Could Murray Catch Federer Before Wimbledon?

Well now that Andy has the Slam monkey off the back, can he now get closer to that ever elusive goal of being number 1 ranked player in the world? Right now a race between him and Federer for the number 2 ranking. There is a great opportunity for Murray right now to really make in-roads and snag the number 2 ranking from the Swiss Maestro. That for me besides further Slam success must be a goal for Murray. I think he could go into Wimbledon ranked 2 in the world if his performances improve and if Federer cannot retain his IW or Madrid crown. Here is where they stand.

Federer - 9,855
Murray - 8,480* (is set to lose 300 points from DNP at Dubai)

As it stands these are the number of points both players are contesting from now until Wimbledon.

Federer - 3,775
Murray - 1,330

That is quite a meaty gap for Murray to really attack. He has to land a title on Clay to have a decent chance of the number 2 ranking.

How does 606V2 see this going?

Frankly if Murray at this stage in his career cannot usurp Federer who is clearly suffereing from physical issues and taking breaks from the game I will be shocked.

Murray is virtually certain to be #2 soon, most probably before Roland Garros. I disagree about needing a clay title, the ranking will come simply because of the amount of points Federer will give up over the next couple of months.

The challenge for Murray now is to plot a route to #1. It can be done.

I would sooner rather see Murray gain the advantage through points gained on Clay than just Federer dropping the majority.

I mean christ if he does usurp Federer through points lost by Federer than Murray gaining the majority, you would have to say he would be a weak number 2.

Murray can reach number 1, just needs to really maximise his peak which I believe he is in now.

legendkillarV2 wrote:I would sooner rather see Murray gain the advantage through points gained on Clay than just Federer dropping the majority.

I mean christ if he does usurp Federer through points lost by Federer than Murray gaining the majority, you would have to say he would be a weak number 2.

Murray can reach number 1, just needs to really maximise his peak which I believe he is in now.

Sure, of course, I just meant that I see the outcome as inevitable.

A good run here sees Murray gain a lot of points and that can be the basis of an attack on the #1.

To quote Agent Smith from The Matrix, "It is inevitable." I think Murray's target is to be there before Wimbledon as that is probably the most realistic scenario. He had a really poor run of form from the AO last year 'til the FO (IIRC, but he normally does anyway) so there are a lot of points up for grabs for him until then. Hopefully he wins more points than Federer drops though.

Aye indeed. I do question whether he has the mentality to really push on to be the top guy. In some ways he has had the comfort of being in the shadow of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. Now that shadow is starting to lift, I just wonder if he can handle that exposure and expectation.

Looking at the points earned since the French Open last year, Murray is slightly ahead, by some 200 points.

So Federer needs to do better than Murray between now and Roland Garros to keep his #2 position. As Fed isn't playing Miami and neither Monte Carlo, that won't be easy... To stand a decent chance, he would need to win Dubai this week.

Indian Wells is potentially the big swing point. Federer defends all 1000 points and Murray bombed out early last year. If, for example, they are in the same half and Murray beat Roger in the SF then that by itself would see a 1230 point swing.

It does surprise me a little that Murray is playing nowhere this week. He obviously isnt chasing the number 2 ranking that strongly.

Born Slippy wrote: ...............................................

It does surprise me a little that Murray is playing nowhere this week. He obviously isnt chasing the number 2 ranking that strongly.

I suspect he can take a break in the near-certain knowledge that Number 2 will be his reasonably soon anyway ...

Do people really think Murray is on the actual same overall playing level (i.e. mental+physical, etc) as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic?

Physical he is. Mentally no.

You could easily run through a list of matches where mental strength at critical times in matches have impacted the outcome quite dramatically in his matches.

Physically he is up there with those guys. Results just don't show it. Sure I could cherry pick stats that easily hold him in their company, but being a results business makes it easier to say he isn't. He more than has the weapons to compete with Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.

Mentally he doesn't have that killer instinct. To really put the foot down when the opponent is on the ropes. He doesn't trust his ability on the big points like the others do. If you go back and look at players like Connors and McEnroe they could literally tough out matches in which physically they were outgunned. You don't get that nowadays. Lendl, Djokovic and Nadal certainly trust their conditioning enough to see them through big matches, but are they tough in terms of controlled aggression? Not for me. Federer and Borg really the only players really who had talent and belief as one beautiful unity of harmony on court. Sampras was a winning machine and basically had an unrelenting desire to win win and win. For me accepted defeats on less favourable conds too easily.

You couldn't fit Murray in any of those categories. I think that's why Murray and number 1 ranking just doesn't fit or go together which as a fan is a bitter pill to swallow.

Why did Murray take a long break after the AO? He's young and has points to gain. He's not old or tired or injured. So what are the reasons for him not to play matches?

HE

As I understand it he wants to have the best preparation going into the Clay swing. Whether this break pays off or not will remain to be seen. IW starts soon so we shall get a view of how well this extra training pays off.

hawkeye wrote:Why did Murray take a long break after the AO? He's young and has points to gain. He's not old or tired or injured. So what are the reasons for him not to play matches?

If you look at it logically it makes sense. I mean I doubt whether the end of season World Tour Finals and the start of building up fitness and preparing for the new season constitutes a real break. Whereas after the Australian Open there is six weeks of inconsequential tournaments that don't fall into the category of big tournaments so it makes sense to use the time for a break and prepare for the clay court season. It makes even more sense when Murray has next to no points to defend. Besides I recall around the time of the 2011 US Open, Andy voicing concerns of there being too many tournaments - perhaps this is his way of limiting the stresses on his body?

hawkeye wrote:Why did Murray take a long break after the AO? He's young and has points to gain. He's not old or tired or injured. So what are the reasons for him not to play matches?

Well he said back in October that he was not going to play Dubai this year as he wished to concentrate on Indian Wells. After the AO and a short break he was going to go to the US for a training block with Lendl and didn't feel that coming over to Dubai and flying back again had served him that well last year. I remember that when Federer won the WTF in 2011 and Murray, Djokovic and Nadal were struggling with injury and fatigue he rightly said that they should look to managing their schedules better. Looks like he has taken that on board.

Murray wins Indian Wells
Federer would need to: win Dubai and reach the semis in IW OR finish runner-up in both tournaments

Murray finishes runner-up in Indian Wells
Federer would need to:

Win Dubai
Runner-Up Dubai and QF in IW
SF/QF/R16 Dubai and SF in IW

Posted this during Rotterdam. Murray will be very close if he wins Indian Wells.

Murray doesn't have a lot of points to defend on clay either, I think he has been the second best player of the last 7 or 8 months if he just keeps up what he is doing he should jump passed fed by wimbeldon.

lydian wrote:Do people really think Murray is on the actual same overall playing level (i.e. mental+physical, etc) as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic?

Mentally: not quite. He has made enormous strides over the last year, and at times there's a real authority about his demeanour on the court. But he still has mental dips. Much less of them, but they are still there. The AO final was a great example, a set up and 3 BP's to take a real grip of the match... It was the time to play with more intensity than ever, but instead his intensity dropped. One of those points was a simple mid court backhand that he just didn't commit to, a shot that the other 3 simply wouldn't have missed.

Physically: yes... ish. He is there or thereabouts. He outlasted Novak in New York, but was outlasted by Novak in Melbourne. But Novak had played the day before in NY and Murray had the much longer semi at AO. I think he's pretty much there in terms of fitness, although you might say Novak and Rafa (fully fit) are ever so slightly better at lasting looooong matches. In terms of speed and strength though I think Murray is their equal.

lydian wrote:Do people really think Murray is on the actual same overall playing level (i.e. mental+physical, etc) as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic?

What are your thoughts lydian?

I agree he has made good inroads into being mentally stronger, ie more focused, under Lendl's tutelage. I also agree he's still prone to lapses though which makes me feel he's just not as mentally strong as those other guys point in, point out...but this difference is only exposed at the very highest levels of play...and not always.

Physically, he's as fit as the other guys. His movement is also extremely good, and even though for me his footwork isn't quite as good as theirs he makes up for it with great anticipation. Technique-wise he still has some issues...sliding on clay, 2nd serve frailty under pressure, topping FHs into the net (from his W to SW change) but he's more decisive on what shot to play these days.

In reality though, when we compare careers he's far off the others slam wise and on clay. When push comes to shove the other guys have been just that bit tougher mentally across the course. In Nadal and Federer's case they also just seem to have that "mercurial" X-factor something, that bit of unexpected creativity that all the very very best have when pushed to the very edge at crunch moments. For example, I couldn't imagine Murray ever playing like Nadal and Federer did in the Wimb08 final.

However, dont get me wrong, he's very near them on an average basis and possibly improving...although its hard to say when Nadal has been AWOL and Federer isnt 25-26 anymore. I still think they, and Djokovic with his iron will, are - or have been in their prime - better tennis players overall than Murray, but not by much. However you can't ignore the sheer size of their slam counts, amassed during highly competitive years against each other. Murray has a great chance moving forward to add to his tally, no doubt and Nadal and Federer are never going to return to their primes again, IMO, given age, mileage and what's already been won. The next 3 slams will be very interesting for many reasons.

If Novak can get the FO, it will get very interesting indeed from where I sit. That would be the first time since Courier anyplayer has won the first two legs. I agree with most of lydian's analysis on murray. I just think that in most things shot wise murray is just a tiny bit behind the other 3 players. Although I feel like he is really growing as a player the last 12-18 months and I can't see him standing pat, I see him pushing to shrink that gap even further and the gap isn't very large right now. For me the big difference between murray and Djoko is that Novak has the better second serve and a little bit more fluid and consistent forehand. ON tour these are two hugely important factors more important than your skill as a volleyer or your skill off the backhand. That being said both those areas are better today for murray than in the past.

When people ask if Murray is on the the same playing level as Federer or Nadal or even Djokovic to me it looks like a wind up. Either that or they haven't watched much tennis. Murray must be the most hyped up player ever... The strange thing is it really doesn't do him any favours.

Last year when I said Murray to become no.1 sooner or later everybody laughed at my thread, now finally its sinking into people's mind that Murray can become No.1 later this year if he notch up some impressive performance in clay which I see will happen.

If Murray ever becomes number one (and anything can happen especially now with Federer in his tennis old age and Nadal with his dodgy knees, no young players breaking through and all the older players getting complacent) it wouldn't prove that his playing level has ever approached that of Federer or Nadal or even Djokovic. If at the age of 25/26 there was a radical improvement in his play it would be nothing short of a miracle. But it would mean dire viewing for tennis fans who are not British and nationalistic.

Agree with most of those thoughts lydian and socal.

Murray will obviously never match the slam totals of the other 3 as he has taken far longer to reach the level required to win slams. Something we he puts down to "understanding how to best use my complicated game".

Which is kinda true, he does have many ways to play... But personally I think a lot of the changes he's made are things he could have done years ago. I guess it needed someone like Lendl to really make him believe it.

Murray probably has 3 or maybe 4 years to clock up as many slam wins as he can because in the here and now he's pretty much the equal to the 3 greats playing at this moment. History won't judge him as their equal when he quits, but in the present he is and he should try and get himself up to 5 or 6 slams. Something which I'm sure he can do because he's still on an upward curve. He's still improving.

Yes I agree danny he is still improving. I think 3 or 4 slams is something murray certainly can accomplish, who knows maybe more. But I think he wil struggle to top Novak at least this year. I see Djokovic's consistent performance to be very scary where murray still seems to have more up and down matches were a lower ranked player beats him. Lets remember he has a very competitive h2h against other big 3 players and against top 10 players in general. I think he is getting better as well. Still I also feel like Novak is still making strides and they are both the same age, will be interesting to see if Andy can switch the dynamic and boss the rivlarly at some point.

Biggest worry is his 6'3' frame breaking down with the abuse he gives it! Yes Lendl has helped, but you could also argue its taken the decline of Fed (slow) and Nadal (rapid) to create a window of opportunity. I still personally believe the wind helped Murray to the final and beyond to get his 1st slam but he still had to handle the wind...however we saw what Djokovic did 4 months later without wind. So we'll see, he has the belief, a good mentor and a good window ahead...3-4 seems reasonable.

Well, I'm not sure there will be a dominant player in the match up. Murray won 2 big ones in a row but has lost 3 since. 2 of them by incredibly fine margins.

But that's Novak. He's like a spider in the bath. Just when you think you've got him he bursts into life. I don't think there's ever been a player who plays as well staring down the barrel of defeat.

I suspect the match up will continue to be close on hard courts, with Novak having a superior clay record and Murray having a slight upper hand on grass. Therefore I think Novak will finish ahead.

But as long as they have more matches like 2012 then I'll be happy. To have 4 or 5 great matches between 2 players in a single season is pretty special.

I think it should be mentioned that it is much to Murray's credit that he adapted better to the very windy conditions in the first hour and a half in New York, and the less windy conditions for the remainder of the match.... When you've yet to win a slam, that must add doubt and I think it's to his credit rather than him 'lucking out'.

And the Melbourne final after 2 and a half sets was 101 points to 99 in Murrays favour, before Murray did what Novak did in New York and ran out of gas. And at the end there was a 15 point gap. That's extremely small for a 4 set match. Not much between these 2 fellas at the moment.

When Murray beat Lopez in 4 sets at the USO last year he won 9 points LESS than Lopez! Funny game tennis at times.

Danny_1982 wrote:

Murray will obviously never match the slam totals of the other 3 as he has taken far longer to reach the level required to win slams. Something we he puts down to "understanding how to best use my complicated game".

Did Murray really say that? Ha ha! I must have missed that one...

You believe that Murray has reached the same level of play as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic? Can you name one match where his level is anything like these players when they are at their imperial best? I certainly can't think of any. He has of course had wins over these players but has never reached the heights in terms of play that they have all produced on many occasions (Djokovic less so).

hawkeye wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:

Murray will obviously never match the slam totals of the other 3 as he has taken far longer to reach the level required to win slams. Something we he puts down to "understanding how to best use my complicated game".

Did Murray really say that? Ha ha! I must have missed that one...

You believe that Murray has reached the same level of play as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic? Can you name one match where his level is anything like these players when they are at their imperial best? I certainly can't think of any. He has of course had wins over these players but has never reached the heights in terms of play that they have all produced on many occasions (Djokovic less so).

Hmmmmmm. Ask and you shall receive, though I can't wait for your "They didn't play their best or Nadal was injured cack"

V Djokovic Cincinatti 2008
v Nadal US Open 2008
v Federer Shanghai 2008

v Djokovic Miami 2009
v Federer IW 2009

v Nadal Toronto 2010
v Federer Shanghai 2010

v Nadal Tokyo 2011

v Djokovic Dubai 2012
v Djokovic Olympics 2012
v Federer Olympics 2012

Murray in the Olympic final was as good as anything. Also when he beat Nadal in US Open semi and Roddick at Queens were easily performances up there with anything those 3 have done.

Great. We can now write off any defeat as "they weren't at their best".

So technically, Rafa and Roger have never lost a tennis match!

Imperial indeed.

Oh that one v Roddick at Queen's was the best I've ever seen Murray play. Roddick looked like he'd been hit by a freight train at the end of the match. "Keep it social!"

That Roddick match was really impressive, but I'd say the best I've seen him play was against Novak at the Olympics. The most impressive thing was the fact that Novak played really well too.

Given the level and ability of the opponent, I'd say that was his best performance. He was great in the final too, but Roger was a bit disappointing so I think the semi edges it.

Danny_1982 wrote:Great. We can now write off any defeat as "they weren't at their best".

So technically, Rafa and Roger have never lost a tennis match!

Imperial indeed.

I have my * ready and waiting.

(Moved to Dubai thread)

Lags what the hell? Wrong thread!

Apologies lk !

I felt another beatles discussion coming

lk, I assume in the article by "contesting" you mean defending.

Contesting has more of the sense of playing for, or points to gain.

Maybe Murray to be #2 after FO or Wimbledon, but who knows?

hawkeye wrote:If Murray ever becomes number one (and anything can happen especially now with Federer in his tennis old age and Nadal with his dodgy knees, no young players breaking through and all the older players getting complacent) it wouldn't prove that his playing level has ever approached that of Federer or Nadal or even Djokovic. If at the age of 25/26 there was a radical improvement in his play it would be nothing short of a miracle. But it would mean dire viewing for tennis fans who are not British and nationalistic.

Do you get the impression that HE isn't a fan?

Danny_1982 wrote:History won't judge him as their equal when he quits, but in the present he is and he should try and get himself up to 5 or 6 slams. Something which I'm sure he can do because he's still on an upward curve. He's still improving.

We simply don't know. For instance it's feasible he could do an 'Agassi' and peak at age 28 to 31 (roughly), i.e. it's not ridiculous to state that maybe Andy's a slow learner (llike a lot of anglo-saxons, who's bodies / minds tend to take longer to mature than their male Southern European counterparts) and his ability to play every shot well was indeed a hinderence. I certainly think he can play better than he did at Aus Open, where he still beat Fed and took a set off Nole

I think we back off until his career has finished. I mean I wrote Connors off after 1979 and Agassi around 1996 Never again!!

Henman Bill wrote:lk, I assume in the article by "contesting" you mean defending.

Contesting has more of the sense of playing for, or points to gain.

Maybe Murray to be #2 after FO or Wimbledon, but who knows?

I meant contesting. Murray has a lot to gain on Clay. This is where I am hoping for strides to be made by himself on the surface

Fair enough banbrotam, although I believe Agassi merely found a way to his earlier peak of 90-95 later on, after all he won a slam at 22 yrs old on grass of all places. Not sure about the maturing slower in normal Europe, never seen data on that and life spans are broadly similar. That said, Murray is a late bloomer plus we don't have Federer and Nadal in prime any longer sp something has to give. Hopefully he can chalk up more slam wins to realise his obvious talent.

I agree clay will be a key area for him as his points are pretty high elsewhere. The problem for me is that grinding away on clay isn't good for his 6'3' frame, wasn't he getting a bad back on the surface last year?

It has been said time and again that people/players peak at different ages. Lendl is an example of that. Look at Boris Becker - a slam winner at 17 and Federer's breakthrough came in his early 20's. With Andy Murray he is far more a complex case. Whereas the likes of Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal came with a lot of natural talent and things clicked into place quicker that isn't the case with Murray. In his early years he made errors on the coaching side (or lack of a coach) and he lacked the mental edge and his second serve needed work (still does but it has improved) as did his forehand. These elements of his game have meant he has been and still is a work in progress and to expect him to be a multiple slam winner with such flaws is fanciful thinking. How many slams he wins from this point on is another matter and only time will tell.

I do wonder and open this out to everyone.

Andy won his first Slam last year at the grand old age of 25. Now given the recent decline of Nadal due to injury and Roger slightly through age, would Andy's success beyond 2012 be viewed as:

A) The guy found his peak.
B) He benefitted from the top players decline.
C) Mixture of both.

See I think Andy is in a no win situation. If he goes on to be a multi slam winner, many upon many will be saying it was only because "Nadal faded early in his career" or "Roger got old" I think that to be quite a harsh view. See Andy joined the elite group in rankings in late 2008 and in fairness in 2009 has contested 17 Slams in that elite and won 1. Now that could be viewed he wasn't good enough or maybe just hadn't found his peak.

However, transition is part of any sport. Would've Lendl and Wilander won Slams early on had Connors not aged or Borg not retired and McEnroe lost form? Lendl won his first Slam at 24 and yet is not frowned upon because he didn't beat a Borg or Connors in the final. Yes he beat Mac, but that for me is like Murray beating Djokovic.

I just hope that when Andy retires and if he does become a multi slam winner, he doesn't get the tag of "he never done it against Roger or Rafa at their best" because that mind set can be applied to many Slam winners.

In the end only the man who is GOAT can say he doesn't owe most of his Slams to anothers decline. Of course Andy benefits from Rogers decline because peak Federer > peak Murray, but so has Djokovic and so also did Federer benefit at Wimbledon from Sampras's decline. It's no dishonour.

Good post lk.

At the end of the day there should be no what ifs/if onlys however many slams Andy wins. These sort of excuses/put downs could be used for any player on the circuit but aren't. For those who wish to protest that he will only win x amount of slams due to other players demise it could be counter-argued that he only never won x amount of slams due to being pitted against two players seen as the greatest players of all-time.

Comparisons are often made between Lendl and Murray for obvious reasons. Well Lendl is seen as one of the greats of the sport and it took him just as long to break his slam duck deprived by all-time great players so why should Murray be any different?

bogbrush wrote:In the end only the man who is GOAT can say he doesn't owe most of his Slams to anothers decline. Of course Andy benefits from Rogers decline because peak Federer > peak Murray, but so has Djokovic and so also did Federer benefit at Wimbledon from Sampras's decline. It's no dishonour.

Oh I agree. However some have taken the view that because Andy didn't do it against Rog and Raf in their best years equates that Andy wasn't as good as many observers or fans would like to believe him to be. Let's be fair for a minute. Did a peak Federer lose to Nadal at a Slam on Grass or HC? No. Nadal had to wait until Roger was nearly 27 to defeat him at Wimbledon. So what would that say of Nadal's accomplishments against Federer off Clay in the Slams?

* perhaps?