2015 Wimbledon Semifinal: Federer v. Murray

[Kieran]

Murray has always been the +1, for me, and if you look at how he's come up short at slams since his surgery and split from Lendl, it's clear that further surgery is needed to remove certain people from his players box....

 

[nehmeth]

I haven't watched the match, I'm just reading how good Federer has played but what about Muzz? how he has played? :huh:

I remember you were complaining about the criteria for the way players were ranked. One of your key issues was that Federer was ranked above Murray, and that you felt he shouldn't. Hopefully after the results of this match, the rankings seem more correct.

 

[Kirijax]

All I have to say is that this match answered a whole lot of questions about Murray and where he stands in the scheme of things. It is what it is. He's done well with what he has and who he has to face. Maybe he'll win another slam or two, maybe he won't. But this match pretty much tells me he won't as long as the top players are playing well.

 

[calitennis127]

When Andy was serving at 4-5 in the second set, the game lasted for 15 minutes and had multiple deuces. Andy save many break points (which are actually set points) and managed to finally hold. When this happens to a run of the mill player, usually they tend to lose their own serve in the very next game, unable to overcome the disappointment of not breaking. But, Fed being a champion, finished his game in 1minute and 14 seconds (I think a love game) and put the pressure back on Andy immediately. That is the mind of a champion.

p.s. Serena did this too against Vika in the second set of their match. There was a long game which lasted about 15 minutes and Vika eventually held. But, Serena got the ball finished her game quickly and broke Vika in the next game.

No, Serena actually faced break point in that game, held like a trouper, then broke.

In all the big moments in the match today, Andy came up short. In the hustle and jive of the sets, he held his own, but where it mattered at the end of each set, he allowed himself to be bossed. It's happened to him in his slam defeats this year, just when he needs to increase intensity and pressure the opponent, he lets them dictate. He began the match stronger and Federer showed him how it's done. It took Roger about three service games to settle - but he settled. After this, Andy looked second best.

Actually, just the idea of whether this is their best match, I don't know if it is, but their rivalry hasn't given us any really great matches. I'm trying to remember one and can't. All the other rivalries between the "3" have given us many classics, across the surfaces...

He didn't "allow himself" to be bossed. He was just bossed. Federer's game tends to find it far easier to do just that since he can take the ball earlier, hit with bigger margins, play with aggression, etc...without being too risky. Meanwhile, when Murray gets aggressive, you can see him trying to unload on every forehand with huge cuts and you know it's not his game and he's going to falter or struggle to put the ball away.

That's the main difference between Murray and the other 3 and that's why the key points between them unfold as they do so often. It's not all mental. They're flat out better players. I thought it was pretty telling how Murray played a perfectly fine match, at a level that ostensibly should have been enough to give him a set, and yet it was a relatively straight forward straight set affair.

Not much he can do against Federer when he's hitting that cleanly.

I think that part of a player's "talent" is the ease with which they make aggressive shots and naturally react to opponents' shots with offensive replies. This is not at all easy to do and it is a hard ability to instill in someone if they don't already have it. Murray's instincts are not in line with this, and Nadal's - I should add - are not on the same level as Federer or Djokovic when Djokovic is putting his foot to the pedal.

 

[Front242]

Murray has always been the +1, for me, and if you look at how he's come up short at slams since his surgery and split from Lendl, it's clear that further surgery is needed to remove certain people from his players box....

Murray played very well yesterday. Federer was just on a different level. Insanely good serving that would make Karlovic and Raonic proud. I also have never seen why people would blame the coach for any losses. For me Murray's actually been even more aggressive since Lendl left. He never hit his forehand as well back then. Sometimes your opponents are just better in the cases of his losses to Novak and Roger and no coach can fix that.

 

[Federberg]

Murray has always been the +1, for me, and if you look at how he's come up short at slams since his surgery and split from Lendl, it's clear that further surgery is needed to remove certain people from his players box....

Murray played very well yesterday. Federer was just on a different level. Insanely good serving that would make Karlovic and Raonic proud. I also have never seen why people would blame the coach for any losses. For me Murray's actually been even more aggressive since Lendl left. He never hit his forehand as well back then. Sometimes your opponents are just better in the cases of his losses to Novak and Roger and no coach can fix that.

Totally agree. In fact I would argue that he's a better player now than when he won those 2 slams. The constant criticism of his coaching staff is beyond me :cover

 

[Front242]

Murray has always been the +1, for me, and if you look at how he's come up short at slams since his surgery and split from Lendl, it's clear that further surgery is needed to remove certain people from his players box....

Murray played very well yesterday. Federer was just on a different level. Insanely good serving that would make Karlovic and Raonic proud. I also have never seen why people would blame the coach for any losses. For me Murray's actually been even more aggressive since Lendl left. He never hit his forehand as well back then. Sometimes your opponents are just better in the cases of his losses to Novak and Roger and no coach can fix that.

Totally agree. In fact I would argue that he's a better player now than when he won those 2 slams. The constant criticism of his coaching staff is beyond me :cover

Yup, I'd say he's better now too. There are many circumstances that come into play when winning slams and it's the players out there playing and not the coaches so gotta give the players praise more than the coach if you ask me. I know it's been done to death already but the wind helped Murray win his US Open more than Lendl. Murray simply handles the elements better than Djokovic so I wouldn't put too much stock into Lendl's help in that one. And he's definitely playing just as well if not better these days.

 

[brokenshoelace]

No, Serena actually faced break point in that game, held like a trouper, then broke.

In all the big moments in the match today, Andy came up short. In the hustle and jive of the sets, he held his own, but where it mattered at the end of each set, he allowed himself to be bossed. It's happened to him in his slam defeats this year, just when he needs to increase intensity and pressure the opponent, he lets them dictate. He began the match stronger and Federer showed him how it's done. It took Roger about three service games to settle - but he settled. After this, Andy looked second best.

Actually, just the idea of whether this is their best match, I don't know if it is, but their rivalry hasn't given us any really great matches. I'm trying to remember one and can't. All the other rivalries between the "3" have given us many classics, across the surfaces...

He didn't "allow himself" to be bossed. He was just bossed. Federer's game tends to find it far easier to do just that since he can take the ball earlier, hit with bigger margins, play with aggression, etc...without being too risky. Meanwhile, when Murray gets aggressive, you can see him trying to unload on every forehand with huge cuts and you know it's not his game and he's going to falter or struggle to put the ball away.

That's the main difference between Murray and the other 3 and that's why the key points between them unfold as they do so often. It's not all mental. They're flat out better players. I thought it was pretty telling how Murray played a perfectly fine match, at a level that ostensibly should have been enough to give him a set, and yet it was a relatively straight forward straight set affair.

Not much he can do against Federer when he's hitting that cleanly.

I think that part of a player's "talent" is the ease with which they make aggressive shots and naturally react to opponents' shots with offensive replies. This is not at all easy to do and it is a hard ability to instill in someone if they don't already have it. Murray's instincts are not in line with this, and Nadal's - I should add - are not on the same level as Federer or Djokovic when Djokovic is putting his foot to the pedal.

Djokovic and of course, Federer are more natural at being aggressive than the other two. No arguments there.

But I hope Murray's shortcomings finally put in perspective for you how those Wimbledon matches in which Nadal more or less steamrolled him were simply due to Nadal's superior ability to be aggressive, and actually having a go to world class shot in which he can dictate with.

And no, I wouldn't equate Nadal to Murray in terms of struggling to be aggressive. Not even close, actually.