Federer's soft spot for Andy Murray

First topic message reminder :

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...

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

That question is worth a thread of its own!

I'd say the man from the mountains. He is built with open and squared shoulders, thin and powerful arms and legs like a climber and has footwork and rhythm of a South African dancer. Federer would have been another Leander Paes witout his amazing physique. Then Nadal or Djoko (but I'd put Tsonga and Monfils ahead of them) then last of the 4 Murray who would probably be another Jamie Murray without the hard work.

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.

But Nadal's FH doesn't hurt. If a player could outlast physically he could choose to rally indefinetely with Nadal. It's actually what Djoko does. If you look at Nadal he struggles putting balls away with his FH. I invite anybody to go and rewatch the USO final and see the difficulty Nadal has in hurting Djoko with his FH. Tsip does a better job. No kidding! Nadal's FH invites to rally. That's Nadal's strength, not his FH.

Tenez wrote:But Nadal's FH doesn't hurt. If a player could outlast physically he could choose to rally indefinetely with Nadal. It's actually what Djoko does. If you look at Nadal he struggles putting balls away with his FH. I invite anybody to go and rewatch the USO final and see the difficulty Nadal has in hurting Djoko with his FH. Tsip does a better job. No kidding! Nadal's FH invites to rally. That's Nadal's strength, not his FH.

It doesn't hurt Djokovic, but not sure that applies to everyone, indeed anyone, else. I don't think that is purely a physical thing, although it plays a large part. Two things stand out for me, Djokovic is a great mover and can hit good shots when pulled out of position, much like Nadal himself, and, secondly, he can hit spots on the court that put Nadal in trouble. Essentially, he can manoeuvre himself on to the front foot against Nadal without taking huge risks.

Despite vowing to do otherwise, I don't think Nadal has played Djokovic any differently yet, which is understandable as he could often beat him previously. Whether he can change sufficiently to do so is the key.
I know you will say he cannot, but I am less unequivocal and is one of the things I am looking forward to in 2012.

Positively 4th Street wrote:
It doesn't hurt Djokovic, but not sure that applies to everyone, indeed anyone, else.

It doesn't hurt Djoko cause Djoko can run as much as Nadal nowadays. Look at Murray, Davidenko, Delpo's BHs...they are better than Nadal's FH! Serious.

In fact look at the match between Fed and Nadal at the O2 last year. Even Federer 's BH was better than Nadal's FH.

Look from 1mn30 to 3mn. ...or even the whole clip if you have time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp_IJ1A63ss

Tenez

Thankyou for the thoughtful answer. I agree with you about valuing innate ability. For me players with this tend to be more fun to watch than the players with a style that is more contrived or stuctured.

I also agree with you about Federer and Nadal having the most physical apptitude of current players. Where I'm sure we disagree is that I also think these two players have the most natural talent...

Federer's build is not ideal IMO, not enough muscle. Great bone structure/proportionality but weirdly thin forearms.

hawkeye wrote: Where I'm sure we disagree is that I also think these two players have the most natural talent...

So we disagree on the main point!

It's ok. I would not like to spoil the show for you, if you enjoy Nadal's game. I appreciate the challenge he represents but his game? no.

droogle wrote:Federer's build is not ideal IMO, not enough muscle. Great bone structure/proportionality but weirdly thin forearms.

Yet his shots are pacier than Nadal or Djoko.

I always thought that Fed's comments were always for Murray's own good and taking into account the wider picture of tennis. I guess a lot of people see this as sore losing because they can't imagine how a person can see objectively after a defeat or how they could possibly put feelings aside to make a comment.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:I always thought that Fed's comments were always for Murray's own good and taking into account the wider picture of tennis. I guess a lot of people see this as sore losing because they can't imagine how a person can see objectively after a defeat or how they could possibly put feelings aside to make a comment.

I think Fed said those first comments out of frustration. Similar to when he said Nadal was one dimensional. Federer knows you can't turn a counterpuncher into an attacking player. Why would he want Murray to improve?

I don't think there was that much frustration involved, if on one of the occasions Murray won just by waiting for errors on one of Fed's bad days then he called it as he saw it. He's smart enough to know people will see this as sore losing but doesn't let it stop him giving an honest view.

Why not want Murray to improve. He could take care of Nadal for him on most occasions then and Fed would have a better chance even against an improved Murray. Another reason would be that he appreciates something about Murray's game and would maybe like to see him prevail where he doesn't.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:I don't think there was that much frustration involved, if on one of the occasions Murray won just by waiting for errors on one of Fed's bad days then he called it as he saw it. He's smart enough to know people will see this as sore losing but doesn't let it stop him giving an honest view.

He called it as he saw it but he lost....so Murray was doing the right thing. That's why if he wanted to give Murray some nice advice he could have waited the day he had beaten Murray. Losing to a player who waits for errors is very frustrating cause you know you just beat yourself. It's annoying and it's no surprise to let out some frustration. Haas was even more poisenous when he lost to a young Murray sending him dead balls.

Why not want Murray to improve. He could take care of Nadal for him on most occasions then and Fed would have a better chance even against an improved Murray. Another reason would be that he appreciates something about Murray's game and would maybe like to see him prevail where he doesn't.

I seriously doubt Federer appreciates Murray's shot making. He might appreciate how Murray made the most of what he has..but that applies to most players on tour.

That's still subjective saying that Murray did 'the right thing'. Running and waiting for errors alone is not sustainable and it is not advisable to base a game around that hence Fed almost advising Murray not to. You might say the right thing to do would be to use each opportunity to develop aa game that doesn't rely so much on that particularly when you were as young as Murray was then.

I think the old Murray and Fed had something in common with shotmaking, just that Murray's maybe had slightly less finesse; at that time Murray was great at improvising and hitting unusual shots. I'm sure there's many players on the tour who didn't make the most of what they had especially if you think there are many more players out there more talented than Nadal and Djokovic.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:I think the old Murray and Fed had something in common with shotmaking, just that Murray's maybe had slightly less finesse; at that time Murray was great at improvising and hitting unusual shots. I'm sure there's many players on the tour who didn't make the most of what they had especially if you think there are many more players out there more talented than Nadal and Djokovic.

No way. There is a world apart in terms of talent between Murray and Federer. It's not close and we can put many players between them.

No way. There is a world apart in terms of talent between Murray and Federer. It's not close and we can put many players between them.

Ivo Karlovic is closer in terms of talent to Federer than Murray...