Federer or Murray in their H2H?

Simple question, Murray leads Federer 10-9 in their Head to Head, and beat him in the Olympic Final this year. However Federer has won all 3 of their Grand Slam matches (all of which were finals) and also won their most recent meeting, which was at the World Tour Finals.

So which part of this rivalry would you want to take, Murray (overall winning head to head, Olympic Final victory) or Federer (won all their Grand Slam meetings, won most recent meeting)?

The better question would be , who would lead the H2H between Nadal and Rosol, that would be tricky to answer I guess.

3 Slam meetings, all finals? There's no contest.

Well that's an easy one.... As a Murray fan if you offered me the choice of taking away his Olympic gold and adding 3 slams to his record then as great a moment as that olympic win was I'll take the slams thank you very much.

However having a positive h2h against the greatest player ever is not a bad record to have.

What they said

A more interesting question, would Roger swap if by the end of his career he has 20 slams and doesn't complete the golden slam by winning the Olympics in Rio?

From a Murray perspective it's a no brainer, from a Federer perspective it might be ever so slightly more tempting... But I'm guessing he'd still choose the slams, as would his fans.

Slams any day every day - no comparison.

Olympic Glory comes and goes; the slams determine your legacy.

I'm pretty sure Federer would not swap ANY of his slams for an OG.

I reckon he's pretty happy with his doubles Gold and singles silver. He didn't look at all despondent when he lost to Murray or on the podium.

There is also a subtle but improtant difference in coming second in both. With slams the runner up is just another loser, with the OG's there is no runner up - you are the winner of the silver medal. I think Fed said something to that effect.

To Federer Murray is a slightly annoying yung 'un who hasn't affected his career. To Murray Federer is a big reason why he isn't a multi slam winning all time great. (well according to Murray anyway... )

I think one of the biggest compliments Federer paid Murray was when he declined the chance to play him for the first time in that dead rubber several years ago in the Davis Cup. Seems Roger was astute enough to realise a future challenger for his titles when he saw one and refused to play ball.

There are lots of players that have "challenged" Federer for titles. Murray will come way down on the list. The only titles that Murray has deprived Federer of are a couple of Shanghai Masters (Pfft!), a Canadian Masters and the Olympic Gold. I'll admit the Olympic gold would have looked nice but maybe only because Rafa has one.

I didn't know about GB playing Switzerland in Davis Cup. When was that? Roger must have been shaking in his shoes. But was it played here? That would have been a fun ticket to have.

hawkeye wrote:There are lots of players that have "challenged" Federer for titles. Murray will come way down on the list.

Yes, probably behind all those other players who have beaten Federer 10 times and have a positive H2H vs Federer.

It Must Be Love wrote:

hawkeye wrote:There are lots of players that have "challenged" Federer for titles. Murray will come way down on the list.

Yes, probably behind all those other players who have beaten Federer 10 times and have a positive H2H vs Federer.

Very good point IMBL. Murray has done better against Roger than the vast majority of players over the last ten years, and that won't be forgotten by those of a balanced view.

hawkeye wrote:There are lots of players that have "challenged" Federer for titles. Murray will come way down on the list. The only titles that Murray has deprived Federer of are a couple of Shanghai Masters (Pfft!), a Canadian Masters and the Olympic Gold. I'll admit the Olympic gold would have looked nice but maybe only because Rafa has one.

I didn't know about GB playing Switzerland in Davis Cup. When was that? Roger must have been shaking in his shoes. But was it played here? That would have been a fun ticket to have.

I remember it quite well actually, back in '05, stan beat murray in 3 sets on clay in what would turn out to be a 5-0 whitewash.

Roger has had a great career - sadly the only thing missing is an Olympic Singles Gold.

Will he get one in Rio???

I really don't think it matters to them. Slams are the currency of greatness.

bogbrush wrote:I really don't think it matters to them. Slams are the currency of greatness.

I think it does - he was in tears after beating Delpo to reach the final!!!

sportslover wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I really don't think it matters to them. Slams are the currency of greatness.

I think it does - he was in tears after beating Delpo to reach the final!!!

I think it matters on a personal level -representing their country, winning a prestigious medal -but it matters very little in terms of tennis legacy. There are 14 events in the tennis calendar that award more ranking points!

Fed's lack of Olympic gold does not tarnish his legacy in the slightest.

Similarly, if Andy wins some more slams over the coming years, the Olympic gold will hardly be mentioned.

Rafa's Olympic gold is way down the list of his career achievements.

I think the Olympics matters more to Federer because he hasn't got it. Currently, he can't claim the golden career slam and Rafa can. I get the impression he wants another crack at Rio to get the record that has thus far eluded him but whether he will make it is another matter.

As for the OP. No way Fed wants to trade careers with Murray but a winning record over Fed is nothing to be sniffed at. No matter how some try to trivialise it.

Ah yes the 'golden career slam'.

More worthless modern media hype but then i suppose everything needs an additional title nowadays. It's quite a ridiculous concept actually. In what way does an OG make a career slam golden? I guess Rosset must have a golden non career non slam.

I don't remember anyone even mentioning it when for years Steffi and Agassi had already achieved it.

I think HM's got it spot on.

carrieg4 wrote:I think the Olympics matters more to Federer because he hasn't got it. Currently, he can't claim the golden career slam and Rafa can. I get the impression he wants another crack at Rio to get the record that has thus far eluded him but whether he will make it is another matter.

As for the OP. No way Fed wants to trade careers with Murray but a winning record over Fed is nothing to be sniffed at. No matter how some try to trivialise it.

How do you know? Maybe he would. Why don't you tweet him following question: "would you like to lose all your Wimbledon titles, your RG, your 4 Australian Open, four of your 5 USO trophies and all the weeks at N.1 in exchange for upgrading your silver medal?"

Best post of the year award

too many characters

carrieg4 wrote:I think the Olympics matters more to Federer because he hasn't got it

Ha ha! Maybe it only matters because of who has got it. Take away that one person and suddenly the Olympic gold doesn't look quite so shiny.

Oh and before CaladonianCraig gets all excited I don't mean Murray. Ha ha!

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:I think the Olympics matters more to Federer because he hasn't got it. Currently, he can't claim the golden career slam and Rafa can. I get the impression he wants another crack at Rio to get the record that has thus far eluded him but whether he will make it is another matter.

As for the OP. No way Fed wants to trade careers with Murray but a winning record over Fed is nothing to be sniffed at. No matter how some try to trivialise it.

How do you know? Maybe he would. Why don't you tweet him following question: "would you like to lose all your Wimbledon titles, your RG, your 4 Australian Open, four of your 5 USO trophies and all the weeks at N.1 in exchange for upgrading your silver medal?"

Best post of the year award

Already said that there was no way he would trade. Don't really see your point.

Someone that competitive does not like others having anything they do not. It was a fair point.

I understand the incredulous response from fans of the multi slam winning GOAT. Perhaps the Olympics mean more to us Murray fans because it was such a pressure occasion for Andy being at home against his Wimbledon conqueror in a Bo5.... But winning it really was the mental breakthrough for him.

He has won many masters events which have been worth more points and more money, but this was the tournament that it finally clicked for him, and the belief carried him through in New York.

So it's difficult for us Murray fans to be as flippant about the gold medal as others, as it was Murray's finest moment up to that point and the turning point of Murray's slam career too.

carrieg4 wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:I think the Olympics matters more to Federer because he hasn't got it. Currently, he can't claim the golden career slam and Rafa can. I get the impression he wants another crack at Rio to get the record that has thus far eluded him but whether he will make it is another matter.

As for the OP. No way Fed wants to trade careers with Murray but a winning record over Fed is nothing to be sniffed at. No matter how some try to trivialise it.

How do you know? Maybe he would. Why don't you tweet him following question: "would you like to lose all your Wimbledon titles, your RG, your 4 Australian Open, four of your 5 USO trophies and all the weeks at N.1 in exchange for upgrading your silver medal?"

Best post of the year award

Already said that there was no way he would trade. Don't really see your point.


Someone that competitive does not like others having anything they do not. It was a fair point.

Yes and to further substantiate my agreement, I just want to point out that imvho there is also no way Nadal wants to trade career with Ferrer, even if the latter has a much sought after Paris Master. I think you shall agree with me.

emancipator wrote:Ah yes the 'golden career slam'.

More worthless modern media hype

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels like this!

They've taken an fantastic achievement, the career slam, and 'upgraded' it by tagging on a 6 round, best-of-3 event.

It's like adding an air freshener to a Ferrari and saying this makes it a deluxe model.

Danny_1982 wrote:I understand the incredulous response from fans of the multi slam winning GOAT. Perhaps the Olympics mean more to us Murray fans because it was such a pressure occasion for Andy being at home against his Wimbledon conqueror in a Bo5.... But winning it really was the mental breakthrough for him.

He has won many masters events which have been worth more points and more money, but this was the tournament that it finally clicked for him, and the belief carried him through in New York.

So it's difficult for us Murray fans to be as flippant about the gold medal as others, as it was Murray's finest moment up to that point and the turning point of Murray's slam career too.

Fair point Danny. For the record, I was not comparing the OG to a slam or anything even near that. Just saying that Federer likes to have all the records (especially the the ones Nadal has) and will not like someone having a leading H2H. I stand by that. It is more a testament to Federers extreme competitiveness than anything else.

In itself the OG is nice but any would take a slam win in a hearbeat.

I agree with you Carrie. Also Roger has said that he went into the grass season wanting to win either Wimbledon or the Olympics. Sure, he wouldn't swap the titles over, not a chance. But he wanted that gold.

Nobody cries after winning a semi that they aren't bothered about.

Just to reiterate before anyone jumps in head first, I'm not for a second suggesting the Olympics is in any way better than or equal to a slam. It isn't, and never will be.

We understand Danny.

The Olympics obviously meant a lot to Federer, it'd be silly to deny that.

But sometimes I wonder whether all his talk about the OG was a ruse to divert pressure from himself at the slams.

Probably not.

HM Murdoch wrote:

emancipator wrote:Ah yes the 'golden career slam'.

More worthless modern media hype

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels like this!

They've taken an fantastic achievement, the career slam, and 'upgraded' it by tagging on a 6 round, best-of-3 event.

It's like adding an air freshener to a Ferrari and saying this makes it a deluxe model.

A late entry for post of the year.

they have also never played on clay, if we are judging players on their complete game they need to play on everything.

Interesting the different mindsets between Fed and Murray over that Olympic tournament. Fed said he'd allowed himself to get very emotional, even in that first match when he almost came unstuck, again, against Falla.
Murray, on the other hand, said that he was doing crazy things such as playing the doubles as well. He said he would not dream of having such a schedule in a GS tournament, but then added: "But of course, this is not a GS, it's the Olympics."
So what happened IMO is that Murray relaxed and just got on with it in the final and Fed - admittedly tired after his long semi - approached it a bit differently.
Think that Murray has a good chance to end with a superior head-to-head against Fed which, as others have quite rightly pointed out, is no mean feat.

If Murray had won Wimbledon it would be a better argument, but 3-0 in slam finals, it's no contest, I agree with BB.

Federer has never broken down in tears and said he can't play tennis like Murray...

Henman Bill wrote:Federer has never broken down in tears and said he can't play tennis like Murray...

No but... Nah I'm not going to say.

I don't particularly care what way around it is. I coudn't have believed back in 06 that Murray could have anywhere close to a positive head to head record on Federer, that's really something no matter what way round you take it.
Sure Murray could have had this and that but that doesn't matter. What he does have is an OG and a slam, the fruits of little else but his hard work and sacrifice, even more remarkable given how much pressure and how many setbacks piled on him. He certainly doesn't look back and wonder, he just moves on.
He cant' play tennis like Federer, but he can play tennis like himself, and by reputation that's shown to be damn good, soo good that it can hold it's own against anybody.

falzy21 wrote:I don't particularly care what way around it is. I coudn't have believed back in 06 that Murray could have anywhere close to a positive head to head record on Federer, that's really something no matter what way round you take it.
Sure Murray could have had this and that but that doesn't matter. What he does have is an OG and a slam, the fruits of little else but his hard work and sacrifice, even more remarkable given how much pressure and how many setbacks piled on him. He certainly doesn't look back and wonder, he just moves on.
He cant' play tennis like Federer, but he can play tennis like himself, and by reputation that's shown to be damn good, soo good that it can hold it's own against anybody.

Another contender for post of the year.

Unless I am reading a couple of posts wrong, this thread has nothing to do with swapping careers......

Ok, lets say in a years time they have played each other 4 more times, but Murray wins at the Australian Open and Wimbledon, and Federer wins in Indians Wells and Shanghai, who would you opt for then? Murray would be 12-11 up in the H2H but still 2-3 in GS matches.

Just trying to find out if the overall H2H is more important than the Grand Slam H2H.....

The GS H2H is more important than overall H2H, but neither is anywhere near as important as what they actually achieve individually.

Is an overall h2h more important than a slam head to head? No, of course it isn't. Murray would rather be 1 down in the h2h and have won the 3 slam encounters. That's a total no brainer.

Again, that's not to say that an overall h2h advantage over the greatest player of all time is not something to be fiercely proud of.

Agree with both Julius and Danny. Slam H2H is the big one but having the H2H advantage is a big achievement nonetheless.

Spaghetti-Hans, I've removed your post. Feel free to re-post without the obvious and tiresome wumming parts.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Spaghetti-Hans, I've removed your post. Feel free to re-post without the obvious and tiresome wumming parts.

Despite your unnecessary action, for the sake of the forum, we'll re-post.

Federer only started to take Murray seriously at Cincinnati 2009. Murray compiled a 6-2 H2H up to that point. Perhaps tellingly, 4 of Murray's 'wins' came consecutively during the late 08-early 09 period when Federer was hampered by a back injury and motivational problems.

17 of their 19 meetings have taken place after Federer's 2003-07 prime. But even then, Federer has a 6-1 combined record against Murray at Grand Slams and The World Finals. The fact is, a post-peak Federer can beat a peak Murray when it is completely necessary - like we saw at SW19 and The O2 this year.

Spaghetti-Hans wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Spaghetti-Hans, I've removed your post. Feel free to re-post without the obvious and tiresome wumming parts.

Despite your unnecessary action, for the sake of the forum, we'll re-post.

It was necessary - for the sake of the forum.

I didn't think SH breached the house rules eitherl. Surely no more than Socal and Amritia did at least a 1000 times. Never thought it's good time for a break JHM?

Yeah I'm in agreement.

I guess we'll all just have to post statistics from now on with the occasional sombre opinion.

Unless you can switch horse mid-way and pretend your posts are just elaborate jokes, and anyone taking offence isn't "getting it", like on a long thread recently created.