Olympic Tennis Event 2012: Mens Final Analysis

by FedsFan Sun Aug 05, 2012 7:02 pm

First topic message reminder :

Congratulations to Murray on winning Gold at the Olympics. It is quite an achievement in terms of how long British Tennis has not had anything to celebrate since 1977. Murray was the better player this week by far and he was the better player on the day.

Most are viewing this win as being on a par with a slam. Sure this was tough as it was daily play for a week but are people now getting a little bit carried away here? I for one wanted Fed to win this just to tick the box on his CV. Would I have preferred he win the Gold and not Wimbledon? DEFINITELY NOT! I think you are remembered for the slams at the end of day.

Today Federer seemed flat. I cannot help but feel it was that marathon with JMDP that knocked the stuffing out of him just a bit. It was his fault really for not closing that semi sooner but I for one was expecting Murray to come through this one in straight sets. That Gold should be shared with JMDP as I cannot see Fed having put in such a poor performance otherwise. He was tight and nervous as this meant more to him I think than Murray.

Where does this leave Murray on the scale of 'greatness'? All over the media it seems as if he has been elevated to a level of a slam winner which I think is not accurate. If this was best of five throughout would he have won comfortably against Djoko? He did blow a 2 set to love lead at AO vs Djokovic this year. Also, what now for Federer? This is surely his last Olympic games and it seems he is not destined to win an Olympic gold in singles. I always maintained that in his prime he failed to achieve it and the chances of him doing it now were slim. I hoped I would be wrong but I guess I was not.

by The Special Juan Tue Aug 07, 2012 9:36 am

Don't know if this has been said before but I'll say it anyway.

clap

Roger, gracious in defeat as always. He must be one of the hardest people in the world to dislike.

by CaledonianCraig Tue Aug 07, 2012 9:52 am

There was a lovely moment at the end of the match when they met at the net and exchanged words. I wonder what Roger said that brought a big smile to Andy's face?

I tell a lie another lovely moment was when the 11-year-old boy rushed down to cuddle Andy. Great stuff.

by sirfredperry Tue Aug 07, 2012 9:54 am

LK2 - Like you I was fully expecting Djoko to do really well at the Olympics due to his intense patriotism and willingness to , literally, flag carry.
I certainly thought he would, at least, win the bronze. Reckon we'll see him bounce back in Canada this week.
It's been reported, by the way, that Rafa is out not only this week but next week in Cinci as well.

by The Special Juan Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:00 am

CaledonianCraig wrote:There was a lovely moment at the end of the match when they met at the net and exchanged words. I wonder what Roger said that brought a big smile to Andy's face?

I tell a lie another lovely moment was when the 11-year-old boy rushed down to cuddle Andy. Great stuff.

Did you hear what words they exchanged? I read this:

"Boy: Can I have a hug Andy?
Murray: Anything for a fan"

Don't know if it's true or not.

by CaledonianCraig Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:05 am

Yes that is according to the boy The Special Juan.

When the boy asked Andy replied: 'Anything for the fans.' Sad

by bradman99.94 Tue Aug 07, 2012 11:10 am

The Special Juan wrote:.
He must be one of the hardest people in the world to dislike.

Yeh, umm. You mean apart from the extreme arrogance and calling people 'lucky' when they save match points and beat him. It's a generalisation of course but I’ve always thought he is the master of damning his opponents with faint praise. Even the part of his interview after losing on Sunday when he said something like ‘….don’t feel so sorry for Andy; he’s had a great career….’ Was a way of reminding him that he is yet to win a slam.
I’ve also always thought that he is without a shadow of doubt in my mind the master of tennis. Given his career I honestly don’t know how anyone can argue with that. Bradman is considered the best ever batsman but was, apparently, not particularly exciting to watch. We are so very fortunate that not only is Federer the best ever but he also plays the game with such beauty

by **laverfan** Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:49 pm

bradman99.94 wrote:
The Special Juan wrote:.
He must be one of the hardest people in the world to dislike.

Yeh, umm. You mean apart from the extreme arrogance and calling people 'lucky' when they save match points and beat him. It's a generalisation of course but I’ve always thought he is the master of damning his opponents with faint praise. Even the part of his interview after losing on Sunday when he said something like ‘….don’t feel so sorry for Andy; he’s had a great career….’ Was a way of reminding him that he is yet to win a slam.
I’ve also always thought that he is without a shadow of doubt in my mind the master of tennis. Given his career I honestly don’t know how anyone can argue with that. Bradman is considered the best ever batsman but was, apparently, not particularly exciting to watch. We are so very fortunate that not only is Federer the best ever but he also plays the game with such beauty

I don't think he needed this, to be quite honest, 'cause he is a good player. Don't forget that. He's an amazing player already. I thought he played a very, very good Wimbledon championship. So for me what I was happy to see is that he didn't have a letdown, you know, after the Wimbledon finals. It's easy to come back, best-of-three, you know, go out third round maybe. You just feel more horrible. But he didn't do that. He came, he won gold. I think this is how champions react. That's more what I see, and not just actually him beating me and beating Novak back to back. We knew he could do that. He was a threat in a big way anyways at the US Open. Let's not forget how great Novak and Rafa are, as well. So I'm sure it's going to be an interesting US Open.

http://2012.itftennis.com/media/126057/126057.pdf

Sound-byte journalism is not what these players deserve, unlike today's politicians. Wink

by The Special Juan Tue Aug 07, 2012 1:12 pm

bradman99.94 wrote:
The Special Juan wrote:.
He must be one of the hardest people in the world to dislike.

Yeh, umm. You mean apart from the extreme arrogance and calling people 'lucky' when they save match points and beat him. It's a generalisation of course but I’ve always thought he is the master of damning his opponents with faint praise. Even the part of his interview after losing on Sunday when he said something like ‘….don’t feel so sorry for Andy; he’s had a great career….’ Was a way of reminding him that he is yet to win a slam.
I’ve also always thought that he is without a shadow of doubt in my mind the master of tennis. Given his career I honestly don’t know how anyone can argue with that. Bradman is considered the best ever batsman but was, apparently, not particularly exciting to watch. We are so very fortunate that not only is Federer the best ever but he also plays the game with such beauty

He's not British so I think a lot of things he says aren't quite as ironic as they appear.

by bradman99.94 Tue Aug 07, 2012 1:48 pm

Thanks for the link to the interview, a very interesting read. Perhaps he had had time to reflect. I agree that soundbites can give a different complexion on a quote but I would not be very happy if a defeated opponent praised my game just before or after calling me ‘lucky’ regardless of how profound and articulate the praise. SJ - He appeared to have a very good grasp of English on Sunday

Going off-topic, I agree with him that the Olympics should not be a part of the usual ranking points system. It is so very special that it should be treated as such and be an honour to compete completely outside the normal tournament structure

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue Aug 07, 2012 2:06 pm

bradman99.94 wrote:Thanks for the link to the interview, a very interesting read. Perhaps he had had time to reflect. I agree that soundbites can give a different complexion on a quote but I would not be very happy if a defeated opponent praised my game just before or after calling me ‘lucky’ regardless of how profound and articulate the praise. SJ - He appeared to have a very good grasp of English on Sunday

Going off-topic, I agree with him that the Olympics should not be a part of the usual ranking points system. It is so very special that it should be treated as such and be an honour to compete completely outside the normal tournament structure

I think just about every player has said at some point that their winning opponent was lucky or that their losing opponent was unlucky - it's par for the course.

I may be wrong but when tennis was first re-instated into the Olympics, there were no ranking points - so a lot of players didn't bother entering. Not sure about that though - anyone else know?

by **laverfan** Tue Aug 07, 2012 2:08 pm

Again, I would suggest reading the whole interview in context.

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=74079

One thing that is obvious, is that the primary focus of this post-match interview is to discuss 'the shot'. You do recall the tweener at mp, right?

We can debate about the 'luck' factor till the cows come home. Wink

by bradman99.94 Tue Aug 07, 2012 2:22 pm

I suppose I’m using the ‘lucky’ quote to encapsulate the typical Federer response to losing. You can say, with a great deal of justification, that this is being very unfair to take one line spoken just after a painful defeat and use it as a typical response……but I just wanted to balance the ‘my head’s stuck up his backside’ opinion that appears to be far too prevalent on here for my liking. I don’t believe for one moment that he’s a bad person; but, he ain’t no deity either.

On the ranking points issue (please don’t tell me off too much for going too far off topic), how was it rated compared to other tournaments? Did it warrant the same as a Masters’s title?

by The Special Juan Tue Aug 07, 2012 2:24 pm

750 points for a win compared to the 1000 for a Masters.

by sirfredperry Tue Aug 07, 2012 2:28 pm

I think it is right to say that there were no ATP points for competing when tennis first came back on to the Olympic schedule. IMHO opinion, there's nothing wrong in having points for the Olympics.
It's not as if it's been put, points-wise, on a par with a GS, and the winner does not even get as many points as a Masters 1,000pt event.
One thing about the Olympics that helped Murray was the fact that it was so different. He said he would never have contemplated playing doubles during a GS but then he stressed this was the Olympics, it was different, he felt part of a team, he wanted to give it his all.
Most of all, Andy M was not centre stage. His wins, at least until the final, were not making the headlines. He could get on with it.

by kemet Tue Aug 07, 2012 4:06 pm

emancipator wrote:
kemet wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
kemet wrote:Having said all this, I think that Murray would still have beaten a peak Federer yesterday.

Interesting - you think Murray played better on grass yesterday than Federer has ever played? Controversial

Perhaps it is a stretch to make such a claim, but let me put it this way. Roger would have had to play flawless tennis to deny Andy yesterday and he would have had to be in 2006 Wimbledon form, where he beat Rafa Nadal 6-0 in the first set of that final. I just do not underestimate how much Andy's game has improved over the last few years and Lendl has been a godsend for him as far as 'm concerned. Ivan does not suffer fools gladly and I think this has brought a bit of stability to Andy in terms of his training patterns. His serve has improved by leaps and bounds and he is even playing the second serve points very well now.

The Wimbledon final offered a glimpse of how formidable Roger was at his peak and it still very close. Andy still played very well in that final despite capitulating in four sets. 2006 Roger versus Murray yesterday would have probably gone four or five sets, but I still think that Andy would have prevailed, because he is beginning to believe and is not as prone to the histrionics and emotional outbursts as he has been previously.

Start Rant.

This has to be the most ridiculous piece of nonsense I've ever read. Talk about hyperbole and bandwagonning, and surprisingly, from a normally level-headed poster. It's pretty embarrassing.

Murray played well yesterday. That's it.

You make it sound like he put in the greatest performance ever seen on a grass court. 51% 1st serves, a small number of winners and he beat a 31 yr old opponent who, for whatever reason, was clearly playing below his best, far below it. Does that constitute some all time great performance? It's not like Murray blew him off the court. Fed made error after error. The result was a combination of good play from Murray and poor play from Roger. It's not like Murray put in a performance of incredible virtuosity with magical shotmaking. In fact I think their winners count were pretty much equal. Besides, have you stopped to consider that the same player lost to Federer just four weeks ago. Has Murray suddenly become a much better player in the space of four weeks. Of course not, so obviously there were other elements at play here.

Compare this with peak Federer, the guy who is THE most successful player on grass ever; arguably the greatest grass court player ever. You really think the Murray of yesterday would likely prevail over peak Federer, you know the guy who would regularly romp through the draw losing one or two sets the whole tournament? So Federer has never put in a performance as 'brilliant', 'majestic', with unmatched 'shotmaking' (the inverted commas are my own) as Murray yesterday? You'd give the edge to Murray in a peak vs peak match against Federer on W centre court, where Federer has regularly dismantled quality opponents and actually put in better performances than Murray's performance yesterday, for streches lasting a whole tournament - not two hours.

Man, this is the patent nonsense I was arguing against yesterday, when someone quipped that Federer fans were showing sour grapes because they were insisting that Federer didn't really care about this tournament - despite NO Fed fan actually making this statement - yet today it seems to have reached a new level.

I guess we should just declare this 'peak' Murray, that lasted for all of two hours, as the greatest player ever seen on a grass court. Let's now stick him above Borg, Federer, Mac, and Sampras.

Rant over

emancipator

I am on a break from work and I happen in on this. Your rather vitriolic and uncalled for attack does you no favours Emancipator. You noticed I said that Roger had to have played at his very best to beat Andy yesterday. He didn't for the same reasons you just specified in your post. You accuse me of not being level-headed, but your post does not sound all that sober or measured. Laverfan's was. Yours unfrotunately sounded like the bleating of a jilted lover. Get over yourself please.

There is nothing more for me to comment on really. I am beginning to understand the animus that some people hold for Federer fans

by Guest Tue Aug 07, 2012 4:28 pm

kemet wrote:
emancipator wrote:
kemet wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
kemet wrote:Having said all this, I think that Murray would still have beaten a peak Federer yesterday.

Interesting - you think Murray played better on grass yesterday than Federer has ever played? Controversial

Perhaps it is a stretch to make such a claim, but let me put it this way. Roger would have had to play flawless tennis to deny Andy yesterday and he would have had to be in 2006 Wimbledon form, where he beat Rafa Nadal 6-0 in the first set of that final. I just do not underestimate how much Andy's game has improved over the last few years and Lendl has been a godsend for him as far as 'm concerned. Ivan does not suffer fools gladly and I think this has brought a bit of stability to Andy in terms of his training patterns. His serve has improved by leaps and bounds and he is even playing the second serve points very well now.

The Wimbledon final offered a glimpse of how formidable Roger was at his peak and it still very close. Andy still played very well in that final despite capitulating in four sets. 2006 Roger versus Murray yesterday would have probably gone four or five sets, but I still think that Andy would have prevailed, because he is beginning to believe and is not as prone to the histrionics and emotional outbursts as he has been previously.

Start Rant.

This has to be the most ridiculous piece of nonsense I've ever read. Talk about hyperbole and bandwagonning, and surprisingly, from a normally level-headed poster. It's pretty embarrassing.

Murray played well yesterday. That's it.

You make it sound like he put in the greatest performance ever seen on a grass court. 51% 1st serves, a small number of winners and he beat a 31 yr old opponent who, for whatever reason, was clearly playing below his best, far below it. Does that constitute some all time great performance? It's not like Murray blew him off the court. Fed made error after error. The result was a combination of good play from Murray and poor play from Roger. It's not like Murray put in a performance of incredible virtuosity with magical shotmaking. In fact I think their winners count were pretty much equal. Besides, have you stopped to consider that the same player lost to Federer just four weeks ago. Has Murray suddenly become a much better player in the space of four weeks. Of course not, so obviously there were other elements at play here.

Compare this with peak Federer, the guy who is THE most successful player on grass ever; arguably the greatest grass court player ever. You really think the Murray of yesterday would likely prevail over peak Federer, you know the guy who would regularly romp through the draw losing one or two sets the whole tournament? So Federer has never put in a performance as 'brilliant', 'majestic', with unmatched 'shotmaking' (the inverted commas are my own) as Murray yesterday? You'd give the edge to Murray in a peak vs peak match against Federer on W centre court, where Federer has regularly dismantled quality opponents and actually put in better performances than Murray's performance yesterday, for streches lasting a whole tournament - not two hours.

Man, this is the patent nonsense I was arguing against yesterday, when someone quipped that Federer fans were showing sour grapes because they were insisting that Federer didn't really care about this tournament - despite NO Fed fan actually making this statement - yet today it seems to have reached a new level.

I guess we should just declare this 'peak' Murray, that lasted for all of two hours, as the greatest player ever seen on a grass court. Let's now stick him above Borg, Federer, Mac, and Sampras.

Rant over

emancipator

I am on a break from work and I happen in on this. Your rather vitriolic and uncalled for attack does you no favours Emancipator. You noticed I said that Roger had to have played at his very best to beat Andy yesterday. He didn't for the same reasons you just specified in your post. You accuse me of not being level-headed, but your post does not sound all that sober or measured. Laverfan's was. Yours unfrotunately sounded like the bleating of a jilted lover. Get over yourself please.

There is nothing more for me to comment on really. I am beginning to understand the animus that some people hold for Federer fans

Kemet, I haven't attacked you. I was scathing of the post and it's content. I probably did go a bit overboard for which I apologise. However, I stand by the essence of my post which is that such hyperbole is patent nonsense. And it is quite annoying to read this kind of stuff. I expect it from the regular media but not from keen followers of the sport. Furthermore, I made a similar defense of Rafa and Novak yesterday, when people started suggesting that Murray is more talented than they are, again catapulting him to ridiculous heights based on a couple of performances. It's interesting that you should have nothing further to say. No counter crititque of the points that I put across? Perhaps you too realise that you got carried away by the moment, which is fair enough.

In any case I have no intention of flaming a war. I tend to speak my mind - sometimes a bit too directly. Alas, it is part of the burden of being the emancipator.

ghost

emancipator

by kemet Tue Aug 07, 2012 4:29 pm

laverfan wrote:
kemet wrote:Perhaps it is a stretch to make such a claim, but let me put it this way. Roger would have had to play flawless tennis to deny Andy yesterday and he would have had to be in 2006 Wimbledon form, where he beat Rafa Nadal 6-0 in the first set of that final.

This is a self-contradictory statement, is it not?

kemet wrote:I just do not underestimate how much Andy's game has improved over the last few years and Lendl has been a godsend for him as far as 'm concerned. Ivan does not suffer fools gladly and I think this has brought a bit of stability to Andy in terms of his training patterns. His serve has improved by leaps and bounds and he is even playing the second serve points very well now.

Lendl has done a marvellous job so far with Murray.

kemet wrote:The Wimbledon final offered a glimpse of how formidable Roger was at his peak and it still very close. Andy still played very well in that final despite capitulating in four sets. 2006 Roger versus Murray yesterday would have probably gone four or five sets, but I still think that Andy would have prevailed, because he is beginning to believe and is not as prone to the histrionics and emotional outbursts as he has been previously.

There was a world of difference between Federer of the W final and Federer of Olympic final.

Regarding the highlighted part, as an opinion, it is perfectly fine, but general consensus may not be as forthcoming.

Murray is progressing, which is wonderful. USO 2012 is not very far. Let us see what happens. Cautious optimism rather than irrational exuberance is what I would gently recommend.
emancipator wrote:This has to be the most ridiculous piece of nonsense I've ever read. Talk about hyperbole and bandwagonning, and surprisingly, from a normally level-headed poster. It's pretty embarrassing.

All GOAT/GOTEs eventually lose, I have 50+ years of evidence to support it, starting with Pancho and currently at Federer, in a long line of mighty Kings of Tennis. An opinion does not change Federer's legacy an iota.

I am well aware that there is a world of difference between the Federer of the Olympic final and the Federer that won Wimbledon a few weeks ago. As for the "irrational exuberance" that you tar me with, I said I "think" that Murray would have prevailed over a peak Federer. An irrational statement would have been "I definitely believe that Murray would have prevailed over a peak Federer on Sunday." Roger in the 2003-2007 period played sublime tennis at Wimbledon and Murray would have had to beat him in four tough sets or five sets to win. What part of that is "irrational" as you put it? So I take semantic issue with you there. The reason that I made my statement.

You also seem to agree with emancipator that my post was "embarrassing." Oh well, I am not here to win friends and influence people. I have a right to my opinion just as everyone else on here.

by kemet Tue Aug 07, 2012 4:56 pm

emancipator wrote:
kemet wrote:
emancipator wrote:
kemet wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
kemet wrote:Having said all this, I think that Murray would still have beaten a peak Federer yesterday.

Interesting - you think Murray played better on grass yesterday than Federer has ever played? Controversial

Perhaps it is a stretch to make such a claim, but let me put it this way. Roger would have had to play flawless tennis to deny Andy yesterday and he would have had to be in 2006 Wimbledon form, where he beat Rafa Nadal 6-0 in the first set of that final. I just do not underestimate how much Andy's game has improved over the last few years and Lendl has been a godsend for him as far as 'm concerned. Ivan does not suffer fools gladly and I think this has brought a bit of stability to Andy in terms of his training patterns. His serve has improved by leaps and bounds and he is even playing the second serve points very well now.

The Wimbledon final offered a glimpse of how formidable Roger was at his peak and it still very close. Andy still played very well in that final despite capitulating in four sets. 2006 Roger versus Murray yesterday would have probably gone four or five sets, but I still think that Andy would have prevailed, because he is beginning to believe and is not as prone to the histrionics and emotional outbursts as he has been previously.

Start Rant.

This has to be the most ridiculous piece of nonsense I've ever read. Talk about hyperbole and bandwagonning, and surprisingly, from a normally level-headed poster. It's pretty embarrassing.

Murray played well yesterday. That's it.

You make it sound like he put in the greatest performance ever seen on a grass court. 51% 1st serves, a small number of winners and he beat a 31 yr old opponent who, for whatever reason, was clearly playing below his best, far below it. Does that constitute some all time great performance? It's not like Murray blew him off the court. Fed made error after error. The result was a combination of good play from Murray and poor play from Roger. It's not like Murray put in a performance of incredible virtuosity with magical shotmaking. In fact I think their winners count were pretty much equal. Besides, have you stopped to consider that the same player lost to Federer just four weeks ago. Has Murray suddenly become a much better player in the space of four weeks. Of course not, so obviously there were other elements at play here.

Compare this with peak Federer, the guy who is THE most successful player on grass ever; arguably the greatest grass court player ever. You really think the Murray of yesterday would likely prevail over peak Federer, you know the guy who would regularly romp through the draw losing one or two sets the whole tournament? So Federer has never put in a performance as 'brilliant', 'majestic', with unmatched 'shotmaking' (the inverted commas are my own) as Murray yesterday? You'd give the edge to Murray in a peak vs peak match against Federer on W centre court, where Federer has regularly dismantled quality opponents and actually put in better performances than Murray's performance yesterday, for streches lasting a whole tournament - not two hours.

Man, this is the patent nonsense I was arguing against yesterday, when someone quipped that Federer fans were showing sour grapes because they were insisting that Federer didn't really care about this tournament - despite NO Fed fan actually making this statement - yet today it seems to have reached a new level.

I guess we should just declare this 'peak' Murray, that lasted for all of two hours, as the greatest player ever seen on a grass court. Let's now stick him above Borg, Federer, Mac, and Sampras.

Rant over

emancipator

I am on a break from work and I happen in on this. Your rather vitriolic and uncalled for attack does you no favours Emancipator. You noticed I said that Roger had to have played at his very best to beat Andy yesterday. He didn't for the same reasons you just specified in your post. You accuse me of not being level-headed, but your post does not sound all that sober or measured. Laverfan's was. Yours unfrotunately sounded like the bleating of a jilted lover. Get over yourself please.

There is nothing more for me to comment on really. I am beginning to understand the animus that some people hold for Federer fans

Kemet, I haven't attacked you. I was scathing of the post and it's content. I probably did go a bit overboard for which I apologise. However, I stand by the essence of my post which is that such hyperbole is patent nonsense. And it is quite annoying to read this kind of stuff. I expect it from the regular media but not from keen followers of the sport. Furthermore, I made a similar defense of Rafa and Novak yesterday, when people started suggesting that Murray is more talented than they are, again catapulting him to ridiculous heights based on a couple of performances. It's interesting that you should have nothing further to say. No counter crititque of the points that I put across? Perhaps you too realise that you got carried away by the moment, which is fair enough.

In any case I have no intention of flaming a war. I tend to speak my mind - sometimes a bit too directly. Alas, it is part of the burden of being the emancipator.

emancipator

Apology accepted. Fine, you believe that such hyperbole is patent nonsense. I do not believe that I indulged in hyperbole. As I told Laverfan in a subsequent post, "I think that Murray would have beaten a peak Federer yesterday." I never said that I "definitely believed" that he would have. In fact, it is probably hard to tell. The reason I made my original post is because of Murray's improved mentality. The Djokovic semi is great case in point. Novak actually played fairly solidly in his semi with Murray and yet Murray found a way past him. Who's to say that tha same could not have happened against a peak Federer? Why is that hyperbole? I never put my head on a stake and said that I definitely believed that Murray would have beaten a peak Federer, now did I? In fact, I straddled the fence a bit in my opinion by thinking that Murray would have prevailed over Federer in his pomp. Thinking does not imply near certainty.

by **laverfan** Tue Aug 07, 2012 6:54 pm

kemet wrote: As for the "irrational exuberance" that you tar me with, I said I "think" that Murray would have prevailed over a peak Federer. An irrational statement would have been "I definitely believe that Murray would have prevailed over a peak Federer on Sunday." Roger in the 2003-2007 period played sublime tennis at Wimbledon and Murray would have had to beat him in four tough sets or five sets to win. What part of that is "irrational" as you put it? So I take semantic issue with you there. The reason that I made my statement.

Murray's 'improved' attitude, under the tutelage of Lendl, is a very notable feature, as is his controlled aggression against Federer in the Olympic final. It is very difficult to answer 'what-if' scenarios, and comes down to individual opinions, hence the word 'irrational' attached to qualify 'exuberance'. There was no intent to 'tar' your opinion in any way. Federer's emotional state has been self-confessed in the link I provided. Wink

kemet wrote:You also seem to agree with emancipator that my post was "embarrassing." Oh well, I am not here to win friends and influence people. I have a right to my opinion just as everyone else on here.

It is not 'embarassing' but a conjecture that cannot be substantiated in any logical fashion. Murray is gradually approaching the peak that all his fans want him to achieve.

Your right to an opinion is not being questioned, but the opinion itself is being debated. Would you agree that such a discussion is what you had originally intended with your opinion?

LKv2 has this - https://www.606v2.com/t33438-us-open-new-face-of-change - and is asking a very interesting question. I would recommend taking a look at it.

by break_in_the_fifth Tue Aug 07, 2012 8:01 pm

Interesting comments Kemet. I don't grudge you the right to your opinion in the same way that it's fine to believe that Murray is more talented than Djokovic and Nadal. It's an intriguing question over whether Murray would have prevailed over peak Fed or not and one that's difficult to answer though it is still worth considering contrary to what Laverfan said. Seeing as I believe that out of the current top 4 he's the second most talented with only Fed above him. The question for me is how close to Fed he is in talent which his spell in 2008 wasn't long enough to answer. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that with his modern game and unique flair that he could prevail.

by **laverfan** Tue Aug 07, 2012 8:35 pm

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Seeing as I believe that out of the current top 4 he's the second most talented with only Fed above him. The question for me is how close to Fed he is in talent which his spell in 2008 wasn't long enough to answer. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that with his modern game and unique flair that he could prevail.

Even the notion of talent relies on abstractions and into subjective interpretations. If talent/flair translates into titles and wins, the measurement can be statistical in nature. Can the quality of the FH be measured by number of FH winners? chin

What role in such does the opponent's return game play?

The comparison is also difficult because of the seven year differential between professional careers of Murray and Federer. Being contemporaries during their careers may lead to easier comparisons, but it is never cut and dry. For example, the number of SFs that Federer has played at slams vs how many Murray has reached, is perhaps a measure of consistency, but is it a measure of the talent or just another facet?

Federer played Sampras, but can we really compare their careers. Maybe the 9-8 h2h is one aspect to be considered when measuring relative talent? But what does one do with the 18-10 h2h of Federer-Nadal?

IMVHO, it is very difficult to do a 'what-if' analysis.

PS: Some interesting stuff here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Murray_career_statistics

by break_in_the_fifth Tue Aug 07, 2012 8:50 pm

We're not talking about career achievements so I don't see how they fit in. The notion was that Murray's performance and level was good enough to beat peak Fed. I'm aware of peoples' varying perceptions on talent; you end up with things like running, winning or showing up is a talent. Anyhow the talent I'm referring to is the one observed by just watching them play.

by CaledonianCraig Tue Aug 07, 2012 8:55 pm

In my opinion Roger Federer is the GOAT purely on the grounds of his high level of consistency when it matters most. He peaks when it has mattered most but if we are talking about aspects of each players games then it becomes complicated. I think it is worth a discussion which I will endeavour to start in the next few days.

by **laverfan** Wed Aug 08, 2012 2:29 am

break_in_the_fifth wrote:The notion was that Murray's performance and level was good enough to beat peak Fed.

Would you have made the same statement right after the Wimbledon final? chin

break_in_the_fifth wrote:I'm aware of peoples' varying perceptions on talent; you end up with things like running, winning or showing up is a talent. Anyhow the talent I'm referring to is the one observed by just watching them play.

Does that not depend on the observer? I would even question the 'emotional' state of the observer who is evaluating such a concept of 'talent'? The paradox is that such an observer cannot judge talent if in an 'unemotional' state.

Laver had talent, and translated it into results, as did Pancho, as did Borg, as did McEnroe, as did Federer, as did Nadal, as Djokovic has done, as Mecir did, as Rosset did.

Incidentally, Rosset is part of the reason we have Federer in the international arena.

by **laverfan** Wed Aug 08, 2012 2:36 am

CaledonianCraig wrote:In my opinion Roger Federer is the GOAT purely on the grounds of his high level of consistency when it matters most. He peaks when it has mattered most but if we are talking about aspects of each players games then it becomes complicated.

Such qualities are also part of talent. Wink

by **laverfan** Wed Aug 08, 2012 4:08 am

A bit too lyrical for me... but the sentiments are perhaps what this thread is looking for...

http://blogs.tennis.com/racquet_reaction/2012/08/olympics-murray-d-federer.html

by socal1976 Wed Aug 08, 2012 6:39 am

bradman99.94 wrote:I suppose I’m using the ‘lucky’ quote to encapsulate the typical Federer response to losing. You can say, with a great deal of justification, that this is being very unfair to take one line spoken just after a painful defeat and use it as a typical response……but I just wanted to balance the ‘my head’s stuck up his backside’ opinion that appears to be far too prevalent on here for my liking. I don’t believe for one moment that he’s a bad person; but, he ain’t no deity either.

On the ranking points issue (please don’t tell me off too much for going too far off topic), how was it rated compared to other tournaments? Did it warrant the same as a Masters’s title?

Excellent, excellent post I have to say I have been saying a lot of the same things. Roger is not gracious in defeat and he is a bit catty or has been in the past with Novak and Murray. And although he has mellowed with both guys his attitude towards them was a bit of a bully, as recently as last year's AO we have him violating the rules and directly yelling at Djokovic after his service game, "you are bouncing the ball too much!" or his quote after Melzer beat him last year when describing why he lost "he shanked a lot of balls that went in". I mean anyone else makes quotes like that they would get jumped all over. However Roger as you say has overral been a great champion and citizen, but he is a bit of bully when he doesn't like a player and a bit catty in his commentary and attitude.

by CaledonianCraig Wed Aug 08, 2012 8:33 am

Are they catty remarks though? They may seem catty but I see them more as clever mind games. Put down others or instill or keep doubts in their mind so the flaws remain in place for the next time he plays them. After all, keep them under the thumb and it is a big part of a tennis match won before you even walk onto court. Mind games are a massive part of sport and look at the greatest sportsmen and they all indulge in them.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed Aug 08, 2012 8:39 am

bradman99.94 wrote:I suppose I’m using the ‘lucky’ quote to encapsulate the typical Federer response to losing. You can say, with a great deal of justification, that this is being very unfair to take one line spoken just after a painful defeat and use it as a typical response……but I just wanted to balance the ‘my head’s stuck up his backside’ opinion that appears to be far too prevalent on here for my liking. I don’t believe for one moment that he’s a bad person; but, he ain’t no deity either.

bradman, the other side of the coin is that if a poster says 'I think Fed is usually, but not always, humble and gracious in defeat, and is thought to be very sporting by his peers, and is a good role model', that poster can be accused (not necessarily by you bradman) of having their heads up his backside and thinking Fed is a deity, when in fact, that isn't the case.
Djoko and Rafa are also both usually gracious in defeat, but I've also heard interviews where they've said their opponent was 'lucky', and I don't think it's a big deal to me, or on the forum in general.

by hawkeye Wed Aug 08, 2012 8:51 am

Can I just say that IMO anyone who beats Federer or Nadal must be a little lucky. Their best game is better than the rest. Thats what makes it such fun to watch when they play each other.

by The Special Juan Wed Aug 08, 2012 10:13 am

I've never seen Roger be catty. Must be an age thing.

by bradman99.94 Wed Aug 08, 2012 11:22 am

The Special Juan wrote: Must be an age thing.

The Special Juan – How very dare you Smile

CaledonianCraig – I did consider the ‘mind games’ element and you are of course right that when the game is played at their level then every advantage should be sought, however, I, like I suspect many members here, play an amateur sport (table tennis in my case) and when beaten (to be fair I’ve had a fair bit of practice in this) I smile, shake hands and say well done and share a beer later on in the Slaughtered Lamb regardless of whether I’ve won or lost my 3 games that evening. I realise that I’m comparing my league games with world class sport and the comparison doesn’t hold up to even the merest scrutiny but (for me) it comes down to common decency. When the Saffers beat England Strauss said they were ‘soundly beaten’ and then went on to say that England needs to improve and learn from the defeat, Murray (purely for example) generally says much the same; good, self-effacing honesty without any reference to their opponents other than to praise their performance. I would like more of the same from Fed.

Julius – An excellent point and one that I will try to be more aware of

by banbrotam Wed Aug 08, 2012 11:36 am

The Special Juan wrote:I've never seen Roger be catty. Must be an age thing.

You missed Dubai 2008, Miami 2009 or US Open 2009, then Whistle

I'll have BB falling out with me even more Wink

, but please can people open their eyes when it comes to the rose-tinted view of the GOAT. He is more ungracious in defeat than any of the other three. I've rarely heard Nole not unconditionally praise the opponent and can only rememeber Murray doing it once, when he lost to Fish in controversial style at Queens

What I mean by "unconditional prasie" is when you praise the opponent and make minimal excuses for your loss. Roger has been known not to even mention the opponent and then tell the sympathetic press about his ailments Laugh

Incidentally, this doesn't make him a bad person or particularly bad in defeat and he's certainly more gracious than Sampras was - but let's be honest he often says just too much when he loses, which in fairness we I suppose should praise him for his honesty

by The Special Juan Wed Aug 08, 2012 11:45 am

bradman99.94 wrote:
The Special Juan wrote: Must be an age thing.

The Special Juan – How very dare you

I hope you didn't take that the wrong way. I was referring to Roger's age, rather than your own.

@banbro I didn't have Sky then so I didn't watch these events, but what I read about them never mentioned anything about Roger being a poor loser. I can't imagine him being a poor loser as I'm yet to see it for myself (not disputing the fact that he may have been at one point, I'm yet to see it though).

by banbrotam Wed Aug 08, 2012 11:49 am

Ironically, I've not seen or heard Roger act poorly with his interviews, lately

I maintained before that all it did was motivate his rivals. I mean there was a spell from 2007-2009 when it was plain that Roger didn't like Nole or Andy and they didn't like him (Murray is particularly petulant when it comes to authority figures - I remember reading a tale about how he deliberately did bad practice shots, just to get up Brad Gilberts nose!!)

Not certain motivating a couple of young guns who already have an 'up yours' attitude was ever wise!!

Now, he seems to respect them and states publicly - which is probably why he beats them (3 out of 4 against Andy) as he's no longer motivating them

by banbrotam Wed Aug 08, 2012 11:54 am

The Special Juan wrote:
bradman99.94 wrote:
The Special Juan wrote: Must be an age thing.

The Special Juan – How very dare you

I hope you didn't take that the wrong way. I was referring to Roger's age, rather than your own.

@banbro I didn't have Sky then so I didn't watch these events, but what I read about them never mentioned anything about Roger being a poor loser. I can't imagine him being a poor loser as I'm yet to see it for myself (not disputing the fact that he may have been at one point, I'm yet to see it though).

We're going over old ground and as I said, all parties have moved on and we've now got what we want four players all in similar form, with full genuine respect for each other

However read this http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/mar/04/tennis

Now Roger was and has been proved 100% correct - but I'm not certain you should be saying this when you've lost!!!

As I said though, that's what makes him a fascinating character

by **laverfan** Wed Aug 08, 2012 12:54 pm

banbrotam wrote:However read this http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/mar/04/tennis

Now Roger was and has been proved 100% correct - but I'm not certain you should be saying this when you've lost!!!

As I said though, that's what makes him a fascinating character

I was going to dig up the same article and show that Murray is now playing the game that will take him places, so Federer was correct, and this was 4+ years ago.

clap

Another thing it tells me is that Federer would make a wonderful coach for young players, if he so chooses.

by The Special Juan Wed Aug 08, 2012 1:01 pm

banbrotam wrote:
The Special Juan wrote:
bradman99.94 wrote:
The Special Juan wrote: Must be an age thing.

The Special Juan – How very dare you

I hope you didn't take that the wrong way. I was referring to Roger's age, rather than your own.

@banbro I didn't have Sky then so I didn't watch these events, but what I read about them never mentioned anything about Roger being a poor loser. I can't imagine him being a poor loser as I'm yet to see it for myself (not disputing the fact that he may have been at one point, I'm yet to see it though).

We're going over old ground and as I said, all parties have moved on and we've now got what we want four players all in similar form, with full genuine respect for each other

However read this http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/mar/04/tennis

Now Roger was and has been proved 100% correct - but I'm not certain you should be saying this when you've lost!!!

As I said though, that's what makes him a fascinating character

No, you're right, he shouldn't be saying that kind of thing at all. He was right though (although doesn't Ferrer play that way?). Still, I'm not going to defend him as he's not the player I cheer on.

by banbrotam Wed Aug 08, 2012 1:09 pm

I actually think it's disrepsctful of anyone to say or imply that a players main strenagth is 'waiting for errors'

If it's that simple - why doesn't everyone do it??

Murray's strength is his accuracy and variety of shot which gets in the heads of his opponents who then do daft things and then it's match over

It's actually quite a unique skill and one I most admire about him

Fed's used to perhaps going toe to toe with someone for 20 minutes, but then mentally and skill-wise wears them out. In his defeats against Murray he never gets that - meaning that if you watch his games against the Scot, he creates the highest percentage of errors of any of his other opponents

Murray playing more aggressive means Fed will now make more errors - but that's the objective of the game, i.e. win the point

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed Aug 08, 2012 1:52 pm

banbrotam wrote:I've rarely heard Nole not unconditionally praise the opponent and can only rememeber Murray doing it once, when he lost to Fish in controversial style at Queens

What I mean by "unconditional prasie" is when you praise the opponent and make minimal excuses for your loss. Roger has been known not to even mention the opponent and then tell the sympathetic press about his ailments

Nole - Wimby 2012 after losing to Fed "I had bad last couple days. Last five, six days I wasn't feeling great. But I don't want to talk about it now."
Nole - Monte Carlo 2012 after losing to Rafa "But it's a fact that I just didn't have any, I think, emotional energy left in me"
Nole - WTF 2011 after losing to Tipsarevic "It's just that, you know, body says that it's overload. It's been too much this year. Obviously mentally I feel a little bit drained, as well"

Murray - Dubai 2012 after losing to Fed "You get a lucky shot here or one great shot and you can break the set wide open. So I think that was the difference in the first set"

Like I said before, it's par for the course, and no big deal, but it's easy to spot and pick up on, if you're looking for it, with any particular player. But I think Murray is less guilty of it, on the whole.

by **laverfan** Wed Aug 08, 2012 2:17 pm

banbrotam wrote:I actually think it's disrepsctful of anyone to say or imply that a players main strenagth is 'waiting for errors'

I watched Haas-Nalbandian last night. Also watched the last two sets of Pospisil-Seppi. Very little attacking tennis, just a whole lot of counterpunching. It is strange to see attritional tennis with 30+ shot rallies. It requires phenomenal strength and physical prowess. I had much rather see variety and variable surface speeds to allow different styles of tennis to thrive.

banbrotam wrote:If it's that simple - why doesn't everyone do it??

The end result is injuries. Wink

banbrotam wrote:Murray's strength is his accuracy and variety of shot which gets in the heads of his opponents who then do daft things and then it's match over

It's actually quite a unique skill and one I most admire about him

There is a quite a bit of variety and it is good to see it out on display.

banbrotam wrote:Fed's used to perhaps going toe to toe with someone for 20 minutes, but then mentally and skill-wise wears them out. In his defeats against Murray he never gets that - meaning that if you watch his games against the Scot, he creates the highest percentage of errors of any of his other opponents

Is this the same as 'waiting for errors'? chin

The Olympic match has very similar approach to the match as the Shanghai 2010 match.

banbrotam wrote:Murray playing more aggressive means Fed will now make more errors - but that's the objective of the game, i.e. win the point

Unlike the Fedal matches, or are they similar? AO 2010 Federer-Murray is a very good match to see what attacking tennis brings to the court.

by lydian Wed Aug 08, 2012 2:45 pm

Haas is still a joy to watch at 34yo.
Shame about his career...he deserved much better given his obvious talent.
And one of the best SHBHs in the game still.

by kemet Wed Aug 08, 2012 6:57 pm

laverfan wrote:
kemet wrote: As for the "irrational exuberance" that you tar me with, I said I "think" that Murray would have prevailed over a peak Federer. An irrational statement would have been "I definitely believe that Murray would have prevailed over a peak Federer on Sunday." Roger in the 2003-2007 period played sublime tennis at Wimbledon and Murray would have had to beat him in four tough sets or five sets to win. What part of that is "irrational" as you put it? So I take semantic issue with you there. The reason that I made my statement.

Murray's 'improved' attitude, under the tutelage of Lendl, is a very notable feature, as is his controlled aggression against Federer in the Olympic final. It is very difficult to answer 'what-if' scenarios, and comes down to individual opinions, hence the word 'irrational' attached to qualify 'exuberance'. There was no intent to 'tar' your opinion in any way. Federer's emotional state has been self-confessed in the link I provided.

kemet wrote:You also seem to agree with emancipator that my post was "embarrassing." Oh well, I am not here to win friends and influence people. I have a right to my opinion just as everyone else on here.

It is not 'embarassing' but a conjecture that cannot be substantiated in any logical fashion. Murray is gradually approaching the peak that all his fans want him to achieve.

Your right to an opinion is not being questioned, but the opinion itself is being debated. Would you agree that such a discussion is what you had originally intended with your opinion?

LKv2 has this - https://www.606v2.com/t33438-us-open-new-face-of-change - and is asking a very interesting question. I would recommend taking a look at it.

I agree it is difficult to discuss "what if scenarios" which is why I was actually guarded in my analysis and admitted that it is a logical leap to make such a claim. So I covered my bases there. However, it is valid to consider how a peak Roger would have fared against Murray. For example, during his purple patch, Roger's return of serve was very good. Now it is quite mediocre and the fact that Murray saved two break points in his first service game of the final was annoying to me as a Federer fan. However, then again, Roger has lost a millisecond in his movement and this is why his timing is off more often than not these days. There is nothing "exuberant" about my post. I did not rush here breathlessly to anoint Murray as the new King of Grass. That is how you chose to interpret my post.

As to my post being debated that is fine. I simply took exception to the dismissive adjectives that were initially used. Words such as "ridiculous" and "embarrassing" would provoke an equally strong reaction from anyone. You believe that the claim cannot be substantiated in any logical fashion and I agree that it is difficult to prove. However it is not impossible. The Wimbledon final of a few weeks ago is a great case in point. Federer showed glimpses of his dominant past and returned Andy's serve very well, so it is still worth considering how a younger Federer who was fleeter of foot would have fared. It is not beyond the realms of debate.

by socal1976 Wed Aug 08, 2012 7:09 pm

banbrotam wrote:
The Special Juan wrote:I've never seen Roger be catty. Must be an age thing.

You missed Dubai 2008, Miami 2009 or US Open 2009, then

I'll have BB falling out with me even more , but please can people open their eyes when it comes to the rose-tinted view of the GOAT. He is more ungracious in defeat than any of the other three. I've rarely heard Nole not unconditionally praise the opponent and can only rememeber Murray doing it once, when he lost to Fish in controversial style at Queens

What I mean by "unconditional prasie" is when you praise the opponent and make minimal excuses for your loss. Roger has been known not to even mention the opponent and then tell the sympathetic press about his ailments

Incidentally, this doesn't make him a bad person or particularly bad in defeat and he's certainly more gracious than Sampras was - but let's be honest he often says just too much when he loses, which in fairness we I suppose should praise him for his honesty

Great post banbro, of course overrall roger is a very positive figure and has done a huge amount for the game. But that is one of the number one things that drive me crazy about people. As you say the rose-tinted view of the GOAT is endemic of what is wrong with a lot of people's thinking. They like to build and tear down people as idols, idol worship regardless of how shiny the idol is, generally isn't a good idea. Roger is by far the least gracious of the other top 4 in defeat that is for sure. That is probably a lot of what makes him tick. And as you say Roger learned to stop giving Nole and Andy ammunition by rubbing their noses in their deficiencies like he did in 07-09. Now all the guys play nice and you can sense that there is a bit of tense detente at the top. I mean just look at his post USO interview after the shot in 2011 hardly gracious, he came off as a giant douche, none of the other top 4 guys would have reacted like that in that situation. And if any of them did the media would crucify them, but there is just a different standard applied to federer than to even the other top champions by the fans and the media.

by lydian Wed Aug 08, 2012 7:59 pm

I agree with much of that...Roger is abit mellower now but he did put barbs into his post-matchers at times, and I remember him having a go at Murray for example. I've said quite often on forums I believe he's quite narcissistic deep down and his interviews are all nicey, nicey in general - as long as he was winning! Like I say he's mellower now...

by socal1976 Wed Aug 08, 2012 8:29 pm

Lydian no one who wears a monogramed creme leisure suit with the number of championships he has won emblazoned on it could possibly be accused of being narcissitic. I don't know how you could come to such a conclusion.

by carrieg4 Wed Aug 08, 2012 8:34 pm

Interesting article in tennis now about the medallists post Olympic prospects.

http://www.tennisnow.com/News/Olympic-Implications.aspx

by socal1976 Wed Aug 08, 2012 8:36 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:Are they catty remarks though? They may seem catty but I see them more as clever mind games. Put down others or instill or keep doubts in their mind so the flaws remain in place for the next time he plays them. After all, keep them under the thumb and it is a big part of a tennis match won before you even walk onto court. Mind games are a massive part of sport and look at the greatest sportsmen and they all indulge in them.

Yes craig I think part of it is that Roger really chose murray and djoko because obviously he felt threatened by them as younger potential contenders and picked them out for some of the bullying behavior. This is actually a very good post and astute observation. Part of it, maybe the main part of it is a mind game aspect for a competive edge. But in actuality I think Roger realized early on that while he could beat these guys these two weren't the humble type of guy. Rafa was so fawning and gracious to fed that to his credit he disarmed fed, while Novak and Andy both for varying reasons rubbed Roger the wrong way and for a couple of years he was borderline bullying towards them and probably did see it as a form of a mind game as well.

And I think a large reason why he stopped doing it came when he realized A. that it made him look bad and that B. the mind games were not having the desired affect of intimidating his rivals and may, may have been having the opposite effect.

by CaledonianCraig Wed Aug 08, 2012 8:58 pm

Yes socal mind games as I said are a key part of the top sportsmen.

In football Sir Alex Ferguson is a master at it as was Muhammad Ali in boxing. Cricketer Shane Warne was a master at it as was the motor racing drivers Ayrton Senna and Michael Schumacher.

by socal1976 Wed Aug 08, 2012 9:01 pm

I don't think fed would have stopped the mind games if they weren't paying diminishing returns for him both in terms of results and in terms of PR.

by Sponsored content