Andy Murray - The Right Era?

History.

Tells us so many things and teaches us other things too. Factually correct when it comes to sports. When you dig, sometimes you find answers that you just don't want to face or accept. Time is something no man can outrun. Stats too. Based on facts yes, but it can also be mis-interpretating to belief.

Take Andy Murray. Petchers came out with some stunning stats. Murray is 7th on all the time list in Grand Slams to lose a match after dropping the first set behind the likes Federer, Nadal, McEnroe, Borg, Sampras. Also Murray is the top of the all time list at the US Open on return points won. Simply he does hold some stats that you would associate with some of the greats of the game.

The one stat that looms large like an everlasting shadow is the Slam count. Zero. Big, fat and very disheartening. See looking back in the history books in Open Era, not many Slam winners can boast being multi ones at that over the age of 25. Nastase won 2 Slams. Orantes 1 Slam. Ivanisevic 1 Slam. Rafter was 4 months short of his 25th birthday when he won the first of his 2 Slams. Me personally I feel underwhelmed when you here Andy's name mentioned with so many quality stats and not have a Slam to his name. For the future generations who see him play may look back and think how has this guy not won more?

Brings me to Era's. This is not about what's weak and what's golden. Simply you're dealt the cards your born with. Now Agassi I know said 'In any other era' Roddick recently lambasted someone who thought there was a gap. So I wonder would Andy have really won a Slam in an era that boasted Borg, Vilas, Connors? Which then lead to McEnroe, Wilander and his current coach Lendl? Then that led to Becker and Edberg. Sampras and Agassi? See I look at the current crop of stars. We have an ageing genius in Federer. Nadal's body is starting to catch up with him. Djokovic is blowing hot and cold. You could now argue there is a gap to exploit because you look at the 'future' stars and they seem so far off the benchmark of a Slam winner. Now if someone said to me that 25 is old I would give the pffffft it deserves. But in tennis years it is the equivalent of a 50 something winding down before the big retirement party. Falling down the strucure as it were before setting out to the wilderness.

It is a question can Andy capitalise on this 'gap' and not so much re-write history, but set a new bar for those who may feel that past 25 mark the maiden Slam is all but a dream? Not only that but also show that multi-slam success can also occur? For me if Andy was to go on a run of Slam success I would very much not just accredit the success to how well he plays to win those Slams, but the hard work he put in to remain in the top 10 for so many years to enable him to get the best out of himself in latter years. Hyena like yes you could argue, but without the laughter. That hopefully will come if and when he wins Slams

In the Raonic match one of the commentators was going about Murray being angry over losing a point that Raonic deserved, finishing with a cute drop shot. Commentator felt Andy was unsporting and should respect that he can't do something to win the point everytime. He focuses too much on the little things than the big things, an attitude that doesn't give you the big prizes. Hewitt is the same type of player as Andy, but he didn't give too much away like Andy does. I certainly don't see him winning a slam for a while yet, unless, he gets a situation that came on the Olympics where his opponent is too tired to form a strong gameplan.

I know during the match Petchey said he was hard on himself as he self-perfectionist. I am not sure how much additional pressure that puts on him. I remember years ago he had that annoying habit of failing a drop shot and then playing it again and again until he made it.

2012 is unquestionably "transitional", with Federer entering his 32nd year, Nadal crocked and Djokovic patchy. Where it is going I cannot be sure, but I think it's headed to a place where Andy will find it easy to win Slams.

I was impressed with his win over Raonic; not that he won per se - had he not the obituaries may have been pencilled in - but in the manner, and I think he is marginal second favourite for the title behind Djokovic.

Andy himself has said that having the top 3 as the benchmark has forced him to become a better player. If he was in another era, would he have reached the level he is at now, without them to force his play to improve?
Or would playing against e.g. Sampras, Agassi, Courier have forced him to become good enough to be 4th place behind them?
History - it doesn't tell us that

legendkillarV2 wrote:I know during the match Petchey said he was hard on himself as he self-perfectionist. I am not sure how much additional pressure that puts on him. I remember years ago he had that annoying habit of failing a drop shot and then playing it again and again until he made it.

Ah no, I'd just erased those terrible memorie from my mind

I remember at Wimbledon this year v Ferrer he kept overplaying it to the point someone in the audience shouted out "Stop playing drop shots Andy!"

His win over Raonic was very impressive from the perspective of the variety which I did felt had been partially sacrificed in order to enhance a stonger baseline game by improving on the FH. The mixture of passive and aggressive play was brilliant. The thing is he can still up a little level and it is about reaching that level at the latter stages of Slams.

He has a wonderful opportunity to succeed and I hope he does.

bogbrush wrote:2012 is unquestionably "transitional", with Federer entering his 32nd year, Nadal crocked and Djokovic patchy. Where it is going I cannot be sure, but I think it's headed to a place where Andy will find it easy to win Slams.

I was impressed with his win over Raonic; not that he won per se - had he not the obituaries may have been pencilled in - but in the manner, and I think he is marginal second favourite for the title behind Djokovic.

Agree completely.

Andy's problem has historically been the difficulty of beating two out of the three guys ranked above him. Aside from the fact that I think his game is now looking capable of doing that, it is looking increasingly likely that he won't actually need to!

Oh, and BB, I do love your refusal to expect too much from Fed! Behind Novak and Andy as favourite? The guy is in awesome form! Speaking as a Novak fan, I'm slightly terrified at the thought of a final against either of them.

The Special Juan wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:I know during the match Petchey said he was hard on himself as he self-perfectionist. I am not sure how much additional pressure that puts on him. I remember years ago he had that annoying habit of failing a drop shot and then playing it again and again until he made it.

Ah no, I'd just erased those terrible memorie from my mind

I remember at Wimbledon this year v Ferrer he kept overplaying it to the point someone in the audience shouted out "Stop playing drop shots Andy!"

I remember he did it galore against Melzer in the US Open 2008 and I was decorating and in a fit of rage I kicked the can of paint all over the walls in my front room whilst shouting "f**king stop doing that Andy"

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:2012 is unquestionably "transitional", with Federer entering his 32nd year, Nadal crocked and Djokovic patchy. Where it is going I cannot be sure, but I think it's headed to a place where Andy will find it easy to win Slams.

I was impressed with his win over Raonic; not that he won per se - had he not the obituaries may have been pencilled in - but in the manner, and I think he is marginal second favourite for the title behind Djokovic.

Agree completely.

Andy's problem has historically been the difficulty of beating two out of the three guys ranked above him. Aside from the fact that I think his game is now looking capable of doing that, it is looking increasingly likely that he won't actually need to!

Oh, and BB, I do love your refusal to expect too much from Fed! Behind Novak and Andy as favourite? The guy is in awesome form! Speaking as a Novak fan, I'm slightly terrified at the thought of a final against either of them.

Well everyone naturally psyches themselves down but honestly I do see Roger as 3rd favourite, at least I do now I saw what Murray did to Raonic.

In putting Roger 3rd I'm taking a view of their compound probabilities;

RF: QF 70%, SF (Murray) 45%, Final (Djokovic) 45% = 14% Chance

AM: QF 90%, SF (Federer) 55%, Final (Djokovic) 45% = 22% Chance

ND: R4 95%, QF (JMDP) 85%, SF (Ferrer) 90%, Final (RF/AM) 55% = 40% Chance

In part Feds chances are hurt by having a genuine threat in the quarter, and then by having a tough semi; same goes in terms of the semi for Murray. Whichever gets through has a good chance against Djokovic.

Murray has to have a great opportunity this year. He is looking very good and has played in parts like a champion elect, but we have been here before with Murray only to watch bitter disappointment. I would love to see him take this USO if TMF can't, which I somewhat doubt (feeling very pessimistic about Berdych, never mind meeting Andy or Novak!)

This has to be as good as it gets - Fed has had a great year but he has a tricky quarter from now on, and Murray beat him comprehensively last time they met which will give Murray oodles of confidence facing him. Although Berdych is a tricky match up for Murray, if it is the Czech who comes through, he should be okay with a GS final place on the line I would think.
Djokovic looks very impressive so far, but hasn't been invincible by any means this year, and of course with Nadal out a huge obstacle for all the would be winners is removed.

BB, interesting. I'd quibble with some of the numbers (I think you're conservative on Fed's chances v Berd and generous on Novak's chances v DelPo), but I can't fault the logic.

"Time Please - "I would love to see him take this USO if TMF can't, which I somewhat doubt (feeling very pessimistic about Berdych, never mind meeting Andy or Novak!)"

Also have nasty feeling about the Berdych match. Might nip round to the bookies and put money on Berdbrain. Already have £40 at 5/4 on Nole to win the whole thing.

I personally think that Andy is only as good as he is becasue of the Top 3 and particularly Nole, who I think surprised the Scot with his 2010/11 improvement

Hence, impossible to tell how he would have done say in the mid 90's

Right now, 25 is the 22 of 10 years ago. The impressive 'at peak' players continue to be the likes of Ferrer, Monaco, etc - who looking at the rules of the 80's would be struggling now

Add on the fact that their is definite paucity of good youngsters and you wonder how he can possibly fail

Incidentally, I think Cillic if he continues his consistency will also be in the frame in a couple of years - simply because he's still one of the best all round players of under 25 out there

sirfredperry wrote:"Time Please - "I would love to see him take this USO if TMF can't, which I somewhat doubt (feeling very pessimistic about Berdych, never mind meeting Andy or Novak!)"

Also have nasty feeling about the Berdych match. Might nip round to the bookies and put money on Berdbrain. Already have £40 at 5/4 on Nole to win the whole thing.

Berdy could do something. I mentioned a month ago, that fitness will be the key with The Olympics obviously taking it's toll. Considering Thomas went out at early at virtually every event around this time - that's no issue

When he's on form and mentally with it, he's very difficult to shift and wouldn't be surprised to see him beat both Fed and Murray

sir fred - you and me both

banbrotam wrote:Right now, 25 is the 22 of 10 years ago. The impressive 'at peak' players continue to be the likes of Ferrer, Monaco, etc - who looking at the rules of the 80's would be struggling now

Add on the fact that their is definite paucity of good youngsters and you wonder how he can possibly fail

I agree to an extent banbro, and I am very optimistic (this summer for the first time in 2 years) about Murray's chances providing he stays playing the clever and aggressive game that he did during the Olympics, Wimbledon and the other night against Raonic.

Otherwise, I grant you there are no youngsters that look threatening but his own body will begin to let him down if he falls back into the passive defence mode for tournaments on end and that will neutralise his natural superiority over the rest of the field and the same guys will find it easier to beat him. I don't think Ivan the Terrible has any intention of letting that happen, however.

(on a separate note - just how does Ferrer do it? Never mind Nadal, Ferrer really is the duracell bunny!)

BB,

Sorry have to disagree with you. Roger Federer is the favourite at the moment and quite a warm one too in my opinion. Why?

1. He came into the tournament as the form player.

2. He has had a very comfortable route through to the quarters and played a match less so should be as fresh as a daisy.

3. I have been on many forums and had Murray's win over Federer at the Olympics put down to Federer fatigue, Federer's non-interest and and a range of other reasons. Therefore, if that is the case then on what grounds do you have Murray as the favourite considering the result the last time they met in a slam.

4. Finally, and the old favourite, Federer is the GOAT and so automatically that makes him the favourite.

That is my take on it.

As for the OP - a good post. One thing is sure those wishing to still claim Nalby is above Murray as greatest player never to win a slam are living in cloud cuckoo land. There is still time for Andy to get that elusive slam win under his belt but I think his better chance will come in Australia or at Wimbledon next year. If you look at Murray's record at Flushing Meadows it is nowhere near that of his record at Melbourne and Wimbledon. As long as Murray keeps hammering on the door at the slams I remain hopeful it will one day open.

time please wrote:sir fred - you and me both

banbrotam wrote:Right now, 25 is the 22 of 10 years ago. The impressive 'at peak' players continue to be the likes of Ferrer, Monaco, etc - who looking at the rules of the 80's would be struggling now

Add on the fact that their is definite paucity of good youngsters and you wonder how he can possibly fail

I agree to an extent banbro, and I am very optimistic (this summer for the first time in 2 years) about Murray's chances providing he stays playing the clever and aggressive game that he did during the Olympics, Wimbledon and the other night against Raonic.

Otherwise, I grant you there are no youngsters that look threatening but his own body will begin to let him down if he falls back into the passive defence mode for tournaments on end and that will neutralise his natural superiority over the rest of the field and the same guys will find it easier to beat him. I don't think Ivan the Terrible has any intention of letting that happen, however.

(on a separate note - just how does Ferrer do it? Never mind Nadal, Ferrer really is the duracell bunny!)

Don't see Andy going back. But ironically, the Raonic spanking was more down to the all round skills of Andy as he played every shot in the book and actually the new forehand rarely featured.

But the serve consistency is better and that helped enormously - but I am please to see that he is not abandoning his 'skill' shots as that's what makes him (IMHO) better than Nole at times (Simply put, for me only Roger (the master of course) can cut players to pieces in such exquisite fashion)

Hence we now have a player who can play a hard direct game when needed (i.e. Wimbledon) and the moving softer multi-layered approach that bamboozles the one dimensional hard hitters like Raonic

He just needs to get in the habit of choosing the right plan for every match, which will come with more experience

Still not convinced about this event - I think Nole is in his 2011 form, right now, but happy to be wrong!! I do think it will Noel, Andy, Berdy or Roger - in that order of likelihood.

And yes,I think that Berdy will knock out Roger tonight. I hope I'm wrong, as we could see (at last) a classic Andy/Roger match, i.e. similar to their 2nd set at the Slam Wimbledon

CaledonianCraig wrote:BB,

Sorry have to disagree with you. Roger Federer is the favourite at the moment and quite a warm one too in my opinion. Why?

1. He came into the tournament as the form player.

2. He has had a very comfortable route through to the quarters and played a match less so should be as fresh as a daisy.

3. I have been on many forums and had Murray's win over Federer at the Olympics put down to Federer fatigue, Federer's non-interest and and a range of other reasons. Therefore, if that is the case then on what grounds do you have Murray as the favourite considering the result the last time they met in a slam.

4. Finally, and the old favourite, Federer is the GOAT and so automatically that makes him the favourite.

That is my take on it.

As for the OP - a good post. One thing is sure those wishing to still claim Nalby is above Murray as greatest player never to win a slam are living in cloud cuckoo land. There is still time for Andy to get that elusive slam win under his belt but I think his better chance will come in Australia or at Wimbledon next year. If you look at Murray's record at Flushing Meadows it is nowhere near that of his record at Melbourne and Wimbledon. As long as Murray keeps hammering on the door at the slams I remain hopeful it will one day open.

CC does have a point. given that he only lost The Olympics due to tiredness. You only have to look at the those intelligent facebook / The Sun / Mirror message boards to see that this is true

Or Josiah

Nah! There's always an excuse for Fed losing and that never has anything to do with the great play of his opponent

Still not convinced about this event - I think Nole is in his 2011 form, right now, but happy to be wrong!! I do think it will Noel, Andy, Berdy or Roger - in that order of likelihood.

I just have a nagging doubt about Nole. I don't think he has really been tested TBH in this tournament. I think Wawrinka might test him slightly, but he needs a baseline game out of the top drawers of the tennis gods to stay competitive! If Del Potro makes it through, well his draw becomes very interesting.

Depends which Del Potro appears. When he's at the top of his game, Del Potro swats everyone off the court regardless of who they are or how fast they can run. We saw it with Nadal in '09 and, to a lesser extent, Djokovic at the Olympics. I really do think that at his best he's unbeatable, but if he's not at his best he is very beatable. As I said, it will be interesting to see how he is feeling physically provided he beats Roddick.

However, I think he'll have a career similar to Nadal's in that he'll always be carrying a dodgy injury. Nadal's knees, Del Potro's wrist, it depends on how he manages his body. At the moment, I don't think he's a huge threat to the top guys in the crunch matches in the majors at the moment due to the fact he has to play about 4/5 matches before he faces them. I think he needs more time, but if he were to down Djokovic in the next few days I will radically change my opinion of that.

Sorry, that's a little off topic.

Nah! There's always an excuse for Fed losing and that never has anything to do with the great play of his opponent

give us some examples then. I knew Federer was going to lose the Olympics after Delpo 4.5 hours encounter. You really don't think his semi final had anything to do with his poor performance in the final?

The fatigue issue at the Olympics for me is too simplified. I think when they say fatigue, the point I feel many are alluding to is that did Roger have enough in reserves to up his level after the 2nd set? I don't think he did and also coupled with how well Andy was actually playing. Andy still could've upped his level in that match too.

You could sense that Roger was feeling the match was lost of that run of 5-6 games on the bounce for Murray? Not sure what the exact number is off the top of me head.

Roger did try and remain competitive and what possibly could've got him back into the match was a drop in the level of Andy's play. You can draw comparisons that if Murray had a Lopez like slump in the Olympic Final, then hmmmmm.

I don't think it was for lack of effort on Roger's behalf, just don't think he had the reserves to really elevate his game to the level that could turn a 2 set deficit.

The Special Juan wrote:Depends which Del Potro appears. When he's at the top of his game, Del Potro swats everyone off the court regardless of who they are or how fast they can run. We saw it with Nadal in '09 and, to a lesser extent, Djokovic at the Olympics. I really do think that at his best he's unbeatable, but if he's not at his best he is very beatable. As I said, it will be interesting to see how he is feeling physically provided he beats Roddick.

I still think Roger and Andy have too much variety and can mentally wear him down due this, even if he starts like an express train. Andy, in particular seems to revel in looking like he's going to have a long hard match (see the first two service games of Raonic) and then suddenly exploding as he hones in on the predictable play of such opponents

Mind you, these two haven't played in over three years and both seem to have approved. But DP does have issues with the good movers, i.e. Ferrer, Andy, Roger etc

I also think that the defeating of Nole (at Cincy, not The Olympics ) had more to do with Novak's poor play.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

Nah! There's always an excuse for Fed losing and that never has anything to do with the great play of his opponent

give us some examples then. I knew Federer was going to lose the Olympics after Delpo 4.5 hours encounter. You really don't think his semi final had anything to do with his poor performance in the final?

Let's say we agree - what about the previous 8 times??

And do us Murray fans now have permission to use tiredness as an excuse for the 2008 US Open final defeat?

As usual, you reside in a world where it is one rule for Roger and another for everyone else

The think is lk, can you imagine the massive furore if I were to post something along the lines today that Murray is favourite to beat Federer?

Federer is GOAT, has the lion's share of wins over Andy in best of five matches, is the form player coming in to the US Open, is much the fresher going into the quarters and has a far superior record to Andy (beyond comparison actually) at Flushing Meadows. I could go on.

Conversely for Andy, we hear stuff like he doesn't have what it takes, he is mentally weak, he has physical issue (after Lopez match), he will never win a slam etc (not from BB I must clarify) so how the Dickens can Murray be deemed as favourite? Kidology me thinks and the chance to make a Federer win all that more remarkable if it happens.

CC there is an argument to put Murray ahead of Federer. Base it on the performance against Raonic, but also how slow Ashe is playing. All the rain on the court is favouring Djokovic/Murray. I don't think there is any qualms about putting Murray ahead of Federer in respect that Murray nulified the Raonic serve. Also I know the ace count on Ashe is lower than Armstorong/Grandstand. Federer's serving has been awesome this year, but on a slower surface really does take the advantage away from Federer.

The conditions are favouring Murray you have to say. Added any wind which will just suit Murray even more

Sorry but I don't buy that. Raonic has the best serve in the game at the moment but there is absolutely no comparison between his all-round game and Roger Federer's. It is akin to measuring a vintage bottle of wine sold for thoudands of pounds at auctions with a cheap bottle of plonk sold at Asda.

legendkillarV2 wrote:CC there is an argument to put Murray ahead of Federer. Base it on the performance against Raonic, but also how slow Ashe is playing. All the rain on the court is favouring Djokovic/Murray. I don't think there is any qualms about putting Murray ahead of Federer in respect that Murray nulified the Raonic serve. Also I know the ace count on Ashe is lower than Armstorong/Grandstand. Federer's serving has been awesome this year, but on a slower surface really does take the advantage away from Federer.

The conditions are favouring Murray you have to say. Added any wind which will just suit Murray even more

LK. You'll be telling us next that Murray would beat Roger if it was on the dirt

Come to think of it, have they ever played each other on clay? Don't think so - remarkabkle fact (but not so, if you think they will have been seeded to meet each other several times and Murray failing to get there)

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sorry but I don't buy that. Raonic has the best serve in the game at the moment but there is absolutely no comparison between his all-round game and Roger Federer's. It is akin to measuring a vintage bottle of wine sold for thoudands of pounds at auctions with a cheap bottle of plonk sold at Asda.

Look to say Roger's game is like "a cheap bottle of plonk sold at Asda" is a ridiculous insult.

To Asda, of course

banbrotam wrote:

The Special Juan wrote:Depends which Del Potro appears. When he's at the top of his game, Del Potro swats everyone off the court regardless of who they are or how fast they can run. We saw it with Nadal in '09 and, to a lesser extent, Djokovic at the Olympics. I really do think that at his best he's unbeatable, but if he's not at his best he is very beatable. As I said, it will be interesting to see how he is feeling physically provided he beats Roddick.

I still think Roger and Andy have too much variety and can mentally wear him down due this, even if he starts like an express train. Andy, in particular seems to revel in looking like he's going to have a long hard match (see the first two service games of Raonic) and then suddenly exploding as he hones in on the predictable play of such opponents

Mind you, these two haven't played in over three years and both seem to have approved. But DP does have issues with the good movers, i.e. Ferrer, Andy, Roger etc

I also think that the defeating of Nole (at Cincy, not The Olympics ) had more to do with Novak's poor play.

I'd agree with players with variety being able to stop him, although not at the US Open in 2009. I've seen the highlights, it's one of the best displays of power hitting with accuracy I've ever seen. The key I think is to stick with him and not let him get the early break. Then later in the match someone like a Federer, Murray or even a Ferrer can start to grind him down and get him moving. You've got to be in the position to play the shots though so if he's cannoning forehands into the corners it's very difficult.

I was meaning the bronze medal match. From the very little I've seen Del Potro was hitting it hard, flat and serving well.

We had the special theory of relativity in 1905.
Then came the general theory of relativity in 1916.
Now I believe we should introduce the Murray theorem of tennis relativity.

As others have mentioned the past post 25 age "poor" performance in slam wins was due to younger players entering the tour and making an impact. In this Murray - big four or big three plus one period the only impact the younger players are having is in the interview rooms after being knocked out somewhere between the first and fourth rounds of a tournament.

Roger Federer turned 25 after his Wimbledon 2006 win, since then his record in slams is:
Wins: nine
Finals: six
SFs: six
QFs: three
4R or less: none

Nore Staat wrote:We had the special theory of relativity in 1905.
Then came the general theory of relativity in 1916.
Now I believe we should introduce the Murray theorem of tennis relativity.

As others have mentioned the past post 25 age "poor" performance in slam wins was due to younger players entering the tour and making an impact. In this Murray - big four or big three plus one period the only impact the younger players are having is in the interview rooms after being knocked out somewhere between the first and fourth rounds of a tournament.

Roger Federer turned 25 after his Wimbledon 2006 win, since then his record in slams is:
Wins: nine
Finals: six
SFs: six
QFs: three
4R or less: none

Great stat. I still maintain that Fed was better in 2004/5. It shows what maturity and mental focus can do. There is no reason why Tennis players cannot be at their peak at say age 29, these days

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sorry but I don't buy that. Raonic has the best serve in the game at the moment but there is absolutely no comparison between his all-round game and Roger Federer's. It is akin to measuring a vintage bottle of wine sold for thoudands of pounds at auctions with a cheap bottle of plonk sold at Asda.

I wasn't comparing all round games. I was comparing the serve and volley element. Raonic was serving 130mph to which some were coming back with purchase! Roger serves around the 120-125mph mark and around 90-97mph second. Raonic won 31% on second serves!

banbrotam wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sorry but I don't buy that. Raonic has the best serve in the game at the moment but there is absolutely no comparison between his all-round game and Roger Federer's. It is akin to measuring a vintage bottle of wine sold for thoudands of pounds at auctions with a cheap bottle of plonk sold at Asda.

Look to say Roger's game is like "a cheap bottle of plonk sold at Asda" is a ridiculous insult.

To Asda, of course

Now we see your true colours, hater.

Find me other times I used a tired excuse for Roger losing before. His other big losses he wasn't good enough, tool.

banbrotam wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:CC there is an argument to put Murray ahead of Federer. Base it on the performance against Raonic, but also how slow Ashe is playing. All the rain on the court is favouring Djokovic/Murray. I don't think there is any qualms about putting Murray ahead of Federer in respect that Murray nulified the Raonic serve. Also I know the ace count on Ashe is lower than Armstorong/Grandstand. Federer's serving has been awesome this year, but on a slower surface really does take the advantage away from Federer.

The conditions are favouring Murray you have to say. Added any wind which will just suit Murray even more

LK. You'll be telling us next that Murray would beat Roger if it was on the dirt

Come to think of it, have they ever played each other on clay? Don't think so - remarkabkle fact (but not so, if you think they will have been seeded to meet each other several times and Murray failing to get there)

Are we seriously comparing clay to hard court?

What happened prior to final the night before last year? Rain on top of newly layed courts. Hence the marathon match from Nadal and Djokovic as the conds favoured their strengths.

I actually liken Ashe to the Rod Laver Arena. Can play decivingly slow.

banbrotam wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:CC there is an argument to put Murray ahead of Federer. Base it on the performance against Raonic, but also how slow Ashe is playing. All the rain on the court is favouring Djokovic/Murray. I don't think there is any qualms about putting Murray ahead of Federer in respect that Murray nulified the Raonic serve. Also I know the ace count on Ashe is lower than Armstorong/Grandstand. Federer's serving has been awesome this year, but on a slower surface really does take the advantage away from Federer.

The conditions are favouring Murray you have to say. Added any wind which will just suit Murray even more

LK. You'll be telling us next that Murray would beat Roger if it was on the dirt

Come to think of it, have they ever played each other on clay? Don't think so - remarkabkle fact (but not so, if you think they will have been seeded to meet each other several times and Murray failing to get there)

They've never played on clay. In fact, they'd only met on hard courts up until Wimbledon of this year.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sorry but I don't buy that. Raonic has the best serve in the game at the moment but there is absolutely no comparison between his all-round game and Roger Federer's. It is akin to measuring a vintage bottle of wine sold for thoudands of pounds at auctions with a cheap bottle of plonk sold at Asda.

I wasn't comparing all round games. I was comparing the serve and volley element. Raonic was serving 130mph to which some were coming back with purchase! Roger serves around the 120-125mph mark and around 90-97mph second. Raonic won 31% on second serves!

Yes but in the key games between Murray and Federer what has been the outcome in best of five matches? Overwhelmingly, in favour of Roger Federer hence why I would make Federer a warm favourite.

CaledonianCraig wrote: ... Yes but in the key games between Murray and Federer what has been the outcome in best of five matches? Overwhelmingly, in favour of Roger Federer hence why I would make Federer a warm favourite.

Roger is also a warm favorite because of his five US Open wins, him winning the previous slam at Wimbledon, and him being No. 1 in the world.

If both make it to the semi-final it would be "worthy" of a final itself (a la Wimbledon).

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sorry but I don't buy that. Raonic has the best serve in the game at the moment but there is absolutely no comparison between his all-round game and Roger Federer's. It is akin to measuring a vintage bottle of wine sold for thoudands of pounds at auctions with a cheap bottle of plonk sold at Asda.

Look to say Roger's game is like "a cheap bottle of plonk sold at Asda" is a ridiculous insult.

To Asda, of course

Now we see your true colours, hater.

Find me other times I used a tired excuse for Roger losing before. His other big losses he wasn't good enough, tool.

Have you lost your sense of humour or just being deliberately provocative, so you can be insulting?

Nore Staat wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote: ... Yes but in the key games between Murray and Federer what has been the outcome in best of five matches? Overwhelmingly, in favour of Roger Federer hence why I would make Federer a warm favourite.

Roger is also a warm favorite because of his five US Open wins, him winning the previous slam at Wimbledon, and him being No. 1 in the world.

If both make it to the semi-final it would be "worthy" of a final itself (ala Wimbledon).

Exactly, as I said earlier Nore Staat. All the facts, stats and history point to Federer being a warm favourite.

Tools can be useful, not exactly an insult. It's not hard to insult someone who always acts as if he's a victim, though.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sorry but I don't buy that. Raonic has the best serve in the game at the moment but there is absolutely no comparison between his all-round game and Roger Federer's. It is akin to measuring a vintage bottle of wine sold for thoudands of pounds at auctions with a cheap bottle of plonk sold at Asda.

I wasn't comparing all round games. I was comparing the serve and volley element. Raonic was serving 130mph to which some were coming back with purchase! Roger serves around the 120-125mph mark and around 90-97mph second. Raonic won 31% on second serves!

Yes but in the key games between Murray and Federer what has been the outcome in best of five matches? Overwhelmingly, in favour of Roger Federer hence why I would make Federer a warm favourite.

What were the key factors? Dry and warm conditions in the 3 GS Finals they have met in. Take Wimbledon. Murray in the first was able to expand the court with the added wind conditions, once the roof closed, bang he lost a big advantage. Also the courts surface is just over a year old and with the solid rain that has been pounding them makes it much softer and slower. I doubt it will be any slower than what Paris was last year. Murray has been hitting much cleaner and flatter on the BH and FH this year.

I think we can agree to reserve judgment on Federer until after the Berdy match because I wouldn't agree putting Federer ahead of Murray, but I can the see the logic in why some posters might.

Oh don't get me wrong - Murray certainly has a chance but a fair few things have to go his way. By that I mean his focus must be as sharp as it was V Raonic, his serve stats have to be consistently high and he can afford NO dips in form as we saw V Lopez. A lot of ifs there. Federer's strength is his high level of consistency in these type of matches. You always feel he WILL bring high serve stats, he WILL bring his best focus and he WILL have no dips.

banbrotam wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

Nah! There's always an excuse for Fed losing and that never has anything to do with the great play of his opponent

give us some examples then. I knew Federer was going to lose the Olympics after Delpo 4.5 hours encounter. You really don't think his semi final had anything to do with his poor performance in the final?

Let's say we agree - what about the previous 8 times??

And do us Murray fans now have permission to use tiredness as an excuse for the 2008 US Open final defeat?

As usual, you reside in a world where it is one rule for Roger and another for everyone else

Josiah. Could you kindly answer the question

I think a fully focused Murray who feels energised and doesn't get down on himself or let his concentration slip ("Good Murray") has the beating of Fed or Djoko this tournament.

Good Murray is not a player we see often enough, and probably the main challenge for Lendl (as well as working on improvements to the serve and forehand) has been to help Murray to find and hang on to "Good Murray" when it matters in the big matches. He obviously still finds it difficult, but it must help that the technical reasons for his game being on a knife edge are receeding - namely weak serve and weak forehand - and he has had the recent confidence boost of knowing that Good Murray can get the job done.

I think that if we see Good Murray he'll break his duck. Anything less and he'd lose in a SF to Fed or a F to Djoko assuming those are his opponents. I also think he'd beat Berdych or DelPo if he faces them instead. I'd rather like to see a Murray-DelPo final.

I think it's very tight to call at the moment - Berdych is a banana skin waiting to happen, and DelPo might be too, but I still think that the most likely outcome is Murray vs. Fed SF, and the winner of that vs. Djoko F.

As I say, I think that Murray has every possible match on his racquet provided it's Good Murray that we see.

banbrotam wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

Nah! There's always an excuse for Fed losing and that never has anything to do with the great play of his opponent

give us some examples then. I knew Federer was going to lose the Olympics after Delpo 4.5 hours encounter. You really don't think his semi final had anything to do with his poor performance in the final?

Let's say we agree - what about the previous 8 times??

And do us Murray fans now have permission to use tiredness as an excuse for the 2008 US Open final defeat?

As usual, you reside in a world where it is one rule for Roger and another for everyone else

Did Murray play a 4,5 hour marathon match prior to the final? No. Also he was far younger (about 21?) at US Open than Federer at Olympics (30!), which means a huge difference in recovery speed. Also US Open final had little to do with fatigue. Murray adopted a wozniacki-style pusher game in that final, standing several meters behind the baseline of a fast surface against an aggressive player. With that strategy he kinda asked for the spanking he deservedly got. Fatigue or no fatigue.

If Isner, Gulbis and Gasquet can beat Berdych, Federer can. I don't worry about this night. Federer's chances against Berdych should be at least 90%, not 70%. Did Berdych not very recently said (indirectly) that he had no faith against the top guys?

Chydremion wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

Nah! There's always an excuse for Fed losing and that never has anything to do with the great play of his opponent

give us some examples then. I knew Federer was going to lose the Olympics after Delpo 4.5 hours encounter. You really don't think his semi final had anything to do with his poor performance in the final?

Let's say we agree - what about the previous 8 times??

And do us Murray fans now have permission to use tiredness as an excuse for the 2008 US Open final defeat?

As usual, you reside in a world where it is one rule for Roger and another for everyone else

Did Murray play a 4,5 hour marathon match prior to the final? No. Also he was far younger (about 21?) at US Open than Federer at Olympics (30!), which means a huge difference in recovery speed. Also US Open final had little to do with fatigue. Murray adopted a wozniacki-style pusher game in that final, standing several meters behind the baseline of a fast surface against an aggressive player. With that strategy he kinda asked for the spanking he deservedly got. Fatigue or no fatigue.

Chy. You obviosuy have got the impression, that I believe tiredness was a the reason for his defeat. I don't. However, neither do I think that this was a valid exucse for Fed's loss, either

I'm nothing if not consistent and think it's hilarious that you think that Fed had a harder time in the SF (physically) reaching the Olympic final in comparison to Murray's SF in 2008. Getting ready for the next match is just as important as how skilful you are, i.e. time wasted getting to the final, will take it's toil, no matter if you're the GOAT or not

However, this cannot be used as an excuse for the GOAT but not for anyone else as that is sheer hypocrisy

Federer had an exhausting semi at OG and Murray had an exhausting (and the later) semi at USO in 2008.

Neither should be used as an excuse because that's tennis and actually you win a tournament with how you come through all your matches, not just the final. However, I do think it's ok to add a caveat if you were looking to predict he result of their next encounter after one of these meetings because you might want to take any potentially extenuating circumstances into account if you were a betting man in the same way its a good idea to look at court conditions, weather conditions and who is on form - far better than just risking your house on the h2h!