"Oh Yes You Can" Says Federer. "Oh No I Can't Says" Murray

Federer reckons Murray can be number one.

The Swiss said: "Yes, he can do it. He should be able to have that goal. He has results that back up his chances.

"His next nine months are going to be extremely interesting to follow. I hope for him he can achieve it eventually."

"It would be very wrong if he said he wanted to become world number two now," he said.

"I think maybe at the end of the year [he can do it], maybe the beginning of next year. Or, if not then, he's got a shot until next Wimbledon almost - if he were to win there."

"I think he's done so well," Federer added. "His reaction was amazing after not winning Wimbledon against me.

"Then coming back to win the Olympics and bringing the victory home for his first Grand Slam at the US Open was great to see.

"I was very impressed and I'm sure that's going to give him confidence for what's to come.

"How me, Novak and Rafa - whenever he comes back - and the rest of the players will play will have a little bit of an impact.

"But, overall, Andy has some control over that himself now."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/19861547

Murray is less sure

"It will be very difficult to finish the year as number one. I think Novak is too far off and guaranteed that," said Murray.

"I will keep working hard and focus for the rest of the year and hopefully have a chance next year."

"I lost in Australia and straight away I'd be thinking about the French Open and Wimbledon, which wasn't necessarily the best thing for the tournaments I had coming up," he said.

"I'm hoping to be focused a lot more and not just looking at the next Grand Slam. I need to try to play well in all the tournaments I'm in."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/19871816

Ha ha ha! I don't know what to think?

hawkeye wrote:Ha ha ha! I don't know what to think?

Maybe try going to the ATP site and see how far ahead Djokovic is to Murray. After that it's pretty easy to say that Murray has very little, if any, chance of YE No 1. Then you can criticise Federer for being unrealistic and praise Andy for having a clearer grasp of the situation.

Has that helped?

Fed's the silly one suggesting that it's possible at the year end or early next year, but in everything else he's quite right - #1 should be the next goal and Andy could make it next summer.

Andy is right that he has no chance this year.

I think hawkeye knows exactly what to think about this.

Hmmm... the Hawkeye MO. Her last Murray thread has been proven to be fatally flawed in that even she changed her position by the end so forget that thread and start another one trying to have a go at the world no.3.

SSDD, back to the tennis.

PS Please write about something else Hawkeye, you sound very reasonable when not talking about Murray.

hawkeye - your Scrapbook of Andy Murray quotes, interviews and press cuttings must surely be bursting at the seams.

Or are you by now already on Volume II (or III ..... or is it perhaps IV....??)

Your unwavering devotion to the Murray cause is a thing of true wonder

nb : Other tennis players are available.

I've seen this a lot over the years, a poster becomes so negative about another player they end up knowing more about that player than the one they actually support. It was the same with Tenez and Nadal, digging up all sorts of obscure information, foreign interviews and blog posts.

Murray:

"Novak is 3000 points ahead, so to be number 1 by the end of the year would mean me winning Shanghai, Paris and the WTF and Novak barely winning match for the rest of the year. That's not going to happen."

So I ask HE, do you think it's likely that Novak will suffer defeat in every single match this year? I presume so as you seem to be questioning Murray's logic.

And Federer is talking about the next 9 months, not just year end.

Another embarrassing article.

I thought that; Federer never mentioned the y/e, he said (rightly) the chance is maximised up to Wimbledon (holding 3200 Slam points and the OG).

Murray winning YE#1 would top the Ryder Cup comeback by some margin.
There's more chance of Jeremy Bates taking a game off Nadal on clay.

Clearly he has a great chance next year though, but Federer is only really making platitudes saying that.

lydian wrote:

Clearly he has a great chance next year though, but Federer is only really making platitudes saying that.

Hmm yes but we heard all that before when Federer tipped Murray to win a slam and people were saying: 'Oh he's only saying that to be nice.' How wrong they were.

I didn't mean he's joking, more just making a banal statement about other players as he sometimes does when pressed for an answer...its the kind of answer any tennis observer would make really.

Oh I think it is pretty clear that he is in with a shout of becoming a No.1 one day but it won't be this year.

He can get to number one, but it's not a guarantee though.

Josiah has predicted Raonic to become world number 1 very soon and remain there for many years, so at-least Murray fans can take comfort in the fact he is no longer a credible threat.

He would need to do really well at Australia and the masters that follow before clay, maybe even winning 2 of the 3.

I say that because Murray has never reached a clay final, and although I would expect him to do better than last year I'd be amazed if he came away with any silverware from the dirt.

It's not quite as unlikely as Bates taking a game off Rafa on clay, but its extremely unlikely in my opinion.

It would be nice for him to have Number 1 on his CV. However I would like to see him continuing to focus on the slams at present with the hope he can win another couple at least.

I agree Calder. If someone offered me 5-6 slams and never reaching world number 1 I'd take that in a heartbeat.

If it comes then great, but I'm more bothered about how he does in the 4 big ones to be honest.

The big problem for Andy becoming #1 is that he's no more than decent on clay.

Danny_1982 and bogbrush : I hear what you say, but there's every chance he can improve on clay don't you think ....? He has made the SF's of RG, Rome and also Monte Carlo (twice) so it doesn't really require a huge leap of faith to think that he could make a clay Final. And history shows that once a player makes a Final, anything can happen ....

Federer's view that Murray has a good shot of reaching the top spot next year is both realistic and also increasingly shared by others. The difference, I guess, is that when Federer comes out with such a remark it will more than likely make the news, even if it's not exactly "news". I think Fed is very conscious of this, and therefore takes care to say things only if he means them ; as with his prediction that Murray would definitely win "at least one Slam"

True enough, it's just a bit tougher with an as-yet weaker surface that commands a lot of points.

Well he is aided now on clay by Federer (and also Ferrer) being somewhat older by clay season season 2013. He hasn't improved but he's just not a natural mover on the surface and his FH and 2nd serve get more exposed. But you never know in this game, anything can happen...

Well what do you know. This thread has developed into an interesting debate

Oops, I meant to say "he has improved"....lol.
Damned iPad!

To me his forehand has improved so much it's actually not a weakness anymore. The second serve has improved dramatically too (he was around 40th for points won on 2nd serve last year, up to 12 this year I believe) but it is still a weakness relative to the other main guys.

However the movement is the big issue. Murray needs to move well to play well. It's always been that way with him. And he moves nowhere near as well on clay, and always seems to be a yard off the pace.

I actually thought he over-achieved on clay in 2011, and I'm not sure he'll ever do that we'll again. And I'm a Murray fan!

I agree that clay is not a surface he has done well on. I thought with Lendl as his coach he would have performed better on clay in 2012 (or least as well as in 2011 when some progress was made). There did however seem to be underlying back problems at that time. So I'm not sure if he can be judged on that. It will be interesting to see how his 2013 clay court season goes.

lydian wrote:I've seen this a lot over the years, a poster becomes so negative about another player they end up knowing more about that player than the one they actually support. It was the same with Tenez and Nadal, digging up all sorts of obscure information, foreign interviews and blog posts.

Well I've hardly dug up "obscure information". The links if you noticed are from the main BBC site. (Hardly obscure, and not foreign interviews or blog posts.) If you check it out you will see these two stories are the headline stories regarding tennis on the BBC sports page. They are the only two stories were feedback is welcomed. When Federer was interviewed Murray's ranking was considered to be of most interest and the same goes for Murray. Federer wasn't asked about his own chances or Djokovics and neither was Murray. Or if they were questioned about this or indeed anything else it wasn't considered news worthy enough to report. Federer's view of Murray's chances at number one and Murray's view of his chances at number one are the stories that I have been fed. So why is it surprising that I want to talk about them? Also you can address your comments to me if you want. I will do my best to answer you...

Well one thing we know about Federer pronouncements on Murray is that they get attention. The furore over Dubal 2008 is only just dying down.
That turned out spot on despite the criticism at the time. Murray fans will be hoping for similar accuracy this time.

Lol HE, just admit you like to goad Murray

The 2008 Federer comments were spot on. The tactics he was using then were gaining success against Federer and seemingly niggling him, but in terms of winning slams he did need to get up the court and be more pro-active.

It has worked so well that maybe Murray should pay Roger a consultancy fee.

Murray does not posses a dictating forehand. He has done extremely well considering this huge omission. His game has not changed because of Lendl. Of course winning the Olympics and the US will have given him confidence and that is important. But Murray has been hitting forehands since he was 3 or 4. It might be possible but difficult to make small "tweeks" but I very much doubt fundamental changes are possible at this stage.

lydian wrote:Lol HE, just admit you like to goad Murray

Ha ha! I doubt I could do that.

Danny_1982 wrote:The 2008 Federer comments were spot on. The tactics he was using then were gaining success against Federer and seemingly niggling him, but in terms of winning slams he did need to get up the court and be more pro-active.

It has worked so well that maybe Murray should pay Roger a consultancy fee.

How come when Murray fans say that's one of his chief weapons is to irritate that is acceptable but when I point it out they disagree?

hawkeye wrote:Murray does not posses a dictating forehand. He has done extremely well considering this huge omission. His game has not changed because of Lendl. Of course winning the Olympics and the US will have given him confidence and that is important. But Murray has been hitting forehands since he was 3 or 4. It might be possible but difficult to make small "tweeks" but I very much doubt fundamental changes are possible at this stage.

I respectfully disagree. I think it's massively improved. His forehand cross court is now a dictating shot. Not as comfortable down the line admittedly.

His fore-hand is not as good as his backhand, but it's not too shabby either.

Hawkeye if I was Julius I would instantly delete all your articles with 'Murray' in the title.
I like you as a poster no doubt, you seem very logical when talking about Fedal, Djokovic etc.
But I swear 99.9% of you articles are just exactly the same; tone, topic everything.

hawkeye wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:The 2008 Federer comments were spot on. The tactics he was using then were gaining success against Federer and seemingly niggling him, but in terms of winning slams he did need to get up the court and be more pro-active.

It has worked so well that maybe Murray should pay Roger a consultancy fee.

How come when Murray fans say that's one of his chief weapons is to irritate that is acceptable but when I point it out they disagree?

Sole purpose is to irritate.... Reminds me of someone...

It Must Be Love

Than you for the sort of compliment. I like to think I talk sense about Murray too. Take his forehand. Murray can of course hit winners with it but there is no feeling in his game that once he gets the ball on his forehand he wants to keep it there. There is no sense of danger for his opponent that he will take control. His best shot is his backhand but I don't know any player that can use a backhand (no matter how good) in the same way as a forehand.

Also all this talk about his game transforming under Lendl or even his on court demeanor changing. I know you disagree but I see no evidence of this. He won the US Open in a match and indeed a tournament that most admit consisted of his usual play. I admit the big thing was that he won and that should be beneficial as far as confidence goes. Noted that in the last tournament when under pressure Murray showed that as far as his on court behavior nothing much has changed. I would say this is because it is only under pressure that he behaves like that.

Sometimes I do feel mean saying this because I understand how popular he is. But then again what is the point of a discussion site if no one says what they really think for fear of upsetting others? It is only a game after all.

Anyway this is really off topic. The topic was the main BBC sports site being dominated by what both Federer and Murray say about Murray's prospects of becoming number one.

Poor article, Federer was asked if Murray was going to be number 1 wasn't he? He is hardly going to reply: "he will do well to hold onto 3, I expect to see him down to 5 by next year". If you read his comments carefully it is little more than diplomacy, with little concrete to say, just saying that Murray at #1 is a possibility. "He should be able to have that goal......I hope for him he can achieve it eventually." Hardly saying he's sure to do it soon. I'm not convinced he even believes it.

And Murray is talking about making it this year, which is a very different question (so no contradiction at all, as mentioned), and virtually a mathematical impossibility, so of course he says no. If you read Murray's previous comments he has said in the past he can get to number 1 and has been more positive about it than Federer.

Ignore the salacious mis interpretations of this kind of interviews in the cheap headlines and read the actual comments.

Henman Bill

I'm sure you understand that we can only read answers to questions that are asked. That goes for me to. If they would just let me ask the questions I wouldn't have aimed to extract the same thing.

Now this is getting even more silly...

Federer now HOPES Murray can take the top spot

World No. 1 Roger Federer says he would like to see No. 3 Andy Murray eventually take the top spot in the rankings.

http://www.tennis.com/news/2012/10/federer-hopes-murray-can-reach-no-1/39715/#.UHShGK5Bat8

Ha ha ha! All the players in the locker room love Murray so much. He is so nice maybe they should just let him win?

hawkeye wrote:It Must Be Love

Than you for the sort of compliment. I like to think I talk sense about Murray too. Take his forehand. Murray can of course hit winners with it but there is no feeling in his game that once he gets the ball on his forehand he wants to keep it there. There is no sense of danger for his opponent that he will take control. His best shot is his backhand but I don't know any player that can use a backhand (no matter how good) in the same way as a forehand.

Also all this talk about his game transforming under Lendl or even his on court demeanor changing. I know you disagree but I see no evidence of this. He won the US Open in a match and indeed a tournament that most admit consisted of his usual play. I admit the big thing was that he won and that should be beneficial as far as confidence goes. Noted that in the last tournament when under pressure Murray showed that as far as his on court behavior nothing much has changed. I would say this is because it is only under pressure that he behaves like that.

Sometimes I do feel mean saying this because I understand how popular he is. But then again what is the point of a discussion site if no one says what they really think for fear of upsetting others? It is only a game after all.

Anyway this is really off topic. The topic was the main BBC sports site being dominated by what both Federer and Murray say about Murray's prospects of becoming number one.

How can you comment on his play if you don't watch his matches? You openly stated that you didn't watch the USO final as you "knew" it would be an "ugly" match, it didn't stop you writing an article about it though. Now you are analysing his play since Lendl?!?!?

carrieg4

You don't have to agree with me but of course I can have my opinion! No I didn't watch that is true but I am commenting on what I have read and what I have seen of Murray's play before and since. Do you think Murray's game and behavior has changed with Lendl? If so how? Murray has always had the ability to hit winner forehands and control himself when not under pressure.

I suppose I am also skeptical about how much a player (any player) can change at the ripe old age of 25. At this age they will have been hitting tennis balls for over 20 years.

This is really a bit off topic here so have created a new thread and have got a good quote to get it started.

https://www.606v2.com/t35888-nothing-much-has-changed-thinks-rafa

by hawkeye Yesterday at 11:10 pm

Murray does not posses a dictating forehand. He has done extremely well considering this huge omission.

Then......

by hawkeye Today at 8:38 am

Murray has always had the ability to hit winner forehands and control himself when not under pressure.

One of the many reasons why I won't be entertaining this thread which comes from the rectum and not the brain.

hawkeye wrote:carrieg4

You don't have to agree with me but of course I can have my opinion! No I didn't watch that is true but I am commenting on what I have read and what I have seen of Murray's play before and since. Do you think Murray's game and behavior has changed with Lendl? If so how? Murray has always had the ability to hit winner forehands and control himself when not under pressure.

I suppose I am also skeptical about how much a player (any player) can change at the ripe old age of 25. At this age they will have been hitting tennis balls for over 20 years.

This is really a bit off topic here so have created a new thread and have got a good quote to get it started.

https://www.606v2.com/t35888-nothing-much-has-changed-thinks-rafa

As I said on the other thread, a very good quote from Rafa! It is your interpretation that is found wanting....................

If you cannot (or choose not to) see what everyone else appears to see, namely that Murray made important (but not radical) improvements to his game and demeanor in big matches since Lendl, then I cannot help you.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

by hawkeye Yesterday at 11:10 pm

Murray does not posses a dictating forehand. He has done extremely well considering this huge omission.

Then......

by hawkeye Today at 8:38 am

Murray has always had the ability to hit winner forehands and control himself when not under pressure.

One of the many reasons why I won't be entertaining this thread which comes from the rectum and not the brain.

Hitting forehand winners is not the same as being able to dictate with a forehand. From what I've read I think you know enough about tennis to understand that. Also being under control when not under pressure is different to doing so when under pressure. I'm sure you know that also.

hawkeye wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

by hawkeye Yesterday at 11:10 pm

Murray does not posses a dictating forehand. He has done extremely well considering this huge omission.

Then......

by hawkeye Today at 8:38 am

Murray has always had the ability to hit winner forehands and control himself when not under pressure.

One of the many reasons why I won't be entertaining this thread which comes from the rectum and not the brain.

Hitting forehand winners is not the same as being able to dictate with a forehand. From what I've read I think you know enough about tennis to understand that. Also being under control when not under pressure is different to doing so when under pressure. I'm sure you know that also.

Saying the guy has no dictating FH's and then saying he can hit winners is largely contradicting.

The guy has a FH he can dictate with and has displayed this. Not on the frequency it requires admittedly.

I am sure you know this.

His FH is a lot better than it was, has taken him a long time to adjust from W To SW, sometimes still tops it into the net when he slips back into W again.
Personally I don't think he does dictate with the FH, BH maybe, but not FH...or at least not with the top players like the other 3 can.

hawkeye wrote:carrieg4

You don't have to agree with me but of course I can have my opinion! No I didn't watch that is true but I am commenting on what I have read and what I have seen of Murray's play before and since. Do you think Murray's game and behavior has changed with Lendl? If so how? Murray has always had the ability to hit winner forehands and control himself when not under pressure.

I suppose I am also skeptical about how much a player (any player) can change at the ripe old age of 25. At this age they will have been hitting tennis balls for over 20 years.

This is really a bit off topic here so have created a new thread and have got a good quote to get it started.

https://www.606v2.com/t35888-nothing-much-has-changed-thinks-rafa

Tell that to Agassi who in 95 did change and go from one of the least hardest working guys to the fittest guys on tour. Or to fish that lost 30 pounds or the countless others that conitnue to grow as a player.Or David Ferrer who went from serving 115 miles and hour to 125 miles an hour. Players do change all people change and if they have a normal brain they gain from experience. So I don't buy your thesis that at the ripe old age of 25 players don't change.

I think his second serve seems much better to me more than anything, I always felt the forehand was underrated a bit, yes it could break down and he would get too passive occassionally but in the majority of matches he has no problem hitting through them with the forehand. I think however the marked difference is in his second serve. Against Djoko at the AO early 2012 he won less than 30 percent of points on second serve I think he was around 60 percent second serve points won at the USO final.

Spot on socal. The forehand has never been quite as bad as people make out, but he used to be a bit safe with it. In Melbourne this year was when he really started unleashing on it, and he hasn't looked back since. Cross court in particular is a weapon nowadays, not a weakness.

I still would say there is a reluctance to really unleash down the line though. Not sure if its a grip thing, but he struggles to control it as well as CC.

The second serve was around the 40th most successful on the tour in 2011, and is about 12th I think in 2012. That's a big step. Still not as good as the rest of the top guys, but a big improvement.

If I were Murray I'd still be focussing on the serve though, there is scope for more improvement on first (consistency) and second (depth and variety). He's got a great slice serve that he hardly ever uses which frustrates me.