Andy Murray - A Unique Rise To Success

First topic message reminder :

Andy Murray now stands proudly with the US Open, Wimbledon title and Olympic Gold and Silver medals and it has been a long and painful route to his success unlike any of the other top players in the game today.

Andy lived through the trauma of the Dunblane tragedy (if you don't think it effects him watch the documentary 'The Man Behind The Racket'). He took up tennis and took an unconventional route away from the LTA and involved a bit of improvisation badgering his mum to allow him to go to a tennis academy is Spain where a young Rafa was training and practising with top tennis players of the time. After Junior success at the US Open the talent was there but his early career was blighted by lack of fitness issues and he pledged to work on that and was good to his word. Success on the circuit as a pro soon came and gradually expectations grew.

In 2006 came another hurdle he had to overcome. The British media got hold of comments made in a banter-filled exchange with Tim Henman and Murray was branded a bigot and this hung like a millstone around his neck. He never let it affect his tennis but off-court it made life tough. Meanwhile, though he would be about to fulfil a dream and reach slam finals. However, they ended in heavy defeats with performances that failed to live up to expectation which had to knock both confidence and self-belief especially as these slam final defeats began to stack up.

At the beginning of 2012, Ivan Lendl became his coach. An all-time great of the sport himself in the 80's and 90's he had suffered similar tough defeats in his first few slams but turned the losing streak around. The Czech also shared Murray's hard work ethic and dedication and a similar wicked dry sense of humour. Lendl's effect was immediate and Murray showed a new sense of belief and new aggressive approach and since that point he has reached four slam finals out of six winning two slams and Olympic Gold and I get the impression he hasn't finished yet.

Andy will never reach the amount of success of Nadal or Federer that is certain but for me he has had to deal with so much more to get where he is. Personal tragedy, making it in tennis as a Brit, media pressure, fan pressure and a number of heavy slam defeats to bounce back from before realising his goals. That is what makes his a unique rise to success.

 

_homogenised_ wrote:I can never accept his style of play in the same way as attacking tennis, because it is so 1 dimensional and limited.  As he gets older, he will be smacked all over the court and look ridiculous

The week's getting better and better as we get more laughs and titering, with homogenised, than a Brian Rix farce.

We've now got a new defintion of "one dimensional" - it apparantly means you can play every shot in the book

"Limited" - now according to the New Homogenised Dictionary, means breaking serve seven times, hitting loads of aces and 30 odd winners in a three set match against the best player in the world

Next in an asylum near you; 'Homogenised explains how the sun really does rise in the West'  

 

_homogenised_ wrote:From what I can gather, this Craig guy is the ultimate Murray fanboy :P?

No. You're wrong again. It's me

Looks like Lendl believes Murray is the true No.1 right now...

"If somebody has two majors and an Olympic gold medal and everyone else has only one major — everyone can make their own opinion on that.

Novak is a great player, don’t get me wrong. He has had a phenomenal last 12 months, BUT under the biggest pressure Andy has two majors and a gold medal.

Yes, there was probably a little more with this because New York was the first, even though I count the Olympics as a major, especially at Wimbledon. But this one was more difficult to win because there was more pressure on Andy than there was at Flushing Meadows.

Every champion knows how many majors they won. Nobody remembers how many weeks they were No 1."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-2358505/Ivan-Lendl-believes-Andy-Murray-claim-best-player-planet.html

Not until he proves himself on clay!! i.e. has a season at least as good as 2011

My thoughts entirely. The boy done good but he's 3,000 points behind Novak and has got nowhere on clay. The very thing Lendl ascribes to Murray - "remarkable consistency" - is exactly what Novak has shown to be up above 12,000 points across the WHOLE season.

Lendl conveniently brushes that to the side by saying No.1 isn't important in weeks...yet it's a marker of great consistency and tour dominance. Likewise, he's trying to say Murray is effectively No.1 despite saying the weeks as No.1 are unimportant...looks like he's trying to have the argument all ways!

Yep! Away from clay Lendl is correct. A Masters, 2 slams and The Olympics, just about does it

But being the best is about consistency on all surfaces

Mind you Sampras did OK, with only reaching one RG SF.

I suppose it's feasible for Murray to have a 2011 clay court season, three masters and a couple of slams and be No.1? That would give a minimum of say 8000 points from around half the events he enters, so possible I suppose

His achievements for the past 12 months are stupendous given the fact that not long ago he was being labeled as the best player never to win a slam. He has arrived and is the biggest threat to Djokovic. There are no big changes in his game. Still there is no single devastating shot for 1-2 combination. But perhaps his mentality has changed. He might not achieve what a few of his contemporaries have done, but that is not the yardstick to measure his achievements. The biggest thing is that he has shrugged off the tag of underachiever.

Eskay wrote:Still there is no single devastating shot for 1-2 combination

Not on a consistent basis. But he now has a very constructive 5-6 shot sequence. At 0-30 on Novak's serve late in the 3rd set, he did this brilliantly, putting the Serb on the defensive before moving in to put away a simple below the net volley (for him). Although he, missed a signal was sent

I don't see that Murray needs to do well on clay to be number 1. He needs to dominate on hard. Currently, Novak holds 1 hc slam, 2 masters and the WTF. Murray holds one slam and one masters. If Murray wins two of the next 4 masters, defends the US and wins the WTF then he will probably be YE1. That, to me, isn't an unreasonable expectation for the world's best player.

Don't agree that Murray doesn't have a great 1-2 weapon.

I think he wins loads more points nowadays with big serve and aggressive forehand from a shorter return. Novak has noted in a previous interview that his aggression off the second shot is one of the marked improvements, and I fully agree.

In fact, I'd put it top of the list of his improvements.

I agree with Danny. Novak actually won a fair few of the long rallies on sunday. It was Murray's additional ability to pick up cheap points either through the serve or by ending points swiftly whivh gave him the edge.

Danny_1982 wrote:JubbaIsle - my comment was not a criticism of Murray, and I don't agree about the Mummy's boy stuff.... My point is that coaches like Petchy and Gilbert have stated that they tried to get Murray to be a bit more on the front foot and he was reticent to do it. Understandably in a way as his old approach got him to top 4 and beating most of the tour.

My point about authority is that everyone who has coached him, or certainly a couple of them that I've read about, tried to get him on the front foot and he didn't.

His first meeting with Lendl was based around the question of "how do I beat the top 3?" And in one of the few things Lendl has admitted about the tactical approach he said that he can't just stay behind the baseline, he has to make them run. He has to put them on the back foot by being on the baseline more often.

That's nothing new, Petchy has said he tried to get him playing that way years ago... But now it was coming from an 8 time slam winner. And straight away there was a difference. His first big slam match against one of those guys post Lendl he took the game to Djokovic and came up fractions short. My point being that Lendl, because of what he has achieved, had the authority to convince Murray it was the right thing to do.

I reiterate, I think all of this is huge credit to Murray. He has no bigger fan than me and I would never view any of the above - which is of course, my opinion - as a negative.

OK, Danny, I wasn't picking you up especially, my point revolved around the combination of Authority (lack of) and Spoilt brat descriptions that played as reasons for his behaviour in the past. I agree with most of what you said above, and that Petchey was a fine coach and did a lot of good for Murray, but he wasn't ready for that high level phase of tactical embroidery imo, Murray had to learn the hard way, as always the obstinate one, why his potent weapons were moving players around from the baseline by taking the shot earlier, then moving in for the kill or playing to the open court. I dont think Petchey ever got the credit he deserved from the media, I thought he transformed Murrays tactical nous quicker than anybody else. But still, the move from a purely defensive attitude, that surprisingly got him a good few victories, some of them over the top 4, most notably Federer was always a barrier for him going into the aggressive mode.

banbrotam wrote:

Eskay wrote:Still there is no single devastating shot for 1-2 combination

Not on a consistent basis. But he now has a very constructive 5-6 shot sequence. At 0-30 on Novak's serve late in the 3rd set, he did this brilliantly, putting the Serb on the defensive before moving in to put away a simple below the net volley (for him). Although he, missed a signal was sent

This indeed is the change. He is more confident while going on aggression. He was very aggressive against Nadal in 2010 A.O, but that looked very much Andy unlike. The present game is more balanced, though one would like him to develop the second serve, which has the look of extreme caution.

Eskay - the second serve he seems to kick every time. It's fine when he gets it deep as its very difficult to attack from, but when it lands short it might as well be carrying a banner that says "hit me" which is what Novak did on the second match point.

It's never going to be Sampras esq, or even as good as the other top guys, but if he can gain more consistent depth it won't be too bad combined with a 60-65% first serve percentage.

In addition to my original post is Murray's slam finals have all been against players ranked either No.3 or higher whereas the other top players (Federer, Nadal and Djokovic) did not have to face such huge challenges to get their ground-breaking first slam wins.

Federer won his first slam (Wimbledon 2013) against Mark Philippoussis (Ranked No.48 in the world at that time).

Nadal won his first slam (French Open 2005) against Mariano Puerta (Ranked No.44 in the world at that time).

Djokovic won his first slam (Australian Open 2008) against Jo Wilifried Tsonga (Ranked No.38 in the world at that time).

To what extent would Murray fans recognise the role played in Andy's recent success of Federer's decline and Nadal's injury? Do you think he would still be waiting or a Slam had neither player been so diminished?

I ask that because this far the only factors cited have been improvements to his game, but the reduction of competition hasn't been evaluated.

bogbrush wrote:To what extent would Murray fans recognise the role played in Andy's recent success of Federer's decline and Nadal's injury? Do you think he would still be waiting or a Slam had neither player been so diminished?

I ask that because this far the only factors cited have been improvements to his game, but the reduction of competition hasn't been evaluated.

I don't think Rafa's absence has been such a big deal - I'd reckon on the current version of Andy beating the current version of Rafa most of the time in the USO, and Rafa was at Wimbledon this year and unable to make progress.

Federer's apparent decline probably does make Wimbledon in particular a slightly easier challenge for Andy, although having said that there was not a huge gap between them in last year's final, just Fed played better at a few key points, and Andy redressed that in the Olympic final (I can accept Fed was tired after the Del P semi final, but not that it accounted for the difference between a win and a defeat of 6-4 6-1 6-2).

bogbrush wrote:To what extent would Murray fans recognise the role played in Andy's recent success of Federer's decline and Nadal's injury? Do you think he would still be waiting or a Slam had neither player been so diminished?

I ask that because this far the only factors cited have been improvements to his game, but the reduction of competition hasn't been evaluated.

For Federer he was world number 1 and Wimbledon champion at the time of the Olympics and USO both of which Murray won. He was obvoiusly showing great signs of decline then.

For Nadal. He was leading the points race for this year before going into Wimbledon and had been it the final of every tournament he had entered. We have to believe his knees were ok as so many on here have told us that could not be used as an excuse for his loss to Darcis.


For one who gets annoyed if people mention the strength of Federer's opposition between 2003 and 2007 I find it strange that you bring this up.

Thing is BB, yes Fed is in decline, but so what? McEnroe and Sampras have retired - no doubt Murray would have had more trouble winning Wimby if they were both still playing at their peak.
If you're saying that Fed is a better grass court player than Murray, well, yes he is and he's probably a better grass court player than the next 10 Wimby winners.
Are we going to say that the winner of Wimby 2023 benefitted from Fed's retirement in 1017?

bogbrush wrote:To what extent would Murray fans recognise the role played in Andy's recent success of Federer's decline and Nadal's injury? Do you think he would still be waiting or a Slam had neither player been so diminished?

I ask that because this far the only factors cited have been improvements to his game, but the reduction of competition hasn't been evaluated.

Yes and No really. We could say did Federer have to wait until Hewitt or Nalbandian got injured or for Agassi to turn 33 for him to start winning Slams? Swings and roundabouts.

Andy has taken a lot more time than I expected to mature and find his best game that enables him to compete and defeat his rivals. In the beginning it was a skinny kid with some lovely touches, over time he got fitter and bulked up a bit. He also cut alot of variety out his game and stuck with a rigid gameplay which is now reaping rewards.

Andy's peak will be one of debate in the future given that similar to Djokovic have had to make some major changes to reap the sport's top prizes which were contested by Fedal.

If Roger and Rafa are finished at the Slams, then it should be argued that the rest of the field should have an equal shot at the major prizes given the size of the gap left by them.

To answer. BB's question. I thnk he would have had still had a pretty good chance at winning a slam 'had neither player been so diminished'.

I think that Murray has made the  SF's in 9 of the last 10 ten slams he has played in (qf loss to Ferrer being the exception). Therefore he was nearly always there at the very sharp end of these events.

What he lacked previously was that when he came up against the top 3 n the slams he didn't have the mentality to beat them. The Wimbledon SF against Nadal in 2011 was a great example of that. A set up and being on top in the second set. One bad shot seemed to put him in meltdown. I'll admit at time I wondered if a slam would ever come. Even at the Wimbledon final last year I was disappointed that he didn't rally a bit more after Federer took that second set from him and lost rather tamely.

However he now seems to have gained that belief. I honestly don't see he is playing that much better but when the dips come against these guys he manages to put them behind him. It's playing in the moment rather than dwelling on what's gone. Lendl has obviously helped with this and that is why Murray hired him originally.

Calder106 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:To what extent would Murray fans recognise the role played in Andy's recent success of Federer's decline and Nadal's injury? Do you think he would still be waiting or a Slam had neither player been so diminished?

I ask that because this far the only factors cited have been improvements to his game, but the reduction of competition hasn't been evaluated.

For Federer he was world number 1 and Wimbledon champion at the time of the Olympics and USO both of which Murray won. He was obvoiusly showing great signs of decline then.

For Nadal. He was leading the points race for this year before going into Wimbledon and had been it the final of every tournament he had entered. We have to believe his knees were ok as so many on here have told us that could not be used as an excuse for his loss to Darcis.


For one who gets annoyed if people mention the strength of Federer's opposition between 2003 and 2007 I find it strange that you bring this up.

Yes,he was showing great signs of decline. He had been for some years.

Obviously we have to decide Nadals fitness on facts, not on rules of traded off arguments.

It's a question, politely phrased, that is of relevance to this thread.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Thing is BB, yes Fed is in decline, but so what? McEnroe and Sampras have retired - no doubt Murray would have had more trouble winning Wimby if they were both still playing at their peak.
If you're saying that Fed is a better grass court player than Murray, well, yes he is and he's probably a better grass court player than the next 10 Wimby winners.
Are we going to say that the winner of Wimby 2023 benefitted from Fed's retirement in 1017?

I anticipated this legitimate question. I don't say anything is invalidated about his win, I'm simply asking, amongst the rationale that he won because he improved so much, whether in fact the decline of others is as much or more relevant.

dummy_half wrote:

bogbrush wrote:To what extent would Murray fans recognise the role played in Andy's recent success of Federer's decline and Nadal's injury? Do you think he would still be waiting or a Slam had neither player been so diminished?

I ask that because this far the only factors cited have been improvements to his game, but the reduction of competition hasn't been evaluated.

I don't think Rafa's absence has been such a big deal - I'd reckon on the current version of Andy beating the current version of Rafa most of the time in the USO, and Rafa was at Wimbledon this year and unable to make progress.

Federer's apparent decline probably does make Wimbledon in particular a slightly easier challenge for Andy, although having said that there was not a huge gap between them in last year's final, just Fed played better at a few key points, and Andy redressed that in the Olympic final (I can accept Fed was tired after the Del P semi final, but not that it accounted for the difference between a win and a defeat of 6-4 6-1 6-2).

Does Rafas injury not matter? He is double champion and has always beaten Murray. I'm no Rafalito but I'm saying he was injured at Wimbledon.

bogbrush wrote:

Calder106 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:To what extent would Murray fans recognise the role played in Andy's recent success of Federer's decline and Nadal's injury? Do you think he would still be waiting or a Slam had neither player been so diminished?

I ask that because this far the only factors cited have been improvements to his game, but the reduction of competition hasn't been evaluated.

For Federer he was world number 1 and Wimbledon champion at the time of the Olympics and USO both of which Murray won. He was obvoiusly showing great signs of decline then.

For Nadal. He was leading the points race for this year before going into Wimbledon and had been it the final of every tournament he had entered. We have to believe his knees were ok as so many on here have told us that could not be used as an excuse for his loss to Darcis.


For one who gets annoyed if people mention the strength of Federer's opposition between 2003 and 2007 I find it strange that you bring this up.

Yes,he was showing great signs of decline. He had been for some years.

Obviously we have to decide Nadals fitness on facts, not on rules of traded off arguments.

It's a question, politely phrased, that is of relevance to this thread.

Yes this answer was a bit sarky but no more than the ones that you often give. So I'm fine with it and still think the points stand. Did Rafa blame his knees. Not sure that he did.

I did give you a second answer which was more detailed on why I thought he would have had a good chance of winning the slams he has anyway.

Don't agree that Fed was showing signs of decline last year. Between 08 and 11 he has at various points clearly taken his eye off tennis a bit but the way he played in late 2011/2012 was right up there with his peak. If anything, he was probably a more complete player as he had added aspects to his game to cope with actually having some decent challengers in the second part of his career. No way would 2012 Fed have been losing to Canas or Volandri.

Federer has been nothing like his 04-07 standard, and that's a statistical fact.  Being in your 30s means you are also not going to be at your physical best.  Again, a biological fact. I think some around these parts are going to be very surprised and annoyed when their favourite players are 28 and beyond.

_homogenised_ wrote:Federer has been nothing like his 04-07 standard, and that's a statistical fact.  Being in your 30s means you are also not going to be at your physical best.  Again, a biological fact.  I think some around these parts are going to be very surprised and annoyed when their favourite players are 28 and beyond.

More wonderful theorising from the nations favourite  Different players will peak at different times and also even if they are not at their peak, may be sufficiently better than their rivals to win things

Was the 1990-1992 Agassi worse than the 1999 onwards version? Probably, but considering he had about half a dozen 'live' and still competitive slam winners to compete with early in his career and more than half that number around 1999 - there is no doubt it was 'easier' for him later in his career

You forget that Novak and Andy have both spent years climbing an impossible summit set by Fedal - this means that even a slight dip makes them infinitely better than those outside the Top 5. Add the fact that Roger's best days are behind him and Nadal knees and Ferrer's age (although I note he torpedoes your theory, big style  ) and you could see both of them winning majors up to Roger's age - assuming injury doesn't catch up

The best I've seen Murray play was in 2008-2009 and maybe in AO 2010. This is over an extended period and not one off matches. Aside from the last game, from a purely tennis point of view, the match was really boring. A straight sets defeat can be entertaining if one of the players has some flair (usually the winning one) but this was so meh. Murray had this flair back in the day but he traded it in to be more like Nadal.

bogbrush wrote:Does Rafas injury not matter? He is double champion and has always beaten Murray

For me. No. I think some are giving too much respect to today's non-clay playing Rafa - lazily assuming he's going to rock up and relive 2008/10 or 11

It also pays no heed to the improvements in Murray.

According to Uncle Toni, Rafa's back for The Rogers Cup and is aiming for the US Open, so we'll see

If Nadal wasn't injured he'd probably have beaten Murray unless Lendl has convinced Murray not to lose to him anymore. It's hard to say as they haven't played since Lendl joined with Murray I don't think. Even in the early days Murray should never have lost to him anywhere except clay but he still managed to so what's to say this time would have been different.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:If Nadal wasn't injured he'd probably have beaten Murray unless Lendl has convinced Murray not to lose to him anymore. It's hard to say as they haven't played since Lendl joined with Murray I don't think. Even in the early days Murray should never have lost to him anywhere except clay but he still managed to so what's to say this time would have been different.

What's to say it wouldn't? Truth is no-one knows. Problem is a lot of people think they do know.

Well I gave my point of view that unless Murray's mentality on specifically this has changed, I think he'd have lost.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:If Nadal wasn't injured he'd probably have beaten Murray unless Lendl has convinced Murray not to lose to him anymore. It's hard to say as they haven't played since Lendl joined with Murray I don't think. Even in the early days Murray should never have lost to him anywhere except clay but he still managed to so what's to say this time would have been different.

In the last 5 years, they're 4-4 on hard courts and yes 2-0 to Nadal on Grass. You make it sound like it's 20-0 and the Spaniard has some kind of hex on him

Can you tell me what happened the last time they played? That will be just as relevant, simply because it showcased Murray's more powerful forehand

Or are we going to assume that past results set the precedent for the future?

If so, how on earth did Federer turn around his appalling early records against Henman and Nalbandian?  

My point was Murray always had the tools to do it but for whatever reason he never did. He always had, on occasion, a great forehand. Unless things change then why should the past be different to the future?

break_in_the_fifth wrote:My point was Murray always had the tools to do it but for whatever reason he never did. He always had, on occasion, a great forehand. Unless things change then why should the past be different to the future?

You are missing the massive key change in the past year. He has discovered a winning mentality in big matches whereas before he fell short. The big breakthrough was the Olympic Final and since then has followed that up with wins at the US Open and Wimbledon. Whats more since Lendl became his coach Murray has never failed to win at least one set in each of his slam final appearances - prior to Lendl becoming his coach he hadn't won a single set in his slam final appearances.

Maybe you haven't noticed but there has been a couple of subtle (or not so - depending on your opinion) improvements in his play

1) Better first serve (in fairness the 2nd serve remains his only issue)
2) A far more consistent and powerful forehand

The second is the key as it breaks down far less than it used to. It's now keeping his main rivals honest as this weakness that they kept attacking isn't a big one anymore

Previously in big matches they would attack him and wait for it to break down - once it did, that was it as an attacking force. This meant that against Rafa, he would be constantly wanting to get onto his backhand leaving the court wide open. Now he doesn't. Indeed he probably overdoes the forehand!!

Classic illustration of this was against Novak on Sunday, you could see the Serb getting spaced out with Murray's unnerving ability to do pop back a couple of forehands and then suddenly unleash a killer. This meant he (Novak) was uncertain which side Murray would go and actually started defending the wing from Murray's forehand - which led to a couple of beautiful wrong footing backhands

i.e. Murray now has a very good backhand, arguably the best in the game and a forehand that has enough variety in it to make up for the constant power it lasts

Fair enough I'll take your word for it as I haven't seen him play much lately. I still think that at the end of 2008 and start of 2009 he had everything he needed but not so much in the years that followed. He used to get the better of Djokovic back then as well.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Fair enough I'll take your word for it as I haven't seen him play much lately. I still think that at the end of 2008 and start of 2009 he had everything he needed but not so much in the years that followed. He used to get the better of Djokovic back then as well.

Of course he did and nobody is arguing there. The major difference between then and now is that Murray can beat the top players in the crunch matches as well where in say 2008 and 2009 he was usually losing those crunch matches.

To answer BB's question and respond to BiTF's point, I think Murray has definitely improved mentally since the start of 2012.

How much of him breaking his slam duck and following it up at Wimbledon is down to that and how much to other factors (e.g. Federer's decline, Nadal's knees, Djokovic's falling back from 2011 level, kind draws, tired opponents) of course can't be quantified.

However, I'd say his performance in his first 3 slams finals (or second and third anyway, giving an allowance for the first) was pretty poor - rather like a Lisicki freeze where became very passive, didn't seem to have any tactics or couldn't execute them if he did have. Many of his semi-finals were the same. At the start of 2012, my own opinion was that even he was to get a "draw opening up" scenario, he'd regress to that type of play in a final and still lose - which would add even more mental scars. However, the loss in the AO semi followed by the Wimbledon final showed a big improvement in that regard even if he didn't win.

So whether he would have won his slams if not for Federer's decline or Nadal's knee problems can't be answered but I would have expected him to be closer with him executing more of the right tactics than previously.

It's chicken and egg. He's worked out how to pace himself better in slams, making him mentally fresh - meaning that he executes his plans better

Conversely he at times look pants in The Masters (see the Del Potro defeat at IW)

Ironically, it is this reason that he's not No.1. 3/4 victories would have probably swung enough points to him

Born Slippy wrote:Don't agree that Fed was showing signs of decline last year. Between 08 and 11 he has at various points clearly taken his eye off tennis a bit but the way he played in late 2011/2012 was right up there with his peak. If anything, he was probably a more complete player as he had added aspects to his game to cope with actually having some decent challengers in the second part of his career. No way would 2012 Fed have been losing to Canas or Volandri.

Eh? Are you kidding? He bust everything to get that #1 position and now we're seeing the payback.

2012 Fed slipped in a loss to retiring Roddick. 2007 Fed wouldn't have. Or are we saying Roddick retired at his peak too?

banbrotam wrote:It's chicken and egg. He's worked out how to pace himself better in slams, making him mentally fresh - meaning that he executes his plans better

Conversely he at times look pants in The Masters (see the Del Potro defeat at IW)

Ironically, it is this reason that he's not No.1. 3/4 victories would have probably swung enough points to him

I don't think he was that bad against Delpo Banbro. I thought he played ok. He didn't use nearly enough variety and particularly slice, but Delpo was in great form.

When Delpo is really at it he can beat all the top guys, and that was one of those days. Agree with the rest if your post though.

Federer's decline began, or rather stuttered into being at the beginning of 2008. He made a short comeback in 2009, but by then the die was cast.

It wasn't age that impeded him, but the efforts of up and coming players and some who'd been around for a few years to get to or above the level he had set from 2003/4 onwards in trying to defeat him.

We all noticed the dominance of Federer for those 4 yrs of 2004 - 2007.

2008 was the catalyst that heralded not the end, but the beginning of Nadal and Djokovic's reign. Roger made them work hard for three years and got paid back with 4 wins out of 8 slam finals in a row, but by then, he was not as dominant on the court as before.

Murray came strong at the end of Roger's era, played through the duopoly of Nadal and Djokovic's rise to No1 and is now in contention for the No1 spot himself, as Nadal has faded away somewhat and Djokovic may have reached his apogee of dominance. We won't know for sure until the next two years have passed, but one things for sure, Murray is now a much better player, physically, mentally and tactically.

Its not reasonable to predict he could be No1 next year at some point if he can maintain the form (hopefully without injury) that has seen him not only win 2 slams in two years, but get to the semi-finals or better of the last 11 slams, barring a QF and Absence for the last two FO's.

bogbrush wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Don't agree that Fed was showing signs of decline last year. Between 08 and 11 he has at various points clearly taken his eye off tennis a bit but the way he played in late 2011/2012 was right up there with his peak. If anything, he was probably a more complete player as he had added aspects to his game to cope with actually having some decent challengers in the second part of his career. No way would 2012 Fed have been losing to Canas or Volandri.

Eh? Are you kidding? He bust everything to get that #1 position and now we're seeing the payback.

2012 Fed slipped in a loss to retiring Roddick. 2007 Fed wouldn't have. Or are we saying Roddick retired at his peak too?

According to some around here, players are at their peak from 20 through to 35.  To those of us with an ounce of logic (including what Federer has openly said himself) and a pair of eyeballs, peak is around 21 to 26 physically. This is also a biological fact.  Very few players have won Wimbledon at Federer's age.  The fact he did it does not mean he was at his peak or prime, it simply means he is a rarity.  We all saw how much he had to fight in that championship, and most of them since 2008, whereas before he was untouchable and dismissed everyone as if they weren't even there (aside from Nadal on clay).

All you need to do is stop posting crap here, people, and go on youtube.  Rewatch some of his matches from 04-07 and notice the better speed, footwork, power, precision.  It's absolutely obvious.  I cannot wait for Nadal Djok and Murray to reach 30.  I am going to laugh at some of you here so hard.

Players didn't get better, Federer got a lot worse. Federer at 80% beat Djokovic and Murray in their primes last year at Wimbledon. Can you imagine how much better Federer actually was in his own prime, if he can do that NOW?

All you need to do is stop posting crap here

I hope you follow your own logic and do the above

legendkillarV2 wrote:

All you need to do is stop posting crap here

I hope you follow your own logic and do the above

Another intelligent post.... (sarcasm)  Are you 5?

_homogenised_ wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

All you need to do is stop posting crap here

I hope you follow your own logic and do the above

Another intelligent post.... (sarcasm)  Are you 5?

Oh the irony  

Not everyone has to agree with you. Just because they don't doesn't mean you can slag them off or that they're wrong

carrieg4 wrote:

_homogenised_ wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

All you need to do is stop posting crap here

I hope you follow your own logic and do the above

Another intelligent post.... (sarcasm)  Are you 5?

Oh the irony  

Can you spell Clique?