borg thanks to training and diet. Being able to hit a ball with pace effortlessy is a special quality you can't acquire, well you can improve it but out of the millions players out there, some are naturally better at it than others. Those with less talent at clean hittting prefer to add spin to make their shots safer....at the cost of requiring more energy to hit the ball and also from having to retrieve the ball from the cleaner hitters.

However, clean hitting is largely affected by your fitness. I took the example the other day of biathlon (country skiing and shooting), tennis is similar to biathlon for obvious reasons. The shooting precision goes down the more the skier races. Nowadays in slower tennis, you can engage a clean(er) hitter in rallies, tiring him and blunt his sharpness. Sampras went on to win on 3 slam surfaces but on clay he was dragged in long battles until his serve and volley, along with his baseline game lost that sharpness. Same between EdbergvCHang or LendlvWilander at the FO.

Federer's soft spot for Murray has just grown; 3 hour+ match he made his opponent work, with Fed ready to get revenge!

Tenez wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Tenez

You appear to favour something called talent over physical ability. Is it because of its innate or natural quality. Do you think talent is something players are born with? Or not born with...

If so do you think physical ability is also something you can be born with? I think it can be. I also think its something that hard work, diet etc can improve.

My question is (if you are still awake). Do you value "talent" because it is innate or natural. If so do you value innate physical ability above the sort that is "worked" at?

Good questions HE. I certainly value talent more than physical aptitude, especially in this day and age where the physical aptitude can easily be acquired. If the physical aptitude was 100% naturel I would value it a lot.

Interesting questions and answers. Who do you guys think has the most natural physical aptitude out of the current top 4?

On the subject of forehands, I don't necessarily think that the ratio of winners to shots made with a particular shot is the best metric to judge by. If a shot makes life difficult for the opponent then it also a good shot. Nadal does have more margin for error, but his forehand asks a lot of questions and is hard to play against. Sure, it doesn't have the rapier quality of Federer's, more like death by a thousand cuts, but I enjoy it nonetheless.