Murray - Fed Semi Final preview

by invisiblecoolers Wed 23 Jan - 15:53

First topic message reminder :

Murray Perspective :-

As the draw opened up nicely Murray didn't have to unleash any of his weapons in the first week of the tournament, while everybody expected his QF to be an easy st.sets not even the hardest of Murray fan would have imagined it would have been this easy, Murray unleashed his fury over a pity full Chardy for demonstrating his new improved forehand by series of winners from both wings, Murray was not even happy to let Chardy earn a point even on his own serve. Looked like he wanted a point to prove to French man who had his numbers last time around.

Strengths -
1]Improved Forehand, looked devastating against Chardy
2]Consistent First serve
3]Wheels, Murray hardly sweat inspite of running for every point, the intensity of running round the court could only be matched by Ferrer at the moment.
4]Belief , with the monkey of the back after USO win, Murray looks deadly to me.
5]Returns , right now arguably the best in the tour.

Weakness -
1]Second Serve, Chardy was just too bad to punish him on all occasions but even he did on many occasions, stand and deliver return
2]Focus drop, for some reason Murray drops focus in the mid match, leading 4-0 he drops focus to let his opponent comeback, serving for the match he get broken when Chardy himself has given up Murray comes with a double fault to gift the break to the opponent.
3]Nervousness, Murray need to overcome his nervousness against his boogeyman in slams.

Opportunities -
1]Double Back Hand - Arguably one of the best in the modern game, but for some reason its not at its best shape in this tournament, even several commentators pointed it out, down the line shots would work wonders.
2]Multiple GS champ - A title which he would really like to have and could inspire him to do better.
3]Ambition of being NO.1 - Murray clearly believes he could become no.1 in the future, what better time than now, a win here would boost his chances big time.

Threats -
1]Lack of tests - means Murray's actual weapons are untested in this tournament so far, its really hard to say how good it would be against Fed/Nole.
2]Fed still looks hungry
3]Not much practice at the night session.

Federer Perspective

Strength -
1]Hunger to compete - Fed no longer worried about results or records and playing pressure free tennis and loving his fights over young cubs.
2]Knows the opponent game - Fed exactly know what he needs to do to win a game let alone Match against Murray.
3]Serve - Arguably the best after Sampras, and undoubtedly the best for any player above 30 to played the game.

Weakness
1]Movement - Age is catching up and the movement is not as fluid as it used to be, while Tomic and Raonic exposed a bit Tsonga exposed it big time with flurry of winners both wings.
2]To the Backhand strategy - Murray has learned this trick early and has used to his strengths
3]Focus drop - Like Murray Fed's focus do drop in between matches, he is suddenly worried what his twin daughters doing outside watching his game.

Opportunities -
1]Absence of chief tormentor - Nadal's absence means Fed knows the title is in his racket and his to lose.
2]Aggressive pace - New aggressive pace of play gives opponent no time to breath let alone think a strategy when thinks do go planned, should use it wisely against Murray.
3]Nothing to prove mindset - pressure free Fed is ultra dangerous on court.

Threats
1]Stamina - Bit cooked after Tsonga match
2]Tough draw taking his toll.

Over all Murray in view starts Favorite by 70-30 margin, I like both players and hence this view coming from neutral perspective. Both have their strength but I guess the draw at some point should take its toll on the soon to be 32 year old. However given Fed's capability and the will to win he won't make it any easier for Murray, if for some reason Murray comes nervous and Fed brings his A-game he will cook him for the breakfast in st. sets.
To me its Murray's match to lose, confident young man at his prime against an old guard, prediction would love Fed to win but Murray to win easy.

by FedsFan Thu 24 Jan - 21:40

banbrotam wrote:
FedsFan wrote:
Henman Bill wrote:Murray lost 2 finals to Fed in slams when he wasn't mentally ready for it, and was inexperienced. His last won was much closer, and the roof may have been decisive.

The Olympics was on a par with a slam to many players, and at a similar venue, and Murray won that.

Was the roof really decisive? It was 1 set all and 2-2 when the rain came and roof was closed. There wasn't a huge shift in momentum at that time. It shifted in that marathon game in the second set where Murray could not win 2 points in a row. Federer came out the more nervous of the two. He was so tight and made some shocking misses just as he did vs Tsonga last night. I think Murray's level dropped a bit after that first set as I think as he was in a situation he was never in before. He had won his first set in gs final, at Wimbledon and maybe he was thinking too far ahead. I think had he won the third set the match was his.

Tomorrow is another story. This match is Fed's to lose. I couldn't imagine he was the same player in the earlier rounds. He wasn't serving great at the beginning. No aces so no free points. Tsonga was playing brilliantly and I think those exhibition matches possibly helped him. I still say if Fed comes out the way he did playing Tomic/Raonic he can win but its a long shot as Murray has the fitness on his side now.

The Olympic final was won by Murray on the Friday afternoon when Fed vs JMDP went for 4 and a half hours. There was no way he could have come back from that and I believe he was able to carry on at Wimbledon after the Benneteau match because he had 2 full days off. If it was mid week he wouldn't have been able to compete at his best.

Your thoughts on their previous matches does both players a diservice. Whislt the momentum might have been going with Fed at Wimbledon - it turned 100% to him when the roof went on, simply because he's the best indoor player ever

As for The Olympics, it's disingenous to use a tiredness excuse - simply because isn't that part of what makes a Champion? Pacing themselves? I note with interest that Murray fans were trampled all over and quite rightly too, when we used this as the excuse for Roger's 2008 US Open win

Murray played one of his best matches ever at that final. Those who think he's just some kind of grinder only have to watch that match and just marvel at the equisite timing he had. It was in the same league as Mac's demolition of Connors in 84' and not far behind Roger's defeat of Roddick in 05'

However, he arguably needs to play like that again

I think this whole idea of Federer being the best indoor player is a bit hyped up. His record maybe impressive but surely he has records on all courts in and outdoor? I think he just began to play better in the Wimbledon final than he did at the start of the match when Murray came out of the blocks much quicker, just as Murray did at the O2. On both occasions when Fed got going he played well enough to get the job done. I never used tiredness as an excuse. Fed should have finished the match vs JMDP sooner at 9-8 without being broken back. That is no one's fault but his own and I believe it did cost him. Murray played a solid match and most probably the outcome would have been the same. I think Federer was nervous in that match and played with a lot of pressure because he wanted it so badly. Whichever way you look at it, Fed and Murray are not at the same levels of fitness. One guy is 25/26 the other 31/32.

by Guest Thu 24 Jan - 21:54

MurrayHype wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:Well if all you have is "oh they never played an in form Tsonga" than I'm afraid your tank is firing blanks.

I didn't say "an in form Tsonga". Nice try, tho I said Tsonga in that match at that level. Nadal did. Nadal lost. And he lost badly. Clearly when Tsonga is playing near his best he can beat the best (and he has done against Federer, even on grass). A statement suggesting that Murray and Djok would definitely have put Tsonga away faster the other day isn't just demeaning Federer's achievement, it demonstrates an embarrassing lack of knowledge about sport.

Joking aside, some people take longer to rise to the occasion than others. I won't cast judgment. If Federer needs help this guy can help

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s32uMiY0HGY

by MurrayHype Thu 24 Jan - 22:12

JuliusHMarx wrote:
MurrayHype wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:Murrayhype, welcome to the forum.

You're clearly new here, and perhaps a bit confused

On this forum the ones who want Murray to win are predicting a Federer victory, while the ones who support Federer are predicting a Murray win.
It's pretty simple actually.

If things get really tight tomorrow I might even say 'dead cert Federer will win' or 'I wonder what tactics Federer will play against Djokovic.'

Hope this clears things up.

Amritia

Why isn't this one removed?

Because it was a light-hearted attempt to explain the weird state of the forum (re: semi-final predictions) to a newcomer.

And you know it is light hearted because you are a mind-reader? Cool. So I guess you alone decide that what a person says is dependent on YOUR interpretation of it, and not the actual comment. When I return I will stick to attacking the post completely (and allow you to allow others to attack me, as you have plainly accepted this as part of your rules). I don't plan on sticking around anyway after I have said my piece. boxing

by User 774433 Thu 24 Jan - 22:13

Hi MH

What in my welcoming post did you not like?

Amritia

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu 24 Jan - 22:20

May I remind old and new folk alike that the subject is tennis, NOT other posters.

by User 774433 Thu 24 Jan - 22:20

Julius.

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu 24 Jan - 22:25

MurrayHype wrote:And you know it is light hearted because you are a mind-reader? Cool. So I guess you alone decide that what a person says is dependent on YOUR interpretation of it, and not the actual comment. When I return I will stick to attacking the post completely (and allow you to allow others to attack me, as you have plainly accepted this as part of your rules). I don't plan on sticking around anyway after I have said my piece.

My interpretation is based on my knowledge of the poster and a sensible reading of the post. You may interpret it differently, but, alas, I'm the Mod - feel free to complain to the Admins, if that is not satisfactory.
I've checked for reported posts, but there don't seem to be any further ones.

by hawkeye Thu 24 Jan - 22:27

JuliusHMarx wrote:May I remind old and new folk alike that the subject is tennis, NOT other posters.

Julius. You should do that more often... Gosh it's hot in here tonight.

by LuvSports! Thu 24 Jan - 22:27

heeyyy my comment!! what the fudge?!?

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu 24 Jan - 22:29

LuvSports! wrote:heeyyy my comment!! what the fudge?!?

May I remind old and new folk alike that the subject is tennis, NOT other posters Smile

by Guest Thu 24 Jan - 22:29

You buzzkiller!

by Silver Thu 24 Jan - 22:30

CaledonianCraig wrote:spot on Silver. No excuses for either party and may the best man win.

Aye aye, though I should've used a different word to 'excuses', really! Since they're hardly needed between players of such quality.

Welcome to the forum, MurrayHype. Why are you not staying after the tournament?

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu 24 Jan - 22:40

legendkillarV2 wrote:You buzzkiller!

That's right. I've killed buzzes. I've killed just about everything that walks or crawls at one time or another. And I'm here to kill you, legendkillar, for what you did to Ned.

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu 24 Jan - 22:42

Murdoch - tut-tut. See my post a few above this one.

by HM Murdock Thu 24 Jan - 22:45

JuliusHMarx wrote:Murdoch - tut-tut. See my post a few above this one.

Sorry Mr M!

by Guest Thu 24 Jan - 22:57

JuliusHMarx wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:You buzzkiller!

That's right. I've killed buzzes. I've killed just about everything that walks or crawls at one time or another. And I'm here to kill you, legendkillar, for what you did to Ned.

Ned deserved it!

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu 24 Jan - 23:01

Can anyone name both Gene Hackman films I've paraphrased from this evening?

by User 774433 Thu 24 Jan - 23:02

May I remind old and new folk alike that the subject is tennis, NOT other p*sters.

by carrieg4 Thu 24 Jan - 23:03

Unforgiven is the last one.

What was the first paraphrased quote?

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu 24 Jan - 23:05

carrieg4 wrote:Unforgiven is the last one.

What was the first paraphrased quote?

I think you're mistaking me for some whole other body.

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu 24 Jan - 23:06

It Must Be Love wrote:May I remind old and new folk alike that the subject is tennis, NOT other p*sters.

My sources tell me Gene Hackman has a very good forehand.

by HM Murdock Thu 24 Jan - 23:08

JuliusHMarx wrote:Can anyone name both Gene Hackman films I've paraphrased from this evening?

Mississippi Burning was the 'whole other body' one. The scene where he has Stallone's Cliffhanger buddy by the proverbials.

by carrieg4 Thu 24 Jan - 23:09

JuliusHMarx wrote:
carrieg4 wrote:Unforgiven is the last one.

What was the first paraphrased quote?

I think you're mistaking me for some whole other body.

pass

by Mad for Chelsea Thu 24 Jan - 23:13

where did our new member go? There was me all preparing a very apt welcoming speech along the lines of it being nice for HE to have some company, and maybe they should consider getting married and retiring from such trivial things as tennis forums, and he's gone already Sad

back on the subject, I think Murray will win, but it's just a hunch, based on the quality of his returning in the Chardy match. I also didn't feel Federer played all that well against Tsonga (though he did up his level in the fifth), and think if Murray can get stuck into the Federer serve he has a great chance.

by lydian Thu 24 Jan - 23:23

Fed in 4 for me...if he's not flat from Tsonga match physically bearing in mind his recovery will be slower these days. Chardy is not Federer...can't take the ball as early or attack in the same way, plus Federer is mentally v.strong these days. He'll jump on any poor Murray 2nd serves, so alot will hang on Murray's 1st serve %. I also predict whoever wins 1st set wins the match.

by Guest Thu 24 Jan - 23:24

The roof issue at W is completely overblown.

Judging from some commentators (eg the cringeworthy Barker) you'd think Murray was hammering Fed before the roof was closed.

Actually it couldn't be further from the truth. Federer was winning, that's right, winning when the roof was closed. He was leading 2-1 in the third set and had the momentum in his favour after brilliantly finishing off the second set. So it wasn't 2-2 in the third, Fed was ahead, albeit by a slight margin.

In fact the first two sets were as tight as can be. Fed had 5 break points, Murray 6. By the end of the second set it was Fed that was in the ascendency.

Anyway, on to tomorrow's match. I make Murray the slight favourite now purely because I have some reservations about Federer's staying power over five sets after a five setter in his last match. I really think he needs to be completely fresh to battle these guys over five sets.

Either way, it's a finely balanced affair and I wouldn't be surprised if either player won.

Allez Roger,

I shall call forth the power of the emancipator. I am preparing as we speak.

ghost

emancipator

by bogbrush Thu 24 Jan - 23:34

Strangely enough, I think Federer tires opponents even more than some more attritional players. He puts considerable urgent pressure on, and I thought Murray looked quite weary through the latter stages of the Wimbledon final.

That said, this environment is much more Murrays thing. It's tough to call and the guy who's serve operates closer to full potential will probably win.

by MurrayHype Fri 25 Jan - 0:08

Firstly, the original post is pretty decent and level-headed. However, some of the comments that follow aren’t. Let’s look at them and discover why.

Slight edge to Murray at the moment. I don't see that Federer is Murray's bogeyman, he has a positive overall head to head and beat hm soundly at the Olympics. And I don't see that the tournament is on Federer's racket, Djokovic is the favourite. – Henman Bill

At slam level, Federer is 3-0 up in matches, and Murray has taken just ONE set off him in all these matches. Clearly, going by FACTS that are relevant to this match, Federer has to be favourite by some margin, given that the last major meeting at slam level was only 2 slams ago and Federer won it in 4 sets. Using overall H2H simply isn’t relevant to the equation in any large amount when you consider the difference between the two in their slam matches. Players play their very best at the Slams and this is why Murray has had no answers to Federer at the slams (even Federer past his prime). I am not stating opinion here, I am stating what we can all see with our own eyes. Federer is favourite based on his current and past level at Slams against Murray. It isn’t slight edge to Murray, it is large edge to Federer. The Olympics is not a slam and Federer was knackered. It was the worst I have ever seen him on grass. Murray deserved his victory (he played well the whole tournament), but trying to equate that loss to anything meaningful at a Slam is a gross distortion. Federer is World Number 2, Wimbledon Champion and last season’s WTF finalist for a reason. Murray is WN3 for a reason.

Djoko is the favourite, but Fed always believed Nadal is the only guy who can actually stop him when he brings his A-game. invisiblecoolers

I agree, and that’s why in Federer’s absolute peak years (2006-7) only Nadal managed to beat him in a slam (and that was clay).

Murray lost 2 finals to Fed in slams when he wasn't mentally ready for it, and was inexperienced. His last won was much closer, and the roof may have been decisive.
The Olympics was on a par with a slam to many players, and at a similar venue, and Murray won that. – Henman Bill

This is a classic example of making bad excuses. Ricky Hatton mentioned this during his retirement speech after his last match, that you can always find an excuse. It is easy. What I find disgusting about this comment is that it not only makes excuses but demeans the career of one of the greatest players. In just this one post alone you have washed away all Federer’s wins as being lost by Andy rather than being won by Federer. It’s just so damn disrespectful and false. And the roof is a classic- Let us look logically at that statement. Let’s suppose the roof really was a factor in Murray’s loss… are you saying that this one thing was so massive that it made Andy lose in 4 sets and against a Federer past his prime and aged 30+? I would have thought that Murray wouldn’t need conditions so perfect to beat an old man. But I am diverting here. The Olympics is not a slam and I do not see any quotes from these “many players” to corroborate your claim that they believe the Olympics is on par with a Slam. There may be one or two players who rate it highly, but where is this “The Olympics was on a par with a Slam to many players” coming from? Where is your evidence of this statement? I suspect you have simply made it up. Even by ranking points it is considered less than a Masters 1000 and WTF. These are facts, not conjecture.

If there is more wind on the court then obviously Murray is favourite but if not federer should be able to outfox the lanky coyote. - Josiah Maiestas

Calling Murray a lanky Coyote isn’t very nice either, and Federer is not the same player as Djok (who I agree has a big weakness in windy conditions, but whose fault is that? It isn't Murray's, I can assure you).

Murray has been averaging 65% on first serves in which is impressive.
Murray has to jump on the Federer second serve. Tsonga let him off on many second serves. - legendkillarV2

The average serving percentage is largely irrelevant because it is affected by opposition, and Murray has had a much easier draw. When he plays Federer he will have to come outside of his comfort zone and that’s where the percentage takes a hit. Then people claim “Murray didn’t play his best” instead of “Federer didn’t let him play his best”. Big difference. Pressure and the ability of your opponent affects these stats and that’s why they are often unreliable when placed in an argument like this. Context is everything.

Also, I would argue that Murray’s main weakness is his own second serve (much weaker than Federer’s). This seems to be where Federer demolishes Murray at Slam level (demolish isn’t unfair is it, given Murray is 1-9 in sets at Slam level?).

[quote]I predict a sombre day for the RF camp - a three set procession for the muscle of Murray, with his added mental strength from the US Open. I don´t think RF will get into Murray´s head, where he needs to be to be able to win.[quote]

Sometimes it is possible to play your very best and for it not to be good enough. The way some here are going on, it’s like Murray is in the same class as Federer. He isn’t. Not close. That’s why one is approaching the tail-end of his career with one Slam and the other is already in his tail-end, winning Wimbledon and has 17 Slams. There is no disgrace to Murray to lose to Federer, but there is a great disgrace to suppose that the gap in talent is some illusion. Accept it that Murray is not as good as Federer, and is likely to lose the match. That’s based on their Slam match-up, last Slam match, and overall Slam statistics against one another. Again, it not based on excuses about roofs or fitness or weather or what you want to be true.

To predict 3 sets win for Murray based on available evidence is flat-out illogical. His “Mental strength” being greater is also opinion since we haven’t actually seen Murray challenged in this Slam yet and that’s where temperament is important. I’d wager that the same mental issues (keeping cool- not shouting all the time) will surface the second he is placed under some pressure and loses a set or a few important games. Emotional issues like Murray’s mental fragility don’t go away because of one major win, they are systemic of an underlying psychological problem which has to be addressed properly. You’ll see. It is easy to play great tennis and laugh and joke when you are beating opponents easily. I would wager that it is your camp that will be most disappointed tomorrow.

Yes Muzza forehand is ripping through the opponents, credit to Lendll if he really worked on it to help Murray improve it. invisiblecoolers

Again, we have not seen Murray up-against-it to determine how good his forehand will hold up under pressure.

I more or less see the same way, its difficult to see outside Muzza for the finals, but you never know with Fed. 70-30 in Murray's favour. invisiblecoolers

Where does that logic come from, especially given your original post? 70-30 based on what? The fact he has taken one set from Federer in a Slam? That Federer didn’t win the last Slam? Where is that crazy-ass figure coming from? I just can’t see how you arrive at such an illogical figure based on the current facts.

OK here's a little reminder for everyone out there who is of the opinion Murray will easily beat Federer.

Murray hasn't beaten Federer in any of the three previous meetings and has so far taken just one set.

I'll stick my neck out on the line a little bit here then. He'll probably get at least one more set, maybe two and potentially might beat Federer. But beat him easily? Doubtful. – Newballs

Logic, at last.

If Murray plays like he did in Shanghai v the Fed then Roger will be in deep trouble. I don't think anyone's ever assaulted Federer's second serve like Andy did that day. For me, the serve is the critical aspect of the match. Murray's returns are normally good enough to get one break per set so if he keeps his first serve percentage 65% + he has a good chance. It will not be an easy match for either player. I just hope it's not raining - The Special Juan

Shanghai is not a Slam, it has no bearing on this match, and if Federer brings his best, Murray WILL lose… it’s that simple, because Federer won’t allow Murray to play near his best or in his own comfort zone. Equally, if Murray brings his best and Federer doesn’t, the same is true. But all evidence we have suggests that Federer is clear favourite because he has beaten Murray 3-0 in Slams where he brings his best form. And the 65% figure is again missing the whole point of how Tennis works. If Federer brings his best form, Murray won’t be able to reach that figure, he will be under pressure. Not to mention the second serves will need to be high as well. Quoting these fantastic figures sounds great until you realise the match-up and opponent is a critical factor.

I'll go with Murray but that's probably heart over head!! - The Special Juan

No “probably” about it.

only Wimbledon last year was close-ish. Danny_1982

I wouldn’t say it was "close-ish". Also, again you mention this 65% stat. I really hope some of you don’t come back tomorrow with excuses like “Murray didn’t play his best… what a shame.” I hope you understand that the stat is dependent on how well his opponent plays and not just how well he plays. Do not be surprised to see that percentage drop against Federer. Pressure, the knowledge he has never won a Slam match against Federer, the match-up and the recent history show that it is unlikely Murray will be able to win this match or play his best level. UNLIKELY. Not impossible (Yes I know some of you have a habit of coming back to posts so you can rub things in as if a person has implied something they haven’t).

If you are expecting or hoping for a close match tomorrow, either way, don’t be disappointed or surprised when it does not materialise.

Cant see Murray losing to Federer now that Federer has had that long 5 setter V Tsonga in the previous round – gboycottnut

It was hardly like the match was a leg-killer. Unlike some players, Tsonga and Federer don’t waste time; they play attacking Tennis, not knee-killing-defensive-moon-balling. No excuses from EITHER side tomorrow, please. We’ve already had the roof blamed for Murray’s last Slam loss.

Looking back I've actually been impressed by Murray so far

He did just what he needed to in the early rounds - what's the point of showing your best stuff and making Fed aware, when there is no need? …… However, I was actually impressed by how he handled Chardy, who came back at him all guns blazing. Andy's response? To play his best stuff since the US Open banbrotam

Are you saying Murray is deliberately holding back so that Roger doesn’t know how good he can play? You really think players do that in a match? I play Tennis and I can tell you that isn’t the winning mindset of any player and it would be ridiculous to even think about doing that. You made it up from your own imagination. As for the second response, it is easy for a player to play great when not under pressure. 2-0 sets up and looking at 3. That’s not where you are tested. Tomorrow Murray will be tested, and I believe he will be beaten in 3-4 sets (again).

Oh like Tsonga was in his prime and Fed past it but Fed won? Let us also remember this is Fed's first tournament of the season unlike the rest of the players so I won't buy the fitness thing until I see Fed cramping up on court which I am yet to see. - CaledonianCraig

Your post adequately answered the ridiculous post preceding.

Was the roof really decisive? It was 1 set all and 2-2 when the rain came and roof was closed. - FedsFan

No, as you’ve worked out, when logic is applied the roof statement comes off as nothing but a bad excuse.

This match is Fed's to lose. FedsFan

That’s not a good statement either, though. Federer is not in his prime anymore, this isn’t 2006-7 and he can lose if Murray plays his best and Federer does not. It can happen. It is just unlikely. I think it would be sad to see Federer lose because I like to see the man with the hardest draw/best Tennis at a tournament win, but life isn’t always fair.

I don't think either set of fans can really have excuses for the outcome of this match – Silver

Agreed. Let’s not hear any nonsense about weather or roofs or fitness. Fitness is a part of tennis, weather is a part of tennis, indoor is a part of Tennis (where applicable).

There is possibly more pressure on Federer than on Murray, as if Federer loses it could well be the end of the road for him as far as being a serious contender for winning a major title what with Nadal coming back and with guys like Murray and Djokovic being younger than Federer and in their tennis playing prime years. - gboycottnut

Are you seriously suggesting that a man who is current Wimbledon Champion, WN2 and in the Semi-Final of the current Slam (with the hardest draw) is finished if he loses one match? Where is the logic here? I remember this nonsense when people said he wouldn’t win another slam ever again last year (yet his form suggested it wouldn’t be long until he did), and guess what happened? I can’t understand how a statement like this is even relayed by a synapse…

They are my thoughts on this.

by User 774433 Fri 25 Jan - 0:24

Wowzers MH, that post has more holes than Swiss cheese.
Let's analyse it:

MurrayHype wrote:Clearly, going by FACTS that are relevant to this match, Federer has to be favourite by some margin, given that the last major meeting at slam level was only 2 slams ago and Federer won it in 4 sets.

What a ridiculous line.
In tennis so many variables are always changing. So far when they have played in slams, Federer has been a level above for sure.
But why does this suddenly mean Federer being a massive favourite (as you claim) is a 'FACT.' Nonsense really.

The Olympics is not a slam and Federer was knackered.

...
2 minutes later from you again:

This is a classic example of making bad excuses. Ricky Hatton mentioned this during his retirement speech after his last match, that you can always find an excuse. It is easy.

Do you hear yourself?

Murray is WN4 for a reason.

No he's not.
He's not number 4.
I'm beginning to question whether you know anything about this sport.

Accept it that Murray is not as good as Federer, and is likely to lose the match.

Oh dear, you really don't understand the point people are making.
No one is saying that Murray is a better player than Federer, or will have a career to match his. What they are saying is that despite playing well for his age Federer may show some vulnerability, which will give Murray, who looks to have stepped his game up a gear under Ivan Lendl, a great opportunity to win.

by LuvSports! Fri 25 Jan - 0:27

by MurrayHype Fri 25 Jan - 0:28

Yes , pardon me, number 3 for a reason. I am so sorry if that one mistake (not caused by me not knowing) ruins my entire post. Also, your post attacked me personally. I wonder if the mod will reprimand you this time censored

You also quoted me out of context by missing the line after "knackered".

Anyway, I have no desire to stay at a forum where one member is allowed to attack another with impunity (and yes, I've seen you do it a lot of times in the past as a watcher), and I have said my piece. Good bye Smile

Please close my account, whoever responsible.

by User 774433 Fri 25 Jan - 0:30

LuvSports! wrote:15-0

by invisiblecoolers Fri 25 Jan - 0:32

hawkeye wrote:carrieg4. Here is the full quote

Q. You had a lot of rivalries with a lot of players. What makes the matchup with Murray stand out for you?
ROGER FEDERER: Well, I've always enjoyed playing against him. I had some tougher runs against him in a short period of time. I played him in a few weeks or maybe a month or two I played him three, four times, was on some sort of losing streak, so that was sort of hard.
But I always enjoyed the matchups with him because it gets to be very tactical. Wasn't a straightforward match. He would make you doubt and play very different to the rest of the guys. I kind of always enjoyed that, you know, when it's just not every point's the same. We used to mix it up against each other.
Now it's changed a bit because he's playing more offensive. The rallies aren't as long and grueling as they used to be. We both can do that.
There were times when we also played against each other in semifinals when Rafa and myself were 1 and 2. Same as Novak. We played a lot in the semis.
My rivalry goes more into the semifinals always with Andy than more in the finals, even tough now at Wimbledon and the Olympics we played in the finals. I think it was nice for us for a change to play in finals against each other.

http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/news/interviews/2013-01-23/201301231358951306038.html

Thx for the Share HE, notworthy

by User 774433 Fri 25 Jan - 0:32

MurrayHype wrote:
You also quoted me out of context by missing the line after "knackered".

The line you said after that was:
It was the worst I have ever seen him on grass.
Sorry for missing it out, but frankly it just backs me up even more.

by MurrayHype Fri 25 Jan - 0:34

the lines after knackered.

Murray deserved his victory (he played well the whole tournament), but trying to equate that loss to anything meaningful at a Slam is a gross distortion.

Funny what one resorts to when one can't debate Wink

I won't be staying, and since I knew what to expect from at least 3 members here, including the one below, I wasn't staying anyway. But nice to see the person I knew would cause the most trouble pop up right on cue! This is the final post, so please delete the account. When you wonder why lengthy posts and analysis is hard to come by, remember members like the ones below, who you allow to attack, and then defend the actions of.

Cheerio!

by User 774433 Fri 25 Jan - 0:36

MurrayHype wrote:the lines after knackered.

You then ironically went on to say 'Murray deserved his victory' as he played well throughout the tournament despite saying:
-'Federer was knackered'
-'It was the worst I have ever seen him (Federer) on grass.'

Who are you trying to kid?

by newballs Fri 25 Jan - 0:37

Love the idea someone calling themselves MurrayHype!

More holes than Swiss cheese? Well it was certainly a lengthy diatribe. I guess that of all the matches so far in this slam this is the one to arouse passionate debate and, yes, even name calling on this forum.

It should be worth staying in to watch tomorrow. It's even live on BBC2 by all accounts although if Andrew Castle is involved I'll be watching it with the muter button on. After all there's only so much passion (or should that read cowpat?) a guy can take.

cowpat = bulls--t

by invisiblecoolers Fri 25 Jan - 0:38

MurrayHype wrote:Didn't want to sign up given the total fanboys you seem to be catering to on this forum, but some of the comments here are too frustrating to ignore. I will go into some of the debunking when I get back, but let's start by saying the way some of you write Federer off is a joke. Do you really believe one lucky Slam win from Murray overpowers all the experience of even an aging Federer? Do you really believe that Federer has gone from Slam beater, just 2 slams ago, to "30-70 chance" in this slam?

The comments here are embarrassing.

I would put the chances at 60-40 in Fed's favour. That's based on experience, 3-0 h2h in slams, his draw being far harder than Murray's and having prepared him better, playing at night where Federer has had more experience, and Murray being little better to how he was at Wimbledon and Federer being no worse. Fire me down, fanboys, but you know I am right

I suggest the Murray hypers around here prepare for bad news.

I don't care how much his new coach has helped. Nole and Murray would have made shorter work of him

Thanks, you're the first one, and I only just arrived. Firstly, your statement is presented as fact without a shred of evidence. To my knowledge, Murray and Djok have not come up against Tsonga in that form. I do remember nadal coming up against a Tsonga in similar form at the same slam.. and err...

Welcome to the forum MurrayHype, I love to see Roger win but don't think its gonna happen, Murray seems in breath taking form and Fed's form looks patchy at the best so far, in the current form,age and other circumstances put together Murray in my view is a heavy favourite to win the match today, Fed really have to produce a miracle to down this Murray today, which may happy but the chances are obiviously little and hence 30-70 in favour of Murray. thumbsup

by LuvSports! Fri 25 Jan - 0:40

30-15

by invisiblecoolers Fri 25 Jan - 0:45

JuliusHMarx wrote:
MurrayHype wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:Murrayhype, welcome to the forum.

You're clearly new here, and perhaps a bit confused

On this forum the ones who want Murray to win are predicting a Federer victory, while the ones who support Federer are predicting a Murray win.
It's pretty simple actually.

If things get really tight tomorrow I might even say 'dead cert Federer will win' or 'I wonder what tactics Federer will play against Djokovic.'

Hope this clears things up.

Amritia

Why isn't this one removed?

Because it was a light-hearted attempt to explain the weird state of the forum (re: semi-final predictions) to a newcomer.

OMG, please do not ban this guy, he is sensationally witty Very Happy

by invisiblecoolers Fri 25 Jan - 1:00

Mad for Chelsea wrote:where did our new member go? There was me all preparing a very apt welcoming speech along the lines of it being nice for HE to have some company, and maybe they should consider getting married and retiring from such trivial things as tennis forums, and he's gone already

back on the subject, I think Murray will win, but it's just a hunch, based on the quality of his returning in the Chardy match. I also didn't feel Federer played all that well against Tsonga (though he did up his level in the fifth), and think if Murray can get stuck into the Federer serve he has a great chance.

MH I agree IMBL attacked you, but pls do let us know how did he attack you? by a proper gesture of welcome and explaining a bit of this forum ? laughing

Anyways I appreciate your contributions to this thread, specifically that one lengthy post which for me looked like I am starring at CN Tower.

by User 774433 Fri 25 Jan - 1:03

invisiblecoolers wrote:
MH I agree IMBL attacked you, but pls do let us know how did he attack you? by a proper gesture of welcome and explaining a bit of this forum ?

Invisible Coolers thumbsup

by invisiblecoolers Fri 25 Jan - 1:06

newballs wrote:Love the idea someone calling themselves MurrayHype!

More holes than Swiss cheese? Well it was certainly a lengthy diatribe. I guess that of all the matches so far in this slam this is the one to arouse passionate debate and, yes, even name calling on this forum.

It should be worth staying in to watch tomorrow. It's even live on BBC2 by all accounts although if Andrew Castle is involved I'll be watching it with the muter button on. After all there's only so much passion (or should that read cowpat?) a guy can take.

cowpat = bulls--t

Can't agree more Newballs thumbsup

, Fed-Murray match means so much to the tennis fans and it brought the v2 tennis section to life big time. Very Happy

by invisiblecoolers Fri 25 Jan - 1:08

It Must Be Love wrote:
invisiblecoolers wrote:
MH I agree IMBL attacked you, but pls do let us know how did he attack you? by a proper gesture of welcome and explaining a bit of this forum ?
Invisible Coolers

IMBL you have become naughty of late attacking all newcomers, please don't do that I beg you Laugh

by User 774433 Fri 25 Jan - 1:14

Anyway MurrayHype, I hope you understand my post fully now.
It was not a post attacking you in any-way, however I did disagree and attempt to debunk your not-very-convincing analysis.
You've firstly come on here and called anyone who thinks Murray is favourite for this match or is even 50-50 'naive' and 'Murray hypers.'
OK.

Then you started saying how you believe that the statement 'Federer is massive favourite for this match' is a 'fact' based on the statistic that Murray has never beaten Federer in a slam.
And, I really don't know where to start.
Tennis is so so complex, the state of the game is always changing and fluid. There are many stats we could use to analyse who will win this match, and the one you provided is one of them.
But to suddenly bring that into isolation and then claim your analysis as 'factual' is frankly laughable.
Murray so far does have a very narrow lead in the H2H with Federer, but in the slams Federer has been a level ahead of Murray so far. Murray under Lendl has improved his game, winning his first slam in the USO, while Federer looks vulnerable at times in his play. So saying Federer is big favourite isn't 'factual' at all, when you consider all the different variables.
Overall I would have Roger as slight favourite as he has been serving very well this week, but it's a close one.

As for your 'excuses' rant... you had a go at some Murray fans for trying to make excuses. You then went on to claim Federer was 'knackered' for the Olympic final, and it was the 'worst grass court match he has played.' So quite ironic really. To be fair after that you did say Murray deserved his victory as he had played well that week, but after you've basically said Federer played his worst match on grass ever I'm not sure what that really means...

by User 774433 Fri 25 Jan - 1:15

invisiblecoolers wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:
invisiblecoolers wrote:
MH I agree IMBL attacked you, but pls do let us know how did he attack you? by a proper gesture of welcome and explaining a bit of this forum ?
Invisible Coolers

IMBL you have become naughty of late attacking all newcomers, please don't do that I beg you

Joking aside, I do hope I've made my position clear now

by invisiblecoolers Fri 25 Jan - 1:19

It Must Be Love wrote:Then you started saying how you believe that the statement 'Federer is massive favourite for this match' is a 'fact' based on the statistic that Murray has never beaten Federer in a slam.
And, I really don't know where to start..

According to that stat Rosol has made a crime beating Rafa at Wimbledon coz he never beat him before, no wonder Rosol was made to quit the tournament after he lost the next round.

I am still young you see and I am learning every day, so Soderling's win over Fed in FO [after infinite loss] is deemed void, can we now award the 2010 FO to Fed as he was cheated by the Soda head breaking MH's rules. thumbsup

by invisiblecoolers Fri 25 Jan - 1:27

Bet 365 one of the leading online betting company puts Murray as 70% favourite with odds ofr 1.61 to Murray over 2.30 to Fed, looks like I got it spot on, or did they read my article Very Happy

by carrieg4 Fri 25 Jan - 1:40

It Must Be Love wrote:
invisiblecoolers wrote:
MH I agree IMBL attacked you, but pls do let us know how did he attack you? by a proper gesture of welcome and explaining a bit of this forum ?
Invisible Coolers

Naughty IMBL! Being friendly and welcoming to newbies. How could you warning

by luciusmann Fri 25 Jan - 2:14

I went with voting that Fed would win (on the other thread) but I am a Federer fan so that's not too surprising but I'm not so partial as to think Federer is a sure bet to beat Murray (he's not). I make Murray as the favourite, although not by much, but still a favourite. Murray is in his peak years and has reached the last 2 grand slam finals so he has shown consistent form. My doubt with Fed is despite all his successes last year is that he put in a meek performance in Rome and then to top that, a limp performance in RG, both against Djokovic but literally a month later, defeats the very same player at Wimbledon! Of course, the more sensible among us didn't think this was going to suddenly lead to Fed's dominance again. However, after Cinci, things start to go pear shaped for Fed, hence why if you got to choose between Fed or Murray, you would pick the player with the more consistent form, and Fed has no doubt played well, but consistent? Certainly not, he went from winning Wimbledon to losing in the Quarters @ the USO, which has been his second best slam. If the Fed of Wimbledon shows up, then Fed may win, but no way is he a heavy favourite and I'm more than happy to wager that it won't be a str8 sets win for Federer (if he wins) and probably won't be for Murray either.

by Sponsored content