Amazing stat I read...

First topic message reminder :

Murray is 2/25 against top 5 since April 2013!

This will not help Murray win another slam.

simple question: why is it so low?

I agree IMBL. Its like Sampras towards the end, his serve basically won him USO 2002 when he'd lost half a yard and was losing more regularly.
Federer has also really developed his serve to be an even better weapon because he needs to maximise that given his advancing age.
Maybe he didn't play better on the day in 2008 but he was undoubtedly a better overall player back then. To suggest otherwise flies in the face of hardly anyone winning slams in their 30s.

Fair points B_S, I'd just add this;

It's true Federer in 2016 semi vs Murray was serving at a scary level. It felt like (haven't checked the stats exactly), he was hitting 3 unreturnables every game. I almost felt sorry for Murray. But the other aspects of his game, including movement have regressed since his prime.
As for the W/UE point, I think you'll recognise that in a match which is serve dominant, there will be many chances to hit winners with 1-2 punches; while in a match where Federer isn't serving quite as well he may be rallying better but still have more chances to hit UEs as there more substanial rallies.

I think Wimbledon 08 was a long way from being Federer's best Wimbledon performance.

As I've said before, I think the legend of that match rests mainly on the drama and quality of that 4th set tie break.

It's tough to compare the 08 final to the 15 SF. As a 'performance' there doesn't seem much between them. But put '15 Fed against '08 Nadal and he gets thrashed.

My personal favourite Federer Wimbledon performance is probably 2012 v Murray.

I would agree re: 2008, that was a match Nadal should have won in likely straights if not for that rain delay.
Put '15 Nadal vs '08 Nadal and he gets thrashed too!

HM Murdock wrote:I think Wimbledon 08 was a long way from being Federer's best Wimbledon performance.

As I've said before, I think the legend of that match rests mainly on the drama and quality of that 4th set tie break.

It's tough to compare the 08 final to the 15 SF. As a 'performance' there doesn't seem much between them. But put '15 Fed against '08 Nadal and he gets thrashed.

My personal favourite Federer Wimbledon performance is probably 2012 v Murray.

So you think 2008 Nadal is miles better than 2015 Novak on grass - stratospherically better on that analysis?

Born Slippy wrote:

So you think 2008 Nadal is miles better than 2015 Novak on grass  - stratospherically better on that analysis?

No, because the match-ups work differently, it's not that simple.
The odd hypothetical is Fed in an average match in his prime vs the specific performance of Fed Wimby 2015 SF.
Firstly we have to note it's not a fair comparison inherently, as 2015 WimSF was not a representative match of Federer's 2015, it was probably his best match of the year.
But that aside, who would win? Federer in his prime I'm almost certain was a better all round player. But the way Federer was serving against Murray, surely he (prime) would never be able to break himself (2016 Wimby SF). I guess it would finish 7-6 6-7 7-6 7-6 to Federer in his prime or something like that.

lydian wrote:

My "agenda" Calder is to show that Murray has changed his approach given the results suggest so. I posited that the gremlins in his technique combined with the Lendl approach made him redline his game and exacerbate those glitches further - leading to mental and physical strain. In combination with this, he lost his unique range of variety - and it was the variety that ACTUALLY gave him nearly 50/50 wins vs the big 4 up to end of 2012.

My point Lydian was that Nore Stat posted two links from the same interview with Goran which basically said whichever is more accurate Murray 'Let Lendl Go' or ''Sackked' him. Goran said he thought that was wrong but never elaborated on why it had happened.

Well that says it all doesn't it Nore.
Murray dropped Lendl because he just didn't want to follow that approach any more. He wanted to play tennis the way he used to know and enjoy, and not stress his body & mind in the process!


I linked a couple articles which implied that Murray actually wanted Lendl to commit more time to him than he was. As Lendl would not commit to that they split up. So I do not see how the articles posted by NS 'says it all'

BTW Goran also said in the BBC article NS linked "Last year was up and down for him, he changed the coaches. For me that's maybe his biggest mistake, letting Ivan go," Ivanisevic told BBC Sport.

"Because it was a perfect match. They did everything well together "

Born Slippy wrote:So you think 2008 Nadal is miles better than 2015 Novak on grass  - stratospherically better on that analysis?

No, it's the match up.

Nadal's game has always troubled Federer more than Djokovic's game, and 2008/9 was probably when he was most troublesome!

A match on grass between 08 Nadal v 15 Djokovic would be interesting...

HM Murdock wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:So you think 2008 Nadal is miles better than 2015 Novak on grass  - stratospherically better on that analysis?

No, it's the match up.

Nadal's game has always troubled Federer more than Djokovic's game, and 2008/9 was probably when he was most troublesome!

A match on grass between 08 Nadal v 15 Djokovic would be interesting...

Yes, because even with greater movement he couldn't compete consistently with Rafa from the baseline - he'd end up stuck in an endless loop of forehand to backhand. However, the slight weakness in Rafa's game has always been his return. My recollection in 2008 was he broke, certainly in the first two sets, due to poor games from Fed. On a fast court, Fed serving at 75% (compared to 64% in 2008) hitting the corner with every serve? I'm not seeing Rafa thrashing him. In fact, I'm struggling to see how Rafa breaks at all.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, on medium to slow courts Fed clearly isn't as good. On fast courts though? Can we really say he could have done any better at Cincy at his peak than he did last year?

Born Slippy wrote:

Yes, because even with greater movement he couldn't compete consistently with Rafa from the baseline - he'd end up stuck in an endless loop of forehand to backhand. However, the slight weakness in Rafa's game has always been his return. My recollection in 2008 was he broke, certainly in the first two sets, due to poor games from Fed.  On a fast court, Fed serving at 75% (compared to 64% in 2008) hitting the corner with every serve? I'm not seeing Rafa thrashing him. In fact, I'm struggling to see how Rafa breaks at all.

It doesn't quite work like that. Nadal has his ways of troubling Federer. He'd probably stand further back and get more returns back into play, not necessarily great returns, but he'd get enough into play and then Federer is more vulnerable to Nadal than anyone in a rally.. so he'd be more likely to panic and hit a wrong shot to try and avoid a rally etc. it's all cyclical.

Fast courts allow players with great serves to hide other weaknesses in their games. Ask Dr Ivo.
Calder, I also read that Lendl didn't agree Murray should have back surgery so it seems there was more going on behind closed doors on this.
Irrespective, it doesn't change that Murray wants to get more variety back into his game...for x, y and z reasons.

BS, just off the top of my head I can think of W 05 against Roddick, semi 06, against Gasquet, 03 final, 12 final against Murray. They were all better all round displays showcasing his talent. The 14 semi was just Fed in the zone on his serve.

As for which version of Fed is better (consistently better, not just one off matches) then obviously it's the younger version. In What kind of Illogical fantasy world is a 34 yr old tennis player with 1300 Matches in his legs better than his 25 yr old self? You clearly don't understand the sport. In fact I remember you writing that Federer's extra experience at this age compensates fir the physical decline due to age. Again complete nonsense. The guy was on double digit slams wins by age 25, he didn't need any more experience. The experience since then has been more negative than positive - hard losses that have dented his confidence. As a whole experience is beneficial up until you start losing big matches then it just adds scars and drains confidence. It's the same in life.

Movement is the biggest element for success in today's tour given that all top players have excellent groundstrokes. A drop off in movement and your entire game is affected. Federer was the best mover on tour now he's not even in the top 6. He still has great footwork but he no longer has the speed, explosive Ness or endurance of his younger days. Obviously this makes him a lesser player. A few more aces doesn't make up for that. One e of his signature shots was the inside out forehand - rarely see him play it now. Just isn't quick enough to run around the backhand. For the same reason he now gets pinned down on the bh wing against other right handers - in the past he'd skip around and defend that wing much better. And there are so many other areas of his game that have declined but if you can't see these glaring differences then you're not gonna appreciate the subtler changes.

The overall difference in percengage terms doesn't have to be huge but even a one or two percent drop at this level can see a player go from winning slams to not winning slams.

I'm done with the tennis 101 lessons using my mobile.

If you want to learn some more basics you can pm me for private lessons.

£963 per hour and not a penny less.

In your opinion of course

emancipator wrote:The guy was on double digit slams wins by age 25, he didn't need any more experience.  The experience since then has been more negative than positive -  hard losses that have dented his confidence. As a whole experience is beneficial up until you start losing big matches then it just adds scars and drains confidence.

A very good point, and one that I hadn't thought about before.

It rings true too. I think Federer has looked noticeably nervous in his last couple of slam finals v Novak. USO last year especially.

There are a few areas that make a tennis player - mental strength, conditioning, skill and movement.
If we examine them re: Fed for now vs. 10ish years ago...

Mental strength - SAME
Conditioning - WORSE (he's not as durable or recovers as well as before)
Skill - BETTER (I'd argue his serve, volleying and BH are all better...FH maybe a bit less....but up on balance)
Movement - WORSE (there is no doubt that his footspeed is not the same...straight line speed is similar but acceleration/deftness isn't)

So for me its 1 up, 2 down...so on balance that's a down vs. 2005-8ish.
Sometimes his skill can really shine as discussed...but it wont make up for the net loss areas in general.

Calder106 wrote:

lydian wrote:

My "agenda" Calder is to show that Murray has changed his approach given the results suggest so. I posited that the gremlins in his technique combined with the Lendl approach made him redline his game and exacerbate those glitches further - leading to mental and physical strain. In combination with this, he lost his unique range of variety - and it was the variety that ACTUALLY gave him nearly 50/50 wins vs the big 4 up to end of 2012.

My point Lydian was that Nore Stat posted two links from the same interview with Goran which basically said whichever is more accurate Murray 'Let Lendl Go' or ''Sackked' him. Goran said he thought that was wrong but never elaborated on why it had happened.

Well that says it all doesn't it Nore.
Murray dropped Lendl because he just didn't want to follow that approach any more. He wanted to play tennis the way he used to know and enjoy, and not stress his body & mind in the process!


I linked a couple articles which implied that  Murray actually wanted Lendl to commit more time to him than he was. As Lendl would not commit to that they split up. So I do not see how the articles posted by NS 'says it all'

BTW Goran also said in the BBC article NS linked "Last year was up and down for him, he changed the coaches. For me that's maybe his biggest mistake, letting Ivan go," Ivanisevic told BBC Sport.

"Because it was a perfect match. They did everything well together "

BIB:  You are twisting the meaning of "Says it all".  

It only "says it all" because it is CONSISTENT with a whole lot of other evidence that Murray has moved away and regressed from the Lendl coached winning ways of his recent playing past.  

Drop the Goran Isanivovic comment and you are STILL left with overwhelming EVIDENCE that Murray has shifted away from the "winning style": Murray's own comments in considering Muaresmo + Murray's post Lendl results + Murray's post-Lendl on court performances.  

Reading Murray's & Lendl's statements again on their departure clearly reveals Lendl was happy to renegotiate what he deemed to be a workable arrangement but Murray refused that demanding more time from Lendl and it was ultimately Murray's decision to let Lendl go - despite Murray being "gutted" that he had to let Lendl go.

If Lydian and I are "biased" - you should check your own biases.  We are only interested in the EVIDENCE and the BEST EXPLANATION for that evidence.  Hence I am happy to adapt the explanation when more evidence is presented or when a new explanation is given that has at least the same explanative power.  I have already noted my own current weakness of assessing technical components - hence my use of other peoples comments and my understanding of their comments.  I assume you have a few weaknesses yourself you might be willing to accept.

It was actually me not BIB and yes I have lots of weaknesses that I am willing to accept. Not being a tennis technical expert is one of them. No problem with admitting that. However I can see that his 2nd Serve is weak and his FH is more liable to break down than the other three. I do also think as I have said previously that mentality is also a big factor. I feel that this is mainly a separate weakness from the technical ones. It is also my impression that this was what Lendl was mainly brought in to address and has dropped since the split with Lendl.

Your second and third paragraphs are facts which I totally agree with. However does that mean you think he should have stayed with Lendl, who earlier in the thread was being blamed for taking his variety away and subsequently causing the back injury ?

The third is conjecture. Lendl says that the 20 weeks he did in 2013 was difficult. So presumably he wanted to do less weeks. Murray was just on his way back from his back op so presumably wanted more than the 20 weeks. As each slam is two weeks and a player will want his coach there for at least a week before that is 12 of the 20 weeks taken up already. So it doesn't leave very much time for out of competition training blocks and being at other tournaments. Especially if it going to be less than 20 weeks. So I can see why the split happened. That's conjecture from me as well. Neither view is evidence that at the time of the split Murray wanted to play the same way or that he wanted to change things.

On grass slippy is right a gain in serving and a good day serving could outweigh the slowdown in movement that comes with age

emancipator wrote:BS,  just off the top of my head I can think of W 05 against Roddick,  semi 06, against Gasquet,  03 final,  12 final against Murray.  They were all better all round displays showcasing his talent.  The 14 semi was just Fed in the zone on his serve.

As for which version of Fed is better (consistently better,  not just one off matches)  then obviously it's the younger version.  In What kind of Illogical fantasy world is a 34 yr old tennis player with 1300 Matches in his legs better than his 25 yr old self? You clearly don't understand the sport.  In fact I remember you writing that Federer's extra experience at this age compensates fir the physical decline due to age.  Again complete nonsense.  The guy was on double digit slams wins by age 25, he didn't need any more experience.  The experience since then has been more negative than positive -  hard losses that have dented his confidence. As a whole experience is beneficial up until you start losing big matches then it just adds scars and drains confidence.  It's the same in life.

Movement is the biggest element for success in today's tour given that all top players have excellent groundstrokes.  A drop off in movement and your entire game is affected.  Federer was the best mover on tour now he's not even in the top 6. He still has great footwork but he no longer has the speed,  explosive Ness or endurance of his younger days.  Obviously this makes him a lesser player.  A few more aces doesn't make up for that.  One  e of his signature shots was the inside out forehand -  rarely see him play it now.  Just isn't quick enough to run around the backhand. For the same reason he now gets pinned down on the bh wing against other right handers -  in the past he'd skip around and defend that wing much better. And there are so many other areas of his game that have declined but if you can't see these glaring differences then you're not gonna appreciate the subtler changes.

The overall difference in percengage terms doesn't have to be huge but even a one or two percent drop at this level can see a player go from winning slams to not winning slams.

I think you must mean the SF versus Gasquet in 2007 - a match where Gasquet had finished off Roddick the night before and where Fed himself accepts that Gasquet was so tired he was struggling to tie his own shoelaces. Despite that, Fed lost more or less the same number of games as he did against a peak Murray in 2015. The fact you include this match is frankly ridiculous.

As for the other matches, Scud and Roddick were exceptional performances where Fed's stats were more or less in line with the Murray match. However, doing that against Murray - with his return and defensive game - is way more impressive (not to mention the fact that Murray has beaten him 11 times before including on Centre Court).

That leaves us with a straight comparison of the 2012 and 2015 matches. In 2012, Fed had 62 winners against 38 errors (compared to 56-11 in 2015). Murray served 56% first serves compared to 71% in 2015. Murray bullied Federer for two sets and it was only after Murray missed an easy backhand to leave him serving for the second set that the venom in his forehand seemed to drop and Fed was able to take over. By contrast, in 2015 Fed didn't give him a sniff. He was in charge throughout. There is just no sensible way to argue the 2012 performance was better.

As for the experience point, I think the point I made would have been more nuanced than that. As Lydian says above, I think Fed has built on his technical skills and has also had to adapt his game to try and deal with Nadal and Novak - something I don't think he was able to do at his peak. On faster surfaces, that extra technical improvement (particularly on the serve) and enhanced gameplan is enough to compensate for a slight loss in movement. On slower surfaces, it isn't and I agree with you that movement is then a big issue. He also clearly doesn't have the durability anymore. Consequently, of course I don't think his entire 2015 was as good as his peak. However, for the Wimbledon, Cincy, US Open run it was pretty damn close and for that one-off match in the SF he was clearly a level above anything else he produced in that run. Of course, he was more serve dominated than at his peak but that doesn't make the performances poorer - just different and not as fun to watch.

Calder106 wrote:...  Murray was just on his way back from his back op so presumably wanted more than the 20 weeks.

BIB:  That is a fair point.  I was just trying to take Goran Ivanisevic reported comments on board.  He paints a different picture to what happened compared to the official line as to what happened.  I think your argument here is actually with Ivanisevic and my picking his comments up and taking them seriously.

It seems to me Murray would have accepted a continuation of the 20 weeks and that Lendl wanted to perhaps reduce them to 15 weeks (25 weeks in first year, 20 weeks in second year is what Murray said I believe).  Murray in his post split interview afterwards made a generic statement about "1 week not being enough". I think that has to be an exaggeration unless he was referring to one week of training per tournament or grand slam tournaments (tune up preparations perhaps).

A lot has happened since this article was started in the wake of Murray's defeat at Monte Carlo. The question asked originally was a fair one. Debate got quite heated but good. I did sometimes feel though that if someone new to tennis had looked in they would have thought that Murray with all the flaws he had would be in the lower regions of the top 50 rather than a top 5 player.

Anyway since then Murray has been 1-0 versus both Nadal and Wawrinka 1-2 versus Djokovic (only one to beat him) and beaten a large number of top 20 players. He has reached the final of all the tournaments he has played. Winning Rome, Queens and Wimbledon and being runner-up in Madrid and Roland Garros.

So what has changed ? Yes Lendl has come in but that has only been during the grass court season. Jamie Delgado was his main coach on clay where he did pretty well. Lendl as per the last time he worked with Murray appears to have been the final piece of the jigsaw. Murray's focus at Wimbledon seemed to be pretty good and his level only appeared to drop in the 2nd set against Millman (which he won) and sets 3 and 4 against Tsonga. Some credit must go to them though for playing well at these times. He always seemed to have a good game plan for each match throughout the tournament and stuck to it. I don't claim to be a technical expert so I'll leave that side to others. However he definitely seemed to be more willing to hit heavy shots more often than usual in conjunction with his normal variety of drop shots, slices and lobs.

It will now be interesting to see if he can kick on from his Wimbledon win and beat the likes of Djokovic more often. From his media comments he seems up for it.

I always found this article laughable simply because we all knew the reason for the poor stats - back surgery and then a year to to get back to his normal self

Murray rarely gets the benefit of the doubt. But he's is own worst enemy. He recovers from surgery so well, it then seems to be forgoten how serious the surgery was.

Cue then endless articles about how terrible he was during the 18 months August 2013 to February 2015

In fairness Fed's getting similar treatment as of course did Nadal. It's the old error of taking these lot for granted, i.e. they've always beaten everyone and had close matches, the thought that they might take just as long as anyone else to get back to their best after surgery, doesn't appear to be a thought to some

rather than face palms and laughs why don't you contribute some good thread discussions rather than nit-picking at others for being proactive.

The question raised was valid...Murray was stuttering. Now hindsight works wonders...

He has changed his 2nd serve and focusing much better between points/games/sets and expect Lendl to have helped there. He also seems generally calmer so maybe fatherhood is having an impact too.

But let's not get too far ahead of ourselves...Djokovic was not in final so until Murray meets him again in a slam final we don't know where the true barometer is at because quite frankly even during his worst periods and technical gremlins you would still expect him to beat every player he faced at Wimbledon.