Murray Was Clearly Better

Part One: Summary
Although this was a 5-setter, it could have been 3-0 with Federer really snatching the second set despite Murray playing better throughout the first three sets. (Points won in the second set was 40 each, with Murray having a better record in many of the typical stats.) Even thought it was a 5-setter, Murray got 6 breaks to Fed’s 2, Fed’s poor winners unforced errors ratio of 43/60 is far below Murray’s very solid 62/47, Murray won 177 to 151 points which is a big difference for a 5-setter and excluding tiebreaks Murray won 7 more games.
Federer was below par to me, at least in terms of what we expect from him at the business end of a slam. Whether evidence of decline or just a bad day at the office we will have to wait and see as the season progresses as we cannot judge on one result. I do think he was clearly hampered by the slowness of the court which as he stated before the tournament very correctly is much slower at night (could just be my perception but the court seemed faster this year in the day time, with not much change at night?) but that can’t be the sole excuse for the defeat. Unusually for Federer, his forehand did not seem any better than the backhand today. The backhand was good, but the forehand was relatively poor, with mid court balls being missed, low balls not being dealt with, too many errors made, and rather erratic. With Murray outscoring him for aces (21 to 5!) and maybe even for forehand winners (perhaps unthinkable even as little as a year ago), and looking at times the more aggressive player, that really is a worry for Federer and something to celebrate for Murray.

Part Two: Mental
The best part of the match for Federer was the magnificent three points he played when Murray served for the match at 6-5 30-15. Murray hit a good serve that could easily have been unreturnable which Federer did brilliantly to get back in play and then won that and another tremendous point before breaking with perhaps an even more impressive service return (followed by a Murray error). This was champion tennis – the one part I’ll be seeking out to watch again- and partially made me forgive him for earlier averageness.
I think Federer did win a few more key points than Murray, and had a mental edge (won both tiebreaks and broke Murray when he served for the match), but it wasn’t enough to make up the overall gap in quality, consistency and shot making. In the end Murray was able to win the match by accumulating more points overall even without winning key ones. I thought Murray’s after match interview was interesting. Not the words he said but tone of voice and manner. Despite his improved mental strength since last year he seemed relieved, as if he’d been more nervous than I realised throughout the match. Maybe Federer at his best could have snuck this due to experience but now this mental edge, which was big in their first two slam finals, and has since greatly reduced to only a small one, may have gone completely now Murray has a slam win to add to his Olympic one.

Part Three: Second Serves
Another edge Federer still has is better second serves. Some of Murray’s second serves were just getting eaten up and dismissed but there were not enough of those to challenge Murray’s overall edge. Murray’s first serve % of 64 protected him. Although I also note that Murray won an impressive 63% of his second serve points compared to 42% for Federer on his second serve. That is a slight surprise to me after watching the match but it shows those dismissive swipes away of Murray’s second serve, while sticking in my mind, were few and far between while Murray won the majority of such points that actually went beyond that into a rally. So in this match although Federer’s second serve is still the better shot, Murray did better on serve dominance overall, and better on rallies. It was also very notable, and surprising and very creditable for Murray, that Federer did not break Murray at all until the fourth set.

Part Four: Where We Stand
Murray is now clearly the better hard court player (last 2 slams W and W/F vs Q and S for Federer), and if he could just get above Federer in the rankings or beat him at either the French Open or Wimbledon that would confirm him as the better player. At the moment that is still a grey area for me.
Having said that I still get the feeling that Djokovic is a notch above both. Murray will have to play better than this to beat Djokovic. He needs to raise his level for me – including mentally. It was a good quality match today, but not of the very highest quality. I did get the uneasy feeling today that Murray and Federer might be playing for second place.
I also get the feeling that if Rafa had not been injured and was playing at this 2010-2011 level he might be still ranked #2. Murray has made improvements to his game (forehand, mental, serve) but I think he is still a notch short of a fit, peak Rafa at the moment, at least when the clay points are factored in. I predict that Murray will not take Djokovic to the 5th and make him barely able to stand up as Rafa did a year ago, but let’s see.

The only thing I throw in to Federers cause was the pace of the environment. I knew he had no chance after two games, when I saw the lack of pace off his racquet.

He really needed it to be 35 degrees and calm today.

Murray was easy winner. I still don't see how Federer extended this to 5 sets. Pure stubbornness is all I can put it down to.

Great article HB.

I agreed with everything until the last paragraph. I think it's far from certain that Rafa would have owned this version of Murray. It's one of the things that I'm looking forward to seeing when Rafa's back to a high level, how those two match up. He's proved himself now in the big matches against the other two, but hasn't had a chance to against Rafa.

Is Novak a notch above him? Over the course of a season vs all opponents, yes. In direct combat with each other, I'm not so sure. Virtually all of their matches were separated by a couple of points last year. Their matcht up is too close to call.

Great read though.

bogbrush wrote:Murray was easy winner. I still don't see how Federer extended this to 5 sets. Pure stubbornness is all I can put it down to.

Probably because he's the greatest player ever, and you don't get to be called that without the ability to fight.

I agree with you BB about Roger being seemingly unable to generate much pace, but the surprising thing is that Murray had no problem generating pace.

Danny_1982 wrote:Great article HB.

I agreed with everything until the last paragraph. I think it's far from certain that Rafa would have owned this version of Murray. It's one of the things that I'm looking forward to seeing when Rafa's back to a high level, how those two match up. He's proved himself now in the big matches against the other two, but hasn't had a chance to against Rafa.

Is Novak a notch above him? Over the course of a season vs all opponents, yes. In direct combat with each other, I'm not so sure. Virtually all of their matches were separated by a couple of points last year. Their matcht up is too close to call.

Great read though.

I also think that assumptions of Nadal's resumption of his previous form are way off beam. I'd argue, that in his absense, Fed and particular Murray have improved greatly. This means Nadal also needs to have improved

I'm not sure about the second serves bit TBH. Yes Federer gobbled up a few, but the only time I felt Federer was dominating the Murray second serve was at the back end of the fourth set, where Murray's pace dropped off (it was 140 kph average, but at the end of the fourth he was serving at barely 120 kph). Other than that, I think Murray went for a lot more off his second serve, and didn't allow Federer to attack it, and the stats seem to back this up. On the other hand, Murray's just such a good returner that he pretty much always dominates his opponent's second serve. He wasn't blasting Federer's away for winners here like he did in Shanghai (though I think he hit as many return winners as Federer, if not more), but he was more often than not setting up a decent position in the rally.

For the record, I read somewhere (I think in the Times) that Murray did indeed have more FH winners than Federer: 21 to 19. That would have been unthinkable barely a year ago, and is a huge credit to the work he and Lendl have put in on that wing.

Yes Murray was clearly better if we are being honest here. He hit more aces, fewer double faults, served better, had a higher percentage of points won at the net, a higher percentage of break points won, more receiving points won, hit fewer unforced errors, won 20+ more points and even hit more winners than Roger Federer (yet a weepy-eyed poster here today still had the cheek to call Andy a pusher). Where does this now leave Federer I wonder.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Where does this now leave Federer I wonder.

Slightly over the hill and heading slowly downwards, but still loving playing tennis.

it was only 6 months ago he was beating both Murray and Djokovic on the way to winning the biggest tennis tournament there is, I'm always disappointed when he loses but I always knew heading into 2013 and beyond Wimbledon was his best shot and will be again this year. I really want Federer and Murray play on clay, hopefully they will this season

I too am fascinated what a Murray Federer clay match will be like

Who do we think would be the favourite if they played on clay? At Roland Garros? At Madrid?

feds. I think murrays movement is not as good on the clay as on hard or grass, he can't push off as well.

Superb article. Again.

LuvSports! wrote:feds. I think murrays movement is not as good on the clay as on hard or grass, he can't push off as well.

Yes Luvsports, astute point
Murray's movement on clay for some strange reason is poor, this costs him a lot.

It Must Be Love wrote:

LuvSports! wrote:feds. I think murrays movement is not as good on the clay as on hard or grass, he can't push off as well.

Yes Luvsports, astute point
Murray's movement on clay for some strange reason is poor, this costs him a lot.

Sadly very true

If Murray wins the Australian Open Final, he could potentially win 3 out of the 4 Grand Slam Majors this year. His favourite major it seems is the US Open where he is a shoe-in to get to the final again, whilst he has the advantage of the huge home support at Wimbledon. The only real major where I can see him struggling to make any impact this year is the French Open, but he does have a coach in his corner who knows what it takes to win the French Open, so who knows? A possible calendar year Grand Slam for Andy Murray this year to equal the great Rod Laver's feat in 1969.

Probably the most optimistic I've ever read.

wow im speechless gboycottnut

Calendar grand slam for Murray? No chance.

Even as a Murray fan I don't think that's a realistic goal. He has a chance in 3 of the slams every year for the next few years. But to actually win them.... 2 in a year would be a brilliant result, 3 is taking it too far, 4 would mean winning on clay.... Something he's never done in ANY clay tournament since he turned pro.

Frankly, not a hope in hell.

I think Murray can win the French Open one day. As a good rallier, a good physical player, and a good defender, shouldn't he be able to improve his performance there?

He does need some improvement but he has had some important performances against Rafa and Novak in the past.

I think one of his goals this season should be to reach a clay final.

Andy has almost no characteristics of movement associated with a great clay player. He's never even got close to being close to the French and I don't see that as any kind of priority for him.

Lendl can only help Murray improve on clay and he'll be annoyed if he doesn't win a clay title in his career but he has no chance at the French unless Roger's retired, Djokovic is injured, Nadal injures both his knees, Berdych has mental demons and Del Potro is injured. And even then Daveed wins it.