How has this happened?

In 2009, 22 year old Andy Murray beat 28 year old Roger Federer in Indian Wells to open up a 6-2 head to head lead.
In 2014 33 year old Federer beat 27 year old Murray to square the head to head up at 11 each.

How does that happen? Since when does it work that way round? Isn't the older guy supposed to beat the novice up, but then be overhauled as he declines and the younger guy improves? The Slam records of the two clearly shows that Federers powers have waned in that time, and Murray has strengthened, making numerous finals and winning two. The same goes for their ranking. In 2009 Federer recaptured the #1 ranking, but is only recently recovering from dropping to #7. Murray admittedly is down right now, but that's mainly due to missed events last year.

So what's happened in the game of these two to turn the match up the other way round?

Edit: corrected date of Fed getting back to #1

Federer was more focused on the majors then- not always as Murray is a touch matchup, but many times- the fed losses were more about where his focus was. Certainly when it came down to major time- fed would turn the matchup on it's head and take Murray out. Then fed aged a bit and Murray hit both his prime and a patch of his best tennis and got fed in some bigger matches. Now though- fed is much more intent in righting wrongs in some of those non majors like the h2h with Murray. He's scrapping for win in non major matches much Moreso in the past IMO.

You meant recaptured No.1 in 2009 right? Coz he was No.1 until mid of 2008 n lost it to Nadal n recaptured it on 2009.

To start with Murray won 4 matches against Fed on 2008, n Fed in 2008 was losing to many Jack n Jill players let alone Murray, Simon Giles is an excellent example, secondly even in that period the matches were very very tight but nothing worked for Fed in that year barring the USO.

Murray`s best finally yielded him a win over Fed in GS , but thankfully has Federer waned but took a point to punish any defensive player barring player named Nadal.

Djokovic has been the only guy who kept the momentum going against Fed and their matches win or lose has been very competitive.

Murray is a good player and I like him n prefer him over Djokovic but the fact is Nole is a different league over Murray.

Perhaps, though I saw some merit in Lydians theory that the old 'tricky' Murray gave Roger more problems than the super-fit, less varied version.

The only match I'd say Roger really gave up was the 2006 Cincinatti match, where he obviously looked to have decided to keep something back for the USO. Yes, Roger was useless in 2008 but Murray also was just coming back in this years AO.

bogbrush wrote:Perhaps, though I saw some merit in Lydians theory that the old 'tricky' Murray gave Roger more problems than the super-fit, less varied version

Actually Lydian's theory here sounds right, and I back the argument too, Old Tricky Murray did give Roger more problems than this hybrid version, but if h2h is brought into discussion the clear fact is 2008 the difference maker, Federer had a washed out year physically [Mono] as well as mentally losing the hope of winning against Rafa and the consequences he started to lose focus on mid match, not sure how many of you would remember Simon Giles versus Federer in Toronto   , one of Roger's best of worst exhibition and that actually held the way for a small career for Simon Giles.

This  Simon Giles player you speak of  ...... is he by any chance the same guy who once beat Federer Roger in Toronto ....??.  

Federer had a bad year in 2008. Murray got ahead of him in the H2H. He had just maintained that lead since although it has narrowed a couple of times since then. Murray is now having the sort of year Federer had in 2008. The question is can he recover his game the way that Federer did.

lags72 wrote:This  Simon Giles player you speak of  ...... is he by any chance the same guy who once beat Federer Roger in Toronto ....??. :chin: ;)

Yea, to my frustration I sold my tickets for less than half price I booked for QF n SF, thankfully someone care to purchase it for half price.

The same Federer would turnup in USO n throw a master performance.

Federere was winning the match in the mid sleep as (Simon at that time was not even half the player we know him of today) if that wasn`t enough he completely went on a freeze n Simon hardly could believe his luck took it.

Simon returned the favors n punished Federer again in WTF and made a career launch out of it.

In 2008 Federer`s dismal performance helped several guys launch the career including Andy, but to Andy`s unluck Federer turned up for USO finals, just Imagine Andy as a Grand slam Champ in 2008  :laughing: 

Well, for one, Murray caught him at the right time during 2008-09, I think Federer had something of a mid-career crisis. Crying, back problems, babies, marriage, bagels, mono.

And now, Murray is going through something of a mid-career crisis.

Also, when Federer was a front runner in Slam stakes, he bossed the slam head to head, now that he puts more stock into winning smaller titles, he is evening up the three set series (still some way behind, if I'm not mistaken).

bogbrush wrote:Murray admittedly is down right now, but that's mainly due to missed events last year.

Murray is also at number 9 in the race having played a full season. His current ranking is a genuine one - he isn't a top 8 player anymore. It is the equivalent currently of facing Fed in the latter half of 2013. Had Murray retained full fitness I suspect we would be seeing the h2h now move the other way as would be expected. I do think its also fair to say though that Fed has preserved his level incredibly. Whilst he is more susceptible to upsets, if you compare his general results they do stand up well to those a few years back. Even against Djokovic, clearly a far greater player now than 2007, he is 2-2 this year.

Ignoring the current couple of matches, the better question is how Fed turned it around from 2-6 up to 2009 to 7-5 from 2010-2013. My view is that he altered his game to compete with the likes of Djoko/Murray. In 2009, he was generally content to rally with them and seemed to often get engaged in backhand to backhand rallies. Subsequently, he has mixed it up a lot more and has been able to avoid the losing patterns. Its only been when Murray's serve and backhand have fired that he has been able to beat Roger.

He's too comfortable with what he has won in his career unless he alters his brain he will just be scraping around 8-16 in the rank. That grunting also has to go jesus christ   

Josiah Maiestas wrote:He's too comfortable with what he has won in his career unless he alters his brain he will just be scraping around 8-16 in the rank. That grunting also has to go jesus christ   

Maybe he is too comfortable. He's certainly not the same player as 2012 - 2013 (up to Wimbledon). Everyone is having a h2h field day against Murray. He hasn't belaten a top ten player in 14 months. Which is an astonishing fact. He says that he's been looking to go back to playing with more variety, but unless variety means half pace mid court forehands every 3 or 4 shots then I can't see it. A couple of times last night he played some really aggressive points out of frustration, and looked great... Then it was back to 'meh' tennis straight after.

He's where he is on merit. Yes he had the injury, but that's a long time ago now. I don't believe it's a factor anymore. The factors are confidence, strategy and desire. Remember when Murray was the worst loser on the tour? Where's that gone? I don't thing he'll get anywhere near winning the open.

It's undoubtedly the case that Federer had a pretty miserable season in 2008. He ended the year with just one Slam title, no Masters at all, and just a couple of other minor wins. By the standards against which most players are judged, this would have been more than respectable. (you can never say winning a Slam isn't worthy of celebration - although some one-Slam wonders can push it and dine out for their whole life on their two weeks in the sun ..... Pat Cash being the prime example IMO ..... )

However .....the benchmarks have always been different for Federer of course. Prior to 2008 he had routinely been claiming at least two, sometimes three, Slams  every year along with countless Masters, and the subsequent, very marked drop off caused many pundits to start penning his career obituary going into 2009.

Since turning 30, Federer has met Murray eight times and is ahead 5-3. As per bogbrush's article, this just ain't the way things are supposed to be, given the sizeable age gap. The problem for Murray is that these are the very years which will determine just how much will be added to the chapter covering his (already impressive) achievements in the history of the sport. Players who win say, four or five Slams are ultimately viewed very differently from those who win two. Whereas for Federer, any success that might come along between now & retirement is a mere bonus, and will have only limited impact on the very secure legacy.

I do believe - and certainly hope - that Andy will regain something approaching his best form within the next 12 months ; and if he can get some true consistency into his game in the early rounds of the USO the confidence will flow and things could happen as early as then ; or it could be that he regroups and comes back strongly in 2015. Either way, I see him as just too good a player to slip any further down the rankings other than for a brief spell.

I think the threads tone so far is too critical of Murray; I think he was (and still is) a headache for Federer, it's just that he seemed more of one a few years ago.

It wasn't just 2008, even their very first meeting back in 2005 was a creditable showing for Murray given he was a kid and a Federer was in TMF territory.

Bogbrush - hard not to be critical when someone of Murray's ability hasn't beaten a top ten player in 14 months. Injury or no injury.

Federer attacks the net way more against Andy these days, which works great. Murray used to win all the long points, and there used to be plenty. Federer attacking the net whenever he can it's what's changed the dynamics most in my view.

Danny, I agree and think this is closer to the answer (not all about Fed).

I think both guys have changed and in this particular match up, it's doubly good for Federer. Andy's not as keen with Federers change, and Federer prefers this version of Murray.

I can only think he's brought Mauresmo in to help him develop a more creative game. It'll hurt for a bit but I think it's the right move. One thing Lendl would never have brought was flair and variety!

Roger said it himself in the presser...he's using more VARIETY via pace, spin and to/fro the net to beat Murray these days when that was exactly what Andy used to do to him! He made Andy look wooden last night to be honest, a joy to watch actually, long may Fed grace our screens! When Fed has those HC purple patches where he takes the ball ridiculously early he's nigh on unplayable...still at 33.

On a different but related note, 3/4 of the semi guys are over 32! Wow...

Every coaching change should not mean a complete style change. I prefer Lendl as a coach, Murray is now in No Man's land (pun intended) . It is a tough place for his fans to be. I had much rather see the tactical nous of 2008, which took Nadal out, than a WWE Hulk he is now.

The mental acuity has transitioned into street brawn, which is tragic.

Wow indeed ! I would imagine that particular age stat for the semis of a Masters has got to be unprecedented in recent history .... (??)

Couldn't actually see the Murray match but will be watching both semis later today. The Federer 'Hotshot' from last night (as featured on ATP website) was pretty special, so if that was an example of the sort of stuff he was producing, then I'm not surprised you were so impressed lydian  

Yep, his 1st set play was fantastic, Murray was lucky not to be bagel led as Fed had breakpoints in each Murray service game. Some cracking low volleys last night too, Edberg would have been proud!

Choosing the 6-2 point is rather arbitrary though - plus 5 of Murray's 6 wins were 3 sets so the H2H at that point did flatter Murray, though clearly he doesn't suffer the match-up problems of, for example, Roddick or Ferrer. But it seems normal for the H2H between 2 players with no clear match-up advantage to move forward in jumps rather than a linear fashion.

Suspect we are never going to see this rivalry on clay, which is good for Murray (to avoid I mean). It certainly helped Federer to avoid Murray during the worst of his 2013 season, and hasn't helped Murray to play twice this year when he at a low point.

On the variety thing, last few Murray matches I've seen, he very hesitant and not committed to any particular strategy - maybe if he persists, it will all come together but I fear not. Plus just being able to get a decent percentage of first serves in is key, and I'm sure this is a confidence thing which just goes in the big matches - not sure how variety helps that, though I suppose if the rest of his game is working, he won't feel under as much pressure on serve.

lol. Judging how well Federer plays based on how he plays Murray. In 2008 Federer played what is generally considered the best match ever, played Nadal close on clay in Hamburg and Monte Carlo, won the US Open, was a finalist in RG and Wimbledon and was number 1 for a large part of the year. Anyone with any memory would say that his standard of play in 2008 was excellent. In 2014 even at his advanced age Federer is still great but beating Murray is no yardstick.

The yardstick for Federer is how he plays against his biggest rival   It would be a nice test if he finally gets to play him this year in New York.

lydian wrote:Yep, his 1st set play was fantastic, Murray was lucky not to be bagel led as Fed had breakpoints in each Murray service game. Some cracking low volleys last night too, Edberg would have been proud!

For every good volley there was a guff one too. He'll need to sharpen up on them to make this gameplan work.

hawkeye - I think you're misinterpreting people's comments/views here ; whether wilfully or not, I can't be sure ......

I doubt that anyone is suggesting that Federer's current state of play - ie across the season overall, and at the advanced age of 33 - should be judged by how well he happens to be doing against Murray. The OP's article was more about Murray's reduced ability to cope as well with what Federer throws at him, compared to previous years when Federer was in his prime but Murray was ironically scoring more wins against the legendary Swiss one.

hawkeye wrote:lol. Judging how well Federer plays based on how he plays Murray. In 2008 Federer played what is generally considered the best match ever, played Nadal close on clay in Hamburg and Monte Carlo, won the US Open, was a finalist in RG and Wimbledon and was number 1 for a large part of the year. Anyone with any memory would say that his standard of play in 2008 was excellent. In 2014 even at his advanced age Federer is still great but beating Murray is no yardstick.

The yardstick for Federer is how he plays against his biggest rival   It would be a nice test if he finally gets to play him this year in New York.

Yeah, the year he lost to Andy Roddick, James Blake (at the Olympics), Mardy Fish, etc. the year he got mono and later on a back flare up. No, it was garbage as those of us watching closely all know.

Please don't invade a Murray discussion just to spam for Rafa.

YvonneT wrote:Choosing the 6-2 point is rather arbitrary though - plus 5 of Murray's 6 wins were 3 sets so the H2H at that point did flatter Murray, though clearly he doesn't suffer the match-up problems of, for example, Roddick or Ferrer. But it seems normal for the H2H between 2 players with no clear match-up advantage to move forward in jumps rather than a linear fashion.

Suspect we are never going to see this rivalry on clay, which is good for Murray (to avoid I mean). It certainly helped Federer to avoid Murray during the worst of his 2013 season, and hasn't helped Murray to play twice this year when he at a low point.

On the variety thing, last few Murray matches I've seen, he very hesitant and not committed to any particular strategy - maybe if he persists, it will all come together but I fear not. Plus just being able to get a decent percentage of first serves in is key, and I'm sure this is a confidence thing which just goes in the big matches - not sure how variety helps that, though I suppose if the rest of his game is working, he won't feel under as much pressure on serve.

Sure, I picked a high water mark, but it's not like I made it up (unlike the person I replied to above).

Yeah, forgot they've not played on clay, which is pretty surprising when you think of it.

Murray has a funny game, probably the most amazing thing is him having an absolute monster of a first serve and a second that many on the women's tour would consider inadequate; a great attacking game but a preference (apparently) to defend; tremendous creativity yet a habit of outlasting from the back. Odd.

I feel BB HE may not have got the point with the "etc".

He also lost to Stepanek, Simon & Karlovic. Probs still won't get through.

The worst thing that ever happened to Murray.....Nadal. Think about it.

Personally, I liked the way Lendl had him playing. Mostly from the baseline and hitting with depth. I think when Murray tries to play 'with variety' he plays on the backfoot. Reactive. I also hate his mid court forehands which have crept back into his game, and I sometimes wonder if 'variety' is his way of justifying not hitting through the forehand as Lendl had him doing.

Yes Murray has a lot in his locker and can play a lot of different shots, but in my opinion the Lendl way was the only way he was going to win slams. And I like to see him winning slams.

I don't feel the hunger is the same as what it was, or the confidence of course... But I don't think it's a winning strategy either. I can understand the neutral enjoying watching a Santoro upgrade type game more, but as a fan I enjoyed the more depth, power and slam winning version! On this road, I don't see him winning another.

bogbrush wrote:Murray has a funny game, probably the most amazing thing is him having an absolute monster of a first serve and a second that many on the women's tour would consider inadequate; a great attacking game but a preference (apparently) to defend; tremendous creativity yet a habit of outlasting from the back. Odd.

I've always thought similarly - as have others here - but could never put it as well as this. He truly is a conundrum. All the tools but lacking the willingness to bring them out and show them off. That said, it's much harder to do it in 2014 than it was in 2005 due to surface speed changes. How many players play a genuinely varied game these days?

I think Lendl was fantastic for him, it would've been a true tragedy if he'd retired slamless and the coaching change was a large part of preventing that. I remember seeing the AO final in 2010 and thinking Murray was in trouble going forward - he was upset because he'd played as well as he could, but still got hammered by a player better than him on the day and he was at a loss to explain it. He needed the fitness side of things to compete, and he needed the mental toughness and belief that Lendl instilled, but he slid too far down the scale towards physicality in the process.

He's 26, time for another sea change. Right now he looks rudderless, though. Finding the balance between physicality and guile is extremely difficult to do, all the more so if you have all the tricks in the book. Djokovic has managed to incorporate a lot of new elements into his game (a better example than Federer, who's basically a freak in the way he approaches the sport) - so why not Murray? I hope we see it happen.

Edit: And Danny's post above is an entirely different view that's also valid; no wonder Murray's conflicted!

bogbrush wrote:Murray has a funny game, probably the most amazing thing is him having an absolute monster of a first serve and a second that many on the women's tour would consider inadequate; a great attacking game but a preference (apparently) to defend; tremendous creativity yet a habit of outlasting from the back. Odd.

Very good description. He has a very complicated game, and perhaps if it was easier for him to play an attacking varied game that'd be the way to go. But it always slips into a defensive style. Perhaps because it's safer.

Perhaps the Lendl way was so successful because there was no way for Murray to subconsciously manoeuvre that style into a defensive game. You can't be defensive if you're on the baseline hitting through the ball! So I agree that Murray has the tools to play a tremendous attacking game with lots if variety, but I don't think it will ever happen. It allows too much scope for his safe defensive habits to take over.

The Lendl way didn't allow for that possibility. It forced him onto the front foot. That's why he had the success, almost at the expense of his variety. I'm not sure if I've articulated this very well, but I know what I mean even if nobody else does! Ha.

But if Murray goes out and is aggressive from the baseline, how is that any different to what Berdych does every match of his life? There must always be a balance and you must suit that to who you're playing. If it's against a Nadal/Djokovic/Ferrer-type then yes, go out and be aggressive because you're never going to out-rally them. If it's someone like a Raonic/Isner then be defensive to make sure you aren't giving away breaks for free and then on their serve get the ball back and make them rally.

lydian wrote:The worst thing that ever happened to Murray.....Nadal. Think about it.

I know what you mean.

Given you mention Rafa, Andy should watch a recording of that match at Monaco in 2011 when he beat Nadal in that 2nd set so badly using variety and changes of direction, pace and everything that Rafa looked confused. Murray, if I remember correctly had a (genuine) injury in the third and fell away, but that 2nd set showed what he could do with his ability to be a really awkward opponent, you don't see Nadal look that way on clay very often!

The Special Juan wrote:But if Murray goes out and is aggressive from the baseline, how is that any different to what Berdych does every match of his life?  There must always be a balance and you must suit that to who you're playing.  If it's against a Nadal/Djokovic/Ferrer-type then yes, go out and be aggressive because you're never going to out-rally them.  If it's someone like a Raonic/Isner then be defensive to make sure you aren't giving away breaks for free and then on their serve get the ball back and make them rally.

He could never be one dimensional like Berdy. His soft hands and ability on the back foot will always win him points he shouldn't win. But still, as Lendl used to tell him before slam finals, win or lose on your terms. "Don't lose with your backside against the back fence" were his exact words.

He changed the instinct in Murray. I now feel it has changed back.

Still a little much to call three Major finals, a year end #2 garbage...

Anyway... worth a reminder that Murray chose the fitness route when he got caned by Nadal at Wimbledon... I remember a local writer saying it was like watching the chasm between their respective football teams. It's all a bit revisionist to start saying he should never have taken this route. He took this because he went three sets with a guy who demolished him and was exhausted. Similarly, all the trickery in the world helped him win the square root of zero sets in USO finals. A change needed to come. Did he go to far the other way? Maybe, but till then his career was really only slightly better than, say Tsonga's.

We don't have to be so extreme. Greater fitness was the right idea, but sacrificing the guile for attritional tennis really was t necessary.

All I'm saying is that the change was necessitated by a real need for change. This wasn't like Tiger deciding a multiple major-winning swing... or then changing a Tiger Slam winning swing. For all the talk of the success Murray had before he hit the gym, it really wasn't much more than your current also rans (Tomas, Tsonga, Gael, etc).

More over, I think it's slightly pertinent to remember how seductive the gym path can be. And I'm not just talking about the successes it brings. There's something enormously gratifying about going to the gym and seeing your bench personal best improve. About seeing yourself beginning to get to balls that you didn't a day ago. It's a narcissistic rush, one which is difficult to explain in words... but one difficult to "escape" nonetheless.

bogbrush wrote:

Given you mention Rafa, Andy should watch a recording of that match at Monaco in 2011 when he beat Nadal in that 2nd set so badly using variety and changes of direction, pace and everything that Rafa looked confused. Murray, if I remember correctly had a (genuine) injury in the third and fell away, but that 2nd set showed what he could do with his ability to be a really awkward opponent, you don't see Nadal look that way on clay very often!

lol. bogbrush you just have to try and make out Murray is problematic to Nadal because he has been to Fed. Nadal didn't even have to play that match. Murray delayed the start by about half an hour deciding if he was fit to play and should really have been defaulted. Nadal was asked afterwords why he didn't point this out and said there was a crowd waiting to watch a match and he didn't want to disappoint them (but really it shouldn't have been Nadal's call). So it's not surprising Nadal looked confused when he thought he would be getting a bye and Murray came out running like a rabbit. In 2011 Nadal was also playing poorly because it was the year he was spooked by Djokovic.

Codswallop!

You're saying Rafa is so dim he was confused two sets into a match about whether he was playing?

kingraf wrote:Still a little much to call three Major finals, a year end #2 garbage...

Its not objective thinking but subjective thinking of yours.   

When we said he had a disastrous year it was in comparison to his 5 long years before to that.

I would call Rafa losing to Fed 6-3 6-0 a disaster than say wow great tournament he made to WTF, that would be absolute rubbish, similarly Fed's performance was very bad in 2008 when compared with his known level till then, yes if you compare it with normal player standards that one hell of a year, but Fed is not a normal player he is repeatedly added to several synonyms for some reason. 

Federer is remarkable for lots of reasons but getting a win against Murray at this stage is hardly surprising. Murray is ranked 9 and is also 9 in the race (the race figure doesn't include the time he missed through injury). He is playing to this ranking and all the top players are beating him... I have just checked   

Djokovic beat him the last time he played and last lost to him in Wimbledon 2013

Nadal beat him the last two times they played and last lost to him in 2011

Wawrinka beat him the last two times and last lost in 2012

Berdych beat him the last two times and last lost in 2012

Ferrer lost their last match early in 2013 and hasn't played him since

Raonic beat him the last two times and last lost in 2012

Dimitrovbeat him the last two times and last lost in beg. of 2013

Tsonga beat him in their last match... but Murray did beat Tsonga this year!

Del Potro beat him in 2013 and his last loss was 2009

Nishikori hasn't played him since early 2013 were he lost

Gulbis beat him the last two times and last lost in 2010

I agree HE. It is really sad that one of the best players in the world seems to have been cut down by back issues. Your post just emphasises how much he has been effected.

Given how well Fed was playing in 08-09 you must think that Murray of 08-09 was some player?

Is it really such a mystery though?

I have said it before and will say it again - Andy Murray on his day is one of the best players in the world capable of beating the very best. However, he is not a natural and needs a lot to align for him to be at his peak. He needs his first serve to fire, he needs to be mentally tuned in and for him to be mentally tuned in he needs to be confident. A lot of provisios there.

If everything is not on song then his level is lower than other top players when they aren't on song.

Born Slippy wrote:

Given how well Fed was playing in 08-09 you must think that Murray of 08-09 was some player?

08, 09 was an emotional and dramatic year for both Federer and Nadal. It was a sort of changing of the guard. It's not surprising that other players managed to get surprising wins off them. A bit like Djokovic has surprising losses to the likes of Robredo after winning a slam, regaining the number one position and losing a dramatic slam final not to mention Nadal loosing to a teenage qualifier after fending Djokovic off once again. You could call it the holy grail effect   

TBH I feel a little sad for Murray fans at the moment... But Murray has of course won Wimbledon, the US Open and that special shiny Olympic gold so in the circumstances not too sad

Nonsense

Not sure who that remark was aimed at BB?

CaledonianCraig wrote:Not sure who that remark was aimed at BB?

Hawkeyes 'contributions'.

Yours was right if a touch over critical IMO. I just think Murray needs a few more options in rallies, or rather he needs to use some more of what he has. It's a bit Plan A or more Plan A right now, and if it's not working that must be disheartening.
One problem is the serve, which on 1st is too hard to get to the net to volley off, and... well let's not discuss why he can't volley off 2nd!

I think Mauresmo MUST have been brought in to do this. What else for?

More of a problem for me at the moment is his mental mindset. Against Tsonga recently he threw away a winning position in the final set and similarly against Roger the other night he threw away a 4-1 lead in the second set. That is not good. I take your point about Mauresmo and at the moment initial signs of what impact she is having on his standards of serving are not great.

Just for clarity, I'm saying the full power 1st serve is too fast for a varied game. He doesn't seem to have a quality 110-115mph serve, it's all either massive or weak.
I'm just saying mix it up, throw in some slower ones on 1st and volley - he'd reap benefits on (i) protecting the %, and (ii) keeping the returner guessing. Right now I see guys bracing themselves for the 1st serve - which can go very cold sometimes - then licking their chops.