Could Murray Catch Federer Before Wimbledon?

First topic message reminder :

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?

legendkillarV2 wrote:

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?

I just think that if Murray didn't beat a peak Federer it changes nothing. Federer didn't beat peak Sampras, or Borg, or McEnroe, or Laver. So that helped him - even Fed fans recognise that if there was a time travel event and all the greats played at their peaks Federer might not have got 17 Slams!! Does that reduce Federer? No. So does Murray not beating peak Federer at Slams reduce him? No, not at all. Not in any way.

All that garbage is for the weak era theorists, of which I am not a member.

I agree BB but dont see this has anything to do with weak eras at all.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I agree BB but dont see this has anything to do with weak eras at all.

You don't think that suggesting Andy lacks because he only won Slams after some strong guys passed their best and hadn't been adequately replaced is weak era thinking?

What on Earth else is weak era thinking about?

No I dont think it does. To be denied slam wins by two of the games all-time greats and Djokovic who could join that club is no reflection of weakness. Sure if Andy had lost slam finals to Del Potro, Tsonga and Berdych I would question his claims.

CC I think your missing BB's point.

Federer ageing + Nadal's health = Murray winning Slams. That is era thinking. Waiting for one to pass for another to succeed.

Murray winning Slams + His Peak = None era thinking. Nothing is put down to the weakness of the field.

But again the same could be said of any player. Such as why did it take Federer a few years on the circuit and several flops at slams before he cracked it. I wouldn't say that was down to any outright change of strength of the era. Like I said earlier that Murray has improved in the last year from what he was
Does that take anything away from Federer or Nadal or Djokovic slam wins when Murray wasn't at his peak? Not at all and neither should it be the case for Murray in the future. You can only beat who is in front of you.

CC that is the point BB is making.

He simply stating that any Murray success should not be down to top players faltering, that is a natural cycle of any sport.

I picked up on our favourite Murray fan who quoted not remembering Murray beating Djokovic, Federer or Nadal at their peak while in his peak.

Yes and did agree with BB. I just thought that trying to bring weak eras into it is pretty irrelevant. Murray not winning a slam for so long is due to a multitude of reasons. The fact that Roger and Rafa's form was so excellent coupled with Murray still being work in progress sums up no slam wins in my opinion.

Murray's yardstick now becomes Djokovic. If he can beat Djokovic to win slams then fair enough, we know Djokovic has been a thorn in the side of Nadal and Federer and is still in his prime so that's a fair comparator. If he doesn't have to face Djokovic in slam finals then that's not his fault.

At the end of the day, these guys can only - and have to only - beat who's put in front of them. If former greats aren't making it to finals that's not Murray's fault.

Time will now tell...lets see what happens in the next 3 slams this year.

Legendkiller, I think Nadal was 19/20 years old at the start of 2006/2007 seasons...
Very young remember.

It Must Be Love wrote:Legendkiller, I think Nadal was 19/20 years old at the start of 2006/2007 seasons...
Very young remember.

I am disputing his age at all or his achievements. Someone was questioning Murray and his performances when the top players were at their 'peak' and seems to think that because they were not defeated by Murray whilst he was in his peak diminshes his legacy in some capacity.

I am pleased to see that many here acknowledge transition as part of any sport. It seems someone else has an underlying agenda.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes and did agree with BB. I just thought that trying to bring weak eras into it is pretty irrelevant. Murray not winning a slam for so long is due to a multitude of reasons. The fact that Roger and Rafa's form was so excellent coupled with Murray still being work in progress sums up no slam wins in my opinion.

Arghhhh!

lk has got it; I'm telling you that dismissing Murrays success as down to Fedal declining IS weak era thinking, and therefore wrong.

Are you sure you're not trying to secretly defend your own weak era tendencies?

Murray's "peak" has always been just around the corner...

hawkeye wrote:Murray's "peak" has always been just around the corner...

Isn't that a shame....

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes and did agree with BB. I just thought that trying to bring weak eras into it is pretty irrelevant. Murray not winning a slam for so long is due to a multitude of reasons. The fact that Roger and Rafa's form was so excellent coupled with Murray still being work in progress sums up no slam wins in my opinion.

Arghhhh!

lk has got it; I'm telling you that dismissing Murrays success as down to Fedal declining IS weak era thinking, and therefore wrong.

Are you sure you're not trying to secretly defend your own weak era tendencies?

Yes I see what you are saying but would say that does Federer and Nadal on the wain solely explain Murray's slam win and I would say not. Murray can boast wins over Fed and Nadal when they were at their peak but his mental fragility let him down in slams. Since Lendl became his coach he is moving into his peak and it isnt his fault if others are past their best. Now this era I see as transitional but at the end of the day is slam wins are still slam wins as has always been the case regardless of strength as I am sure I have mentioned in past era debates.

CC. But Murray's sole slam win came when Federer was 31 and a half and Nadal wasn't playing. Prior to that are you saying it was just his mental fragility and not having Lendl as a coach that prevented him winning? He is a little older than Djokovic and only a few months younger than Nadal. Looking at tennis history how many players of 25+ are yet to "peak"? Murray has more probably been at his peak for 3+ years and is likely to be on the downward slope of it...

How many players won more after the age of 26 than they did prior to that? Just because Lendl did this doesn't make it something likely.

Sorry Hawkeye if you are trying to claim that Murray was at his peak three or so years ago you are sadly mistaken especially when 2010 was blighted by his wrist injury in that year. And if you are saying you haven't seen a marked improvement in various areas of Andy's game both mentally and technically since Lendl became his coach then I would say you have to be kidding.

Downward slope?

How can Murray possibly be on the downward slope? He's just reached his third consecutive slam final, beaten the top two players in slam matches in the last 7 months, won the Olympics (beating #1 & #2 seeds) and won his maiden slam within the last 9 months...

Even for you HE, to look at those achievements and think he's on the downward slope is ridiculous!!

He might not get any better than he is right now, I accept that. But right now is the best Murray has ever been. If this is the downward slope then long may it continue!

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes and did agree with BB. I just thought that trying to bring weak eras into it is pretty irrelevant. Murray not winning a slam for so long is due to a multitude of reasons. The fact that Roger and Rafa's form was so excellent coupled with Murray still being work in progress sums up no slam wins in my opinion.

Arghhhh!

lk has got it; I'm telling you that dismissing Murrays success as down to Fedal declining IS weak era thinking, and therefore wrong.

Are you sure you're not trying to secretly defend your own weak era tendencies?

Yes I see what you are saying but would say that does Federer and Nadal on the wain solely explain Murray's slam win and I would say not. Murray can boast wins over Fed and Nadal when they were at their peak but his mental fragility let him down in slams. Since Lendl became his coach he is moving into his peak and it isnt his fault if others are past their best. Now this era I see as transitional but at the end of the day is slam wins are still slam wins as has always been the case regardless of strength as I am sure I have mentioned in past era debates.

I give up.

BB the era we have now is what I would call as transitional. The Fedal era is over but how strong this era will be viewed in the future depends on a number of factors. For example if Novak goes on to win 10+ slams then he will be seen as an all-time great, if Murray goes on to win say five that would be impressive, Nadal may yet add to his slam count in the coming years and so it is not such a puny era that we would see.

Hawkeye

hawkeye wrote:CC. But Murray's sole slam win came when Federer was 31 and a half and Nadal wasn't playing. Prior to that are you saying it was just his mental fragility and not having Lendl as a coach that prevented him winning? He is a little older than Djokovic and only a few months younger than Nadal. Looking at tennis history how many players of 25+ are yet to "peak"? Murray has more probably been at his peak for 3+ years and is likely to be on the downward slope of it...

How many players won more after the age of 26 than they did prior to that? Just because Lendl did this doesn't make it something likely.

I just don't buy that Andre won most of his slams after 25 years of age. Nowadays players from the mid ranks on up are having their best years in their late twenties and some in their thirties and the trend has been for more players with fitness regimes the way they are playing their best tennis later in their careers. Rarely have we seen a young star explode on the scene and then sort of crash out early like borg or to lesser extent wilander.

CaledonianCraig wrote:But again the same could be said of any player. Such as why did it take Federer a few years on the circuit and several flops at slams before he cracked it. I wouldn't say that was down to any outright change of strength of the era. Like I said earlier that Murray has improved in the last year from what he was
Does that take anything away from Federer or Nadal or Djokovic slam wins when Murray wasn't at his peak? Not at all and neither should it be the case for Murray in the future. You can only beat who is in front of you.

Exactly, for some body to be successful he has to beat the 7 players that challange him in a slam, it really doesn't matter who played the tournament and what condition they played the tournament on, Murray winning USO was fair and sqaure and he does have many slams in him, if he wins he is good enough to win them and if he lose he is just not good enough to win them and it ends there, its nothing to do with it was a weak era or strong era.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

Exactly, for some body to be successful he has to beat the 7 players that challange him in a slam, it really doesn't matter who played the tournament

Of course it matters.
If Murray wins AO beating Fed, Djoko, and Murray, and wins USO by beating Ferrer, Monaco and Granollers in the final 3 stages; his AO win would be more impressive than his USO win.

It Must Be Love wrote:Hawkeye

It Must Be Love. I don't know how to say this but you don't look well. Are you feeling OK. maybe you should have a glass of water or a little lie down...

Wanted to find a list of slam winners who won their first slam at age 25 or older. The chart in the link lists the age of first slam in the "open era". The only players listed here who won their first slam at age 25 or over (in the open era) and went on to win more are Rosewall at 33 (1st of 4), Laver 29 (1st of 3), Ashe 25 (1st of 3), Newcombe 26 (1st of 5) and Nastase 26 (1st of 2). Of course Rosewall, Laver and Newcombe won slams when they were younger as amateurs. So presumably only Ashe and Nastase won a slam for the first time at the age of 25 or older and went on to win more. Murray would join a very small select group if he manages to prolong his slam winning peak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Slam_men%27s_singles_champions_by_age_at_first_win

Not if Ferrer, Monaco and Granollers knocked out Fed, Djoko, and Nadal. Or if they beat the players that knocked out Fed, Djoko, and Murray.
The subjective 'impressiveness' of a slam win is about 0.5% of what matters.

It Must Be Love wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:

Exactly, for some body to be successful he has to beat the 7 players that challange him in a slam, it really doesn't matter who played the tournament

Of course it matters.
If Murray wins AO beating Fed, Djoko, and Murray, and wins USO by beating Ferrer, Monaco and Granollers in the final 3 stages; his AO win would be more impressive than his USO win.

Of course that is the case that is why we don't see many one slam wonders in this period of consistent dominance by the top guys.

If 'impressiveness rating' was important, there would be 'impressiveness ratings' for all slams of the past, not just for say, Fed's early ones, as rated by Rafa and Djoko fans

JuliusHMarx wrote:Not if Ferrer, Monaco and Granollers knocked out Fed, Djoko, and Nadal. Or if they beat the players that knocked out Fed, Djoko, and Murray.
The subjective 'impressiveness' of a slam win is about 0.5% of what matters.

It matters hugely.
If for Wimbledon; Nadal's knee plays up so he can't play, Federer dramatically calls it quits, and Djokovic is shocked in Round 2 by Seppi (nearly happened in FO 2012), then it's a much much easier proposition for Murray, than if he had to face the likes of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic all fully fit in the latter stages.
In my opinion the latter would be a totally different proposition, and a much harder one.
Of course you may share a different opinion, and that is upto you.

And btw it's upto people what percentage of what matters. You may be a mod here, but you can't form everyone elses opinion for them.

Must I really put IMHO after every post? Are you unable to work that bit out for yourself?

When you say "It matters hugely" I assume that is your opinion. I don't require you to put IMHO, or resort to silly and juvenile personal attacks like your last sentence.

Unless you really do think it matters hugely in general to a majority of tennis fans, in which case where is your evidence that it matters hugely?

JuliusHMarx wrote:= I don't require you to put IMHO, or resort to silly and juvenile personal attacks like your last sentence.

I said you may be a mod, but you can't form opinions for others. I stick by that, and it's not an attack on you personally at all. You posted the percentage 0.5% as if it was a stat.

Anyway, talking about rule 5....

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:= I don't require you to put IMHO, or resort to silly and juvenile personal attacks like your last sentence.

I said you may be a mod, but you can't form opinions for others. I stick by that, and it's not an attack on you personally at all. You posted the percentage 0.5% as if it was a stat.

Anyway, talking about rule 5....

If you really think that I attempting to use mod status as a way to form opinions for others, then you are a very poor judge of character and a very poor interpreter of my posts.
0.5% is no more a stat than "It matter hugely" is a fact. I can find no evidence that the 'impressiveness' of a slam win is considered by most people as even remotely as important as actually winning. Maybe it is to you, but then I would say that you are in a significant minority in that respect.

Maybe I'm in the majority in this respect.
I'm not sure you fully understand my point on the matter.
Anyway let's leave it at that

JuliusHMarx wrote:Not if Ferrer, Monaco and Granollers knocked out Fed, Djoko, and Nadal. Or if they beat the players that knocked out Fed, Djoko, and Murray.
The subjective 'impressiveness' of a slam win is about 0.5% of what matters.

Yes I can certainly agree with that. After all the top players in the world are there (injuries permitting) and you take the tournament as it comes. There is no less value on Federer's last Wimbledon win is there and he never beat Nadal on his way to the title.

Really?
If Ferrer, Monaco and Granollers knocked out Fed, Nadal, Djoko; then I can assure you Murray would be a happy man. It would be easier for him to win that particular tournament.
I don't know about value, but it would be easier to win it. Look at FO 2009, Sod beat Rafa; but even the most hardcore Federer fan will admit a fully fit Rafa on clay would have been harder for Fed than Sod in the final.

It Must Be Love wrote:Really?
If Ferrer, Monaco and Granollers knocked out Fed, Nadal, Djoko; then I can assure you Murray would be a happy man. It would be easier for him to win that particular tournament.
I don't know about value, but it would be easier to win it. Look at FO 2009, Sod beat Rafa; but even the most hardcore Federer fan will admit a fully fit Rafa on clay would have been harder for Fed than Sod in the final.

So would a fully fit Borg. In fact, if Fed had beaten a fully fit Kuerten, Borg, Muster, Nadal, Brugeura, Lendl and Agassi then it would be been very impressive. But not actually worth more. It's only fans/denigrators that try to attach a value of more than/less than 1 to any given slam. I wonder why they do that?

And why would Murray be happier knowing that his slam was worth less? "Great news Ivan, if I win this slam no-one will rate it!"

The equation for Slam success will always be the same. Beat 7 people. If that changes, then maybe the value could change on that basis.

The current rating is qualitative and subjected to opinion rather than tangible fact.

legendkillarV2 wrote:The equation for Slam success will always be the same. Beat 7 people. If that changes, then maybe the value could change on that basis.

The current rating is qualitative and subjected to opinion rather than tangible fact.

It's odd that fans of a particular player tend to rate their own player's slams more highly than those of their own player's rivals - purely in the name of objectivity and historical accuracy of course!

It is not a slam winners concern or problem if his closest rivals aren't capable of winning through to the finals. Final spots and slam wins are earned through winning their matches. Is it their fault if Rosol defeats Nadal or Berdych beats Federer? No.

Are we seeing the death of the stupid era subject?

On a rational basis, yes. But I have confidence fans will keep going the mutually exclusive opinions that it takes nothing away from their favourite provided he beats any 7 players, but others should be judged on the basis of unprovable era criteria.

I think that's probably the only thing that can be said with complete confidence.

We could well be BB.

I have been amazed at how the criteria of greatness and achievement has been widely manipulated to extrordinary lengths in a glorifcation bid to promote others.

Bb it is a fact that to win a slam you have to win seven matches on the bounce and regardless of the strength of the era it goes done in the record books as one slam win. Federer has won the most and for that is regarded as GOAT. However, it does not change the fact we have differing strengths in different eras. Unless you say Fed was no better a world No.1 than say Agassi in which case you open up a debate of how can Fed be GOAT?

How are we judging the strengths?

By titles won by the whole field?

Or can we argue that Federer was that good with the titles he won?

We need a thread for era discussions (all eras)

legendkillarV2 wrote:How are we judging the strengths?

By titles won by the whole field?

Or can we argue that Federer was that good with the titles he won?

There are many ways strengths can be judged and people will also have differing views or preferences on that. Some will go be overall strength in depth, some will go for the strength of the top players, some will even go for an era deemed very competitive at slam level even though there were no all-time greats plying their trade. It is all about opinions.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:How are we judging the strengths?

By titles won by the whole field?

Or can we argue that Federer was that good with the titles he won?

There are many ways strengths can be judged and people will also have differing views or preferences on that. Some will go be overall strength in depth, some will go for the strength of the top players, some will even go for an era deemed very competitive at slam level even though there were no all-time greats plying their trade. It is all about opinions.

So on that basis we are not judging era's by actual factual numbers?

There are no rules. People will see eras how they personally want to.

Not about rules Craig. I find it amusing that at a time when variation on surfaces and equipment hadn't evolved to what it is now was still a factor in the game that we can label that era weak and yet when conds play the same across all surfaces and equipment advances making it easier not to play a bad shot can be labelled strong. Not an endorsment of quality Craig if I am honest. That's why when some posters decide that these shouldn't be factors that all successful players were a bit special, then that is a refreshing outcome. I am sure if they wanted to the posters who have avoided such a debate and maintained a status quo could easily tear this current crop of players to shreds much to the annoyance of many others.

I think it should be left at that and leave the cherry picking for another subject

Yes I agree but that doesn't change that people will always have opinions. Regardless of changed courts or equipment. Fact remains that Borg/Connors/McEnroe all played with wooden rackets and varying court speeds and I loved that era. I wasn't so enamoured by the era dominated by servers in the early 1990's but do recognise there were still all-time great players around then.

Craig I acknowledge people have opinions.

I am in the BB camp. Talk of era's is waste of good time.