next »

[Jameselaprendi]

A BBC video for the build up to "Federer vs Nadal 2008" proclaims that Nadal is one of ony 3 current players to have a winning Head 2 Head with Federer.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/7490443.stm

We all know that Murray is another  

Ive been on ATPTennis entering people's names and coming up with some ridiculously one-sided scores in Fed's favour (my favourite might be 12-0 v Davydenko  ). The best I can find is Canas 3-3...

Who is the third person with the winning Head 2 Head?!

[Jameselaprendi]

Murray, Nadal and Hrbaty.

Figures.

Even more astonishing, Hrbaty has a winning record against Nadal and Murray too  

[Mark]

The one point to remember in all this is that Murray has hardly played Fed - only three times, and that's because Murray rarely gets far enough in tourneys to face Fed. Most analysts would tell you that its most likely Fed would have reversed his losing record if he would have played Andy more. So to my mind, Andy's winning record is probably a sign to Andy's detriment, and Davydenko's losing record of 12-0 is much better - showing that he often gets to semis, and therefore has faced Fed much more.

Very good point indeed.

[Yamor]

Of course it is an achievement, and it shows Andy has the weapons to beat Fed. But its not only good. I find it a bit similar to Nadal's winning record, that although Fed and Nadal play roughly double the amount, of tourneys they both play in, on hard, still they've played more on clay. So to me i'd say that Nadal's winning record shows that he is far worse off the clay then Fed is on the clay.

[Yamor]

You're right, that's all I'm trying to say!

[Clydey]

The one point to remember in all this is that Murray has hardly played Fed - only three times, and that's because Murray rarely gets far enough in tourneys to face Fed. Most analysts would tell you that its most likely Fed would have reversed his losing record if he would have played Andy more. So to my mind, Andy's winning record is probably a sign to Andy's detriment, and Davydenko's losing record of 12-0 is much better - showing that he often gets to semis, and therefore has faced Fed much more.

Disagree.  You can't make judgements based on hypotheticals.

The fact is, Murray has a winning record.  There's no ifs, ands or buts.  If Federer wants to have a winning record, he has to start beating Murray.

[Yamor]

Yes, Fed does have to start beating Murray, but it's not Fed's fault that he's hardly getting a chance to face him! Put it this way - I'm not taking away from Murray that its a good achievement to have a winning record against Fed, its just that most analysts would tell you that if Murray would play Fed more, he wouldn't have a winning record. So, the fact that he has a winning record shows that Andy is not progressing far enough in tourneys to play Fed enough.
Of course I'm not denying that in the three matches they've played Andy has won two (although in the first, Fed was patently extremely tired, and playing nowhere near his usual standard, and in the second, it was in a period when every Tom, Dick and Harry was beating Fed - i.e. Fish, Roddick, Stepanek...)

[Clydey]

Yes, Fed does have to start beating Murray, but it's not Fed's fault that he's hardly getting a chance to face him! Put it this way - I'm not taking away from Murray that its a good achievement to have a winning record against Fed, its just that most analysts would tell you that if Murray would play Fed more, he wouldn't have a winning record. So, the fact that he has a winning record shows that Andy is not progressing far enough in tourneys to play Fed enough.
Of course I'm not denying that in the three matches they've played Andy has won two (although in the first, Fed was patently extremely tired, and playing nowhere near his usual standard, and in the second, it was in a period when every Tom, Dick and Harry was beating Fed - i.e. Fish, Roddick, Stepanek...)

Murray didn't play well in the 2006 match either.  People need to stop making excuses for Federer.  He even said himself that he didn't lose to Djokovic because of mono.  And he lost to Murray months later, so you can discount that as an excuse.  Also, he actually played well in Dubai.  He served really well.

I really am sick of the excuse given for his 2006 loss.  Was it just that match he was tired?  What about all the other matches he won that year (beat everyone else except Nadal and Murray)?  It's amazing that on the occasion he played Murray, he happened to be tired.

And please don't speak for "most analysts".  You can 't make judgements on what might happen if Murray had met Federer later in tournaments.  You cannot just make up excuses for Federer's losses to Murray.  It seems there is always some excuse.

If Federer isn't tired, it's because Murray didn't face him later in the tournament.  And if it's not that, it's because he had mono, despite reaching the semis of the AO (when he actually had it) and reaching MS ffinals.  And if its not that, people will just say "Federer didn't play his best".

I think I'll start using these excuses.  If Fed beats Murray before the quarters of a tournament, I'll say it doesn't count because he didn't beat him at the business end of the tournament.  If he beats him after the quarters, I'll say Murray was tired.  Oh, and if that isn't enough, I'll say Murray played poorly.

This conveyor belt of excuses is beyond a joke.  He lost because Murray played better and his game isn't a good match for Murray's.  It's exactly the type of style that gies Federer problems - counter punching.

Edit:  And Roddick beat Nadal and Djokovic in that same week, so you can scratch him off your list of poor losses.  Also, Stepanek beat him on clay, not on hard (unlike Murray).  And Fish had an excellent week.  Didn't he take a set off Djokovic in the final?  He played amazing during that run.