The Federer/Murray H2H

Just checking the Federer/Murray H2H. It used to be something that was talked about quite a bit.

They have met 5 times at the WTF/Masters cup. I am totally biased because I refuse to see this event as anything more than an end of year exhibition with prize money, ranking points and a way of ripping the public off. To demonstrate my point Federer came away with the trophy on the one occasion that Murray beat him. They have also now met 4 times at Cinncinati. They have played 7 matches in the UK (4 WTF, 2 Wimbledon and the Olympics). The Olympics is perhaps the only match Federer has ever played when the crowd has cheered overwhelmingly for his opponent and against him?

They have played 5 times in slams (2 finals, 2 semi finals and a quarter final). The first time they met was in the 2008 US final. They didn't meet again in a slam until the 2012 Wimbledon final. In 2013 and 2014 they met in the semi's and the quarters of the AO and this year the SF of Wimbledon. Federer won 3 of their slam meetings in straight sets and the 2014 AO QF in four. Murray won the 2013 in five.

Surprising that they have never met on clay considering the number of mandatory tournaments that they will have both entered. Although the new ATP site does say that they have! It states that the 2008 Madrid Masters was played on outdoor clay    This is how history can be changed...

At one point Murray was 5-2 in their H2H in 7 matches played between 2005 and 2009. In 2006 Murray shocked Federer by beating him in straight sets in the round of 32 in Cincinnati. Murray continued to lead their H2H until Federer crushed him for the loss of one game in the WTF 2014. Federer has now won their last 5 matches reversing a negative H2H. According to the commentators last night Murray has not managed to break Federer's serve in their last 3 matches. For a 34 year old to do this against a much younger opponent is unusual. I'm sure there are many different reasons why

I think there's a lot of matches where one or other has been impaired - Murray last year, Federer had back issues in some matches or a marathon 7-setter just before.

It seems to make most sense to compare their early matches against their latest, which indicate a very big switch in the opposite direction to all logic. Very odd.

The most noticeable thing in their matches in recent matches is Murray's returning. So much more conservative

Combination of a few things in my view:

1. Federer improving his serve and backhand (new racquet);
2. Murray's back injury;
3. Their last four matches being on surfaces where Fed would usually have a slight edge in any event. Cincy isn't quite as quick as Wimbledon but its still fast.

Having watched last night, I am relatively confident Murray will win if they play at the US Open. Fed won't be breezing around the court so smoothly after 5 or 6 matches and Murray is likely to be slightly fresher. On a slightly slower court, I would expect the h2h to start shifting back the other way.

Not conservative LK - just bad. Every time he tried to attack he either missed or totally mis-cued.

In some cases yes bad, but for me he plays too conservatively off the return. Plays it too short for my liking compared with years before. It's painful viewing.

On another point.

HE if Nadal ever won the WTF, would your 'biased' view of the event become even more overwhelmingly biased?

HE is also factually wrong as Murray's win over Fed at the Masters Cup knocked Fed out of the event. The title was won by Novak that year.

Born Slippy wrote:HE is also factually wrong as Murray's win over Fed at the Masters Cup knocked Fed out of the event. The title was won by Novak that year.

Yes, good spot. Murray, already qualified, did not need to win that match against Fed and was so worn out he had nothing left for the semi.
Wonder if fatigue played a part last night, too. Fed, still, wins matches so quickly he gives himself more of a chance to progress deep into tournaments. Still find it strange that Fed is beating Andy so consistently now, though.

They have played four times at the wtf's.
'08 - Murray won, Feds won the rest.

Lol at HE hating on the WTF;s. Because Rafa has never won there?

I suspect it's become a nicer match up for Federer. Both have changed their games and as he's become more attacking and Murray less idiosyncratic it's resulted in a lot of similar looking rallies where Federer hammers home any advantage, and Murray sometimes lets it slip.

That, and Federers serve is so much better it's blunted Andys access to his service games.

Cincy looks faster than Wimbledon to me.

Yeah, probably only Dubai is little faster, also Fleming said the bounce is so low on Cincy, it suits Feds slice and serve.

It seems to me that Murray has become less adept at returning Federer's serve over the last couple of years.

Which is odd because I think that Novak has improved at it over the same period.

Has Federer changed his serve motion at all? Maybe it's become harder for Andy to read.

I think possibly Fed is mixing up the second serve more but I don't think the motion has changed. In the four matches before Murray's back injury Fed averaged 44% points won on second serve. It was 79% yesterday. The commentators were suggesting this was due to the new racquet. It would be interesting to see a similar comparison to Novak. My sense is that the same change hasn't occurred.

I've always been of the view that h2h's can be as informative as they can be misleading - especially if seen, as so often is the case, in isolation from the wider achievements of any two players being assessed.

As others have pointed out, the evolving pattern of this Federer v Murray h2h, notwithstanding any background reasons & context, is turning out to be rather unusual - perhaps even unique in modern tennis history for two top players of the same respective ages ....?

All that said, this is obviously a wholly unbiased article by the OP. Indeed, in the interests of balance, I think it's fair to point out that hawkeye did produce a very similar article (with similar data and in-depth analysis) some years ago, when the h2h was firmly in Andy's favour. Oh ....sorry ....hang on a mo .... on reflection I may have got wrong...my memory must be playing tricks with me  .....

10 sets in a row Federer has won I read earlier. That's mental. Especially the fact that the last 5 sets have come either side of Murray beating Novak. So hardly like Murray isn't in form.

I think he has to rethink the gameplan against Roger. Yes Roger has served great the last two matches, but I still think Andy is kinda waiting. Trying to outlast him. He needs to go at him, outhit him. He was aggressive and attacking against Novak last week. He needs to do the same. Get Roger moving.

The patient game used to work against Roger. Now it doesn't. Fair play to Roger for turning the rivalry around. He gets loads of credit for his technique, but he's obviously a great tactician too.

I hope Andy doesn't meet him in the open. 10 sets in a row is going to be difficult mentally to turn around.

The H2H certainly shows that any individual H2H doesn't really reflect the greatness of the individual players.
At one point Murray was 11 - 9 up, but no-one thought Murray was a better/greater player than Fed, and even at 14 - 11 to Fed it makes them look fairly even, which certainly isn't the case in overall achievement. So what you then have to do is place each match in context and figure out the reasons why, which may be OK for 25 matches, but if you take, say, Fed-Djoko (41st match later, even at 20-20) it becomes an almost pointless chore.
So while it can pass a bit of time to look at an H2H, unless you're prepared to go into a full analysis, there are many occasions where it's just a footnote.

This is true, it really only has value to me as an insight into some ways their games have developed.

Funny also that as the h2h has deteriorated, Murray has started winning Slams as Federer has stopped. Make of that what anyone will.

I think it does show Federer was struggling in 08 and the early part of 09 with back issues and mono. He lost a lot of strange matches in those two years that he would never have lost 04-07

Born Slippy wrote:Combination of a few things in my view:

1. Federer improving his serve and backhand (new racquet);
2. Murray's back injury;
3. Their last four matches being on surfaces where Fed would usually have a slight edge in any event. Cincy isn't quite as quick as Wimbledon but its still fast.

Having watched last night, I am relatively confident Murray will win if they play at the US Open. Fed won't be breezing around the court so smoothly after 5 or 6 matches and Murray is likely to be slightly fresher. On a slightly slower court, I would expect the h2h to start shifting back the other way.

Couldn't have put it better myself

Federer has simply always been the best where the conditions are at their fastest. Murray is the next and then Novak. This explains why Roger has won arguably the fastest Master seven times, Murray twice and Novak none

It's simply a matter of how many times we get these fast conditions. Wimbledon had a spell when the weather was terrible, but 2013 and the particularly the second week, this year, Wed - Fri conditions were faster, i.e. better for Roger

So it's no surprise that Murray has lost their last two matches and 2014 can now be seen as a write off, similar to Rafa's end to 2009

A more confident Roger, which he now is, isn't going to be an easy proposition - so he has a great chance of lifting the US Open. But I do think, it will depend on the conditions, assuming he ends up playing one or both of his key rivals

I think Andy rationalises these defeats and so it doesn't affect him mentally. So I don't see him fearing Roger, should they meet in two weeks

Danny_1982 wrote:10 sets in a row Federer has won I read earlier. That's mental. Especially the fact that the last 5 sets have come either side of Murray beating Novak. So hardly like Murray isn't in form.

I think he has to rethink the gameplan against Roger. Yes Roger has served great the last two matches, but I still think Andy is kinda waiting. Trying to outlast him. He needs to go at him, outhit him. He was aggressive and attacking against Novak last week. He needs to do the same. Get Roger moving.

The patient game used to work against Roger. Now it doesn't. Fair play to Roger for turning the rivalry around. He gets loads of credit for his technique, but he's obviously a great tactician too.

I hope Andy doesn't meet him in the open. 10 sets in a row is going to be difficult mentally to turn around.

I agree in the main, but Andy had few attacking shots in him this week. His weakness of course, is that he's not an natural attacker and so and intense match against one of his rivals, i.e. Novak last Sunday, is always going to make him lesser of a player for the following week. It's why I've never thought he'll get to No.1

I don't think there will be any mental scars. He'd lost eight on the bounce to Novak - but played as though it was almost the other way around, in Montreal

The defeats, whilst disappointing for him and fans like CC and I, could be explained. However, if Roger beats him at the US (should they meed) in, say, cooler conditions - given it's three sets, then he's definitely got Andy's number

Absolutely; I think Murray will be quite confident of playing Federer at the USO. Admittedly, I think he might feel the need to take it long rather than just take the tennis on and win (I know that sounds terribly judgemental, and to some extent it is, but I don't mean it as loftily as it might read) but I think he'll feel he has the route to get the win.

Federer desperately needs Djokovic & Murray in the same half, and some kind of hideous endless war between them before a final. There's no other way he wins this.

bogbrush wrote:Absolutely; I think Murray will be quite confident of playing Federer at the USO. Admittedly, I think he might feel the need to take it long rather than just take the tennis on and win (I know that sounds terribly judgemental, and to some extent it is, but I don't mean it as loftily as it might read) but I think he'll feel he has the route to get the win.

Federer desperately needs Djokovic & Murray in the same half, and some kind of hideous endless war between them before a final. There's no other way he wins this.

Pretty much my own thoughts.

Except I might go a bit further in saying that these days Federer is more vulnerable in early Slam rounds, even before he gets as far as meeting one or more of the really big guys/title favourites (the AO loss to Seppi is a good example of the sort of exit that wasn't a feature of his heyday streaks of consecutive Slam Finals)

I agree that Murray has become mentally strong enough to self-manage a run of defeats and to face troublesome opponents with renewed determination each time. In that sense, he will not have been scarred or especially surprised by the recent pattern of losses to Fed. Andy is an outstanding 'student of the game' and would never have been in any doubt that Federer is almost always a serious challenge, so nothing new there as they say.

bogbrush wrote:Absolutely; I think Murray will be quite confident of playing Federer at the USO. Admittedly, I think he might feel the need to take it long rather than just take the tennis on and win (I know that sounds terribly judgemental, and to some extent it is, but I don't mean it as loftily as it might read) but I think he'll feel he has the route to get the win.

Federer desperately needs Djokovic & Murray in the same half, and some kind of hideous endless war between them before a final. There's no other way he wins this.

You're becoming very diplomatic these days. It's unnerving!

I don't think there can be much doubt about what you say though. There's a clear cause and effect.

Should they meet, Federer will be super agressive because he knows he has to be. Murray will then go into containment mode. Probably Djokovic will as well, depending on where his head's at.

I think the mental toughness of all three, including Roger, is a zillion miles better (so to speak!!) than it was, say in 2010

And there's one person responsible for that, Rafa, who made you mentally tougher of else he'd have just won everything

It's why they are way ahead of the rest, they've had so much practice at having important disappointing, it simply made them even stronger

I think Murray shrugs off any defeat now, simply because what he went through last year has made him far more appreciative of the game and how easy it can be lost, if you have any injury

Hoping for a good two weeks and actually, yes I'm mad (what Yorkshireman isn't?), hoping for Roger v Andy final with redemption for the Scot

HM Murdock wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Absolutely; I think Murray will be quite confident of playing Federer at the USO. Admittedly, I think he might feel the need to take it long rather than just take the tennis on and win (I know that sounds terribly judgemental, and to some extent it is, but I don't mean it as loftily as it might read) but I think he'll feel he has the route to get the win.

Federer desperately needs Djokovic & Murray in the same half, and some kind of hideous endless war between them before a final. There's no other way he wins this.

You're becoming very diplomatic these days. It's unnerving!

I don't think there can be much doubt about what you say though. There's a clear cause and effect.

Should they meet, Federer will be super agressive because he knows he has to be. Murray will then go into containment mode. Probably Djokovic will as well, depending on where his head's at.

I know, it's bothering me, but in this case banbrotam is a good guy. As to the trend, I blame you slightly because you bring so much balance to the Force whereas I am at my best when Dark Lords of the Sith like Haddie are active.

On the other hand it might just be that I'm less stressed about Federer because I've let go of expectations.

Bromance

To quote the Emperor:

"Bogbrush and HM must not become a Jedi"

bogbrush wrote: As to the trend, I blame you slightly because you bring so much balance to the Force whereas I am at my best when Dark Lords of the Sith like Haddie are active.

The ceasefire with Socal was start of the problem.

I'm really no substitute for him. I lack the necessary animus for Federer and the adroitness at constructing poo-based metaphor.

Not that I'm suggesting a resumption of hostilities. As much as I look back fondly at the madness of that period, I don't think the forum would survive another war. Double figures on people banned, surely!

True, Socal can make Palpatine / Sideous look like Jar Jar Binks.

Seriously. The boards are excellent these days. Good intelligent debate (if you ignore any of mine ) but with good humour, wit etc

Socal is that evil?

LuvSports! wrote:Socal is that evil?

Sith don't consider themselves evil.

(I sound so like I'm into Star Wars, I'm really not - but if you waste an hour going through this http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/The_Force sort of thing you can get a bit snagged).

Ha you big kid.

Federer has now stopped Djokovic's attempts to reverse his negative H2H with him too...

HE, how did the confusion arise about the WTF event when Murray beat Fed? You've also erased the AO 2010 final from history which I thought would be one of your favourites as Murray proper cried afterward.

hawkeye wrote:Federer has now stopped Djokovic's attempts to reverse his negative H2H with him too...

For now.

I see it as putting off the inevitable (though for the forum fanboys / girls) it allows discounting for age ......