In what ways is Murray better than Federer? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

In what ways is Murray better than Federer?

Pages : [1] 2

FlavorNuts
11-19-2009, 09:46 PM
go

TennisLurker
11-19-2009, 09:47 PM
Backhand, only that. He makes less unforced errors too, but then, he is less agressive than Fed.

FlavorNuts
11-19-2009, 09:52 PM
His backhand makes less unforced because he does nothing with it.
No spin variation, no angles, no pace.

Action Jackson
11-19-2009, 09:52 PM
He has a better 2 hander.

Dini
11-19-2009, 09:53 PM
Better backhand, better defence.

FlavorNuts
11-19-2009, 09:54 PM
And when he slices there's no intent behind it.

FlavorNuts
11-19-2009, 09:55 PM
Better backhand, better defence.explain.

DrJules
11-19-2009, 10:04 PM
15 ways.

FlavorNuts
11-19-2009, 10:07 PM
He has a better 2 hander.Come on, Georgie. In 5 years I've seen you've make maybe 2 non-sarcastic replies.
Why post if you're afraid of being disagreed with to the point of never sharing your opinion.

Or Levy
11-19-2009, 10:11 PM
He's 6 years younger.

DJ Soup
11-19-2009, 10:13 PM
He's 6 years younger.

only valid point so far

krystlel
11-19-2009, 10:18 PM
Better passing shots as well.

Slightly better return of serve. Equally as good at getting returns in the court as Federer but does a little more with them, not blocking it as much.

Better shot tolerance and patience (which works better in some match-ups).

More crafty, better finesse but not as good of a shotmaker.

duong
11-19-2009, 10:44 PM
Better shot tolerance

what do you call "shot tolerance" ?

ability to play a shot when you're not in a good position to do it ?

MalwareDie
11-19-2009, 10:47 PM
what do you call "shot tolerance" ?

ability to play a shot when you're not in a good position to do it ?

Could mean that he can deal with more types of shots. He certainly can deal with topsin to his backhand better than Federer, whose backdand will break down pretty easily.

krystlel
11-19-2009, 10:49 PM
what do you call "shot tolerance" ?

ability to play a shot when you're not in a good position to do it ?
I think it just means being able to stay in longer rallies, or more difficult rallies, for example when being pushed out wide without looking for a way out, trying to hit a winner or losing patience/getting tired/frustrated.

duong
11-19-2009, 10:54 PM
I think it just means being able to stay in longer rallies, or more difficult rallies, for example when being pushed out wide without looking for a way out, trying to hit a winner or losing patience/getting tired/frustrated.

Ok, it's not what the word "shot tolerance" suggested to me : rather what Malware die or I said.

What you say here is more about patience, or rather endurance, physical strength. Not what I thought.

duong
11-19-2009, 10:56 PM
His backhand makes less unforced because he does nothing with it.
No spin variation, no angles, no pace.

come on I think he has some variation with his backhand, the problem about variation is maybe more about his forehand.

There is also a lot of intent in his game, including with his slice.

But if he's not a shotmaker as Kristlel says, it's also because he doesn't want it :shrug:

he prefers "winning ugly" or only with a little pace, little variation, troubling the opponent rather than making shots himself, that's what he likes : I think that's the problem, that's really what he likes

Tsonganator
11-19-2009, 11:03 PM
smaller nose?

FlavorNuts
11-19-2009, 11:07 PM
No, he simply doesn't have the ability to force the play against top players.

Murray's skills over Federer are anticipating the opponent and accurately redirecting balls. That's the answer I was looking for.

FlavorNuts
11-19-2009, 11:09 PM
Federer is superior in basically every tangible sense.

VolandriFan
11-19-2009, 11:10 PM
No, he simply doesn't have the ability to force the play against top players.

Murray's skills over Federer are anticipating the opponent and accurately redirecting balls. That's the answer I was looking for.

Why did you even ask the question when you were already looking for a specific answer?

Action Jackson
11-19-2009, 11:12 PM
Come on, Georgie. In 5 years I've seen you've make maybe 2 non-sarcastic replies.
Why post if you're afraid of being disagreed with to the point of never sharing your opinion.

No, you just blindly worship Federer and needed an excuse to post something under the guise of a discussion to reconfirm the fact.

Does Murray have a better 2 hander than Federer? Then, the answer is yes.

FlavorNuts
11-19-2009, 11:14 PM
Why did you even ask the question when you were already looking for a specific answer?To see if anyone actually pays attention to the tennis.

dabeast
11-19-2009, 11:15 PM
Better passing shots as well.

Slightly better return of serve. Equally as good at getting returns in the court as Federer but does a little more with them, not blocking it as much.

Better shot tolerance and patience (which works better in some match-ups).

More crafty, better finesse but not as good of a shotmaker.

Nope, no way in hell.

FlavorNuts
11-19-2009, 11:17 PM
No, you just blindly worship Federer and needed an excuse to post something under the guise of a discussion to reconfirm the fact.

Does Murray have a better 2 hander than Federer? Then, the answer is yes.I'm probably the most anti-fed member of this forum. I'm capable of staying objective when it comes to discussing tennis, so it doesn't show.

Getta
11-19-2009, 11:22 PM
To see if anyone actually pays attention to the tennis.

but you probably already knew that, didn't you? :shrug:

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=9077643&postcount=126

Ridiculous poll results. Goes to show how unbelievably stupid this forum is.

Garson007
11-19-2009, 11:25 PM
Pushing. :angel:

Dini
11-19-2009, 11:26 PM
explain.

He's faster around the court and he moves really well from side to side. He's able to keep the ball in play for longer in general by not going for the lines but still keeps a good length (true for the backhand side anyway, FH not so much). Murray wins those long extended rallies in those matches against Federer most of the time.

FlavorNuts
11-19-2009, 11:27 PM
but you probably already knew that, didn't you? :shrug:Was hoping krystlel or scoobs would post, really.

Action Jackson
11-19-2009, 11:30 PM
I'm probably the most anti-fed member of this forum. I'm capable of staying objective when it comes to discussing tennis, so it doesn't show.

You deliberately word a question to produce a specific answer and you got one.

FlavorNuts
11-19-2009, 11:36 PM
Actually I supplied it myself. A little dissapointed in you guys.

He's faster around the court and he moves really well from side to side. He's able to keep the ball in play for longer in general by not going for the lines but still keeps a good length (true for the backhand side anyway, FH not so much). Murray wins those long extended rallies in those matches against Federer most of the time.This too.

paseo
11-19-2009, 11:37 PM
Right now, Murray has a better backhand and movement.
But at his prime, Fed was better in every aspect.

Action Jackson
11-19-2009, 11:45 PM
but you probably already knew that, didn't you? :shrug:

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=9077643&postcount=126

Only needs to read this thread.

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?p=9334023#post9334023

Arkulari
11-20-2009, 12:10 AM
Right now, Murray has a better backhand and movement.
But at his prime, Fed was better in every aspect.

Murray has a more solid BH wing than Roger ever had, but his BH as a shot isn't as great as Roger was during his prime (and there are better ones than Roger's around)

For the movement, Murray has a very good movement, but I think in terms of that, Roger is practically unparalleled in these times, his footwork is flawless (or at least used to be) and is still better than 95% of the tour

Murray has a better ROS and better defense, but he's having too much issues with his FH and serve

Mechlan
11-20-2009, 12:38 AM
If we're comparing currently, Murray has a better aggressive return, moves better, is more consistent off both wings, has better passing shots.

krystlel
11-20-2009, 12:40 AM
come on I think he has some variation with his backhand, the problem about variation is maybe more about his forehand.

There is also a lot of intent in his game, including with his slice.

But if he's not a shotmaker as Kristlel says, it's also because he doesn't want it :shrug:

he prefers "winning ugly" or only with a little pace, little variation, troubling the opponent rather than making shots himself, that's what he likes : I think that's the problem, that's really what he likes
Well I don't think it's Murray's strength to hit flashy shots without mixing it up. There's a time and a place for it for him, and it might not be anywhere near the start of a rally. If he was going to play outright aggressively, there are probably other players that do it better. :shrug: Especially his flattened out forehand which looks like a risky shot. He's a pretty good shotmaker in terms of taking his opponents off-guard with a sudden change of direction or pace, and hitting great shots on the dead run, but it's no comparison with Federer's overall shotmaking ability.

I was thinking that Murray has better finesse, but Federer has better flair - though my understanding of those two terms and the differences between the two is hardly definitive.

Macbrother
11-20-2009, 12:50 AM
If we're comparing currently, Murray has a better aggressive return, moves better, is more consistent off both wings, has better passing shots.

As said as it is to say, pretty much spot on. Although even with Federer at his best, Murray's aggressive return is significantly better than Federer's as well as his rallying backhand. In every other category (including movement easily and, arguably, defense) I would give to Fed at his peak.

Clydey
11-20-2009, 01:26 AM
Backhand

Return of serve

Movement (on hard only)

Defence (again, only on hard)

Volleys (however, doesn't use it often enough and doesn't cover the net as well as Federer)

Passing shots

Slice is about even


That's about all, off the top of my head.

paseo
11-20-2009, 01:46 AM
Backhand

Return of serve

Movement (on hard only)

Defence (again, only on hard)

Volleys (however, doesn't use it often enough and doesn't cover the net as well as Federer)

Passing shots

Slice is about even


That's about all, off the top of my head.

Volley -> Fed is better.
Slice -> Fed is slightly better.

MsTree
11-20-2009, 01:52 AM
Murray doesn't cry when he loses

Doesn't attract the gloryhunters as much as Fed

MrChopin
11-20-2009, 01:59 AM
Murray doesn't cry when he loses

Doesn't attract the gloryhunters as much as Fed

He also pushes a lot better than Fed.

Clydey
11-20-2009, 02:02 AM
Volley -> Fed is better.
Slice -> Fed is slightly better.

I think Federer is better at the net than Murray. I don't think he actually volley's better, though. He just covers the net a lot better. All things being equal, with them both getting their racquet on the ball, I think Murray volley's a bit better.

Slice is debatable. It could go either way, in my opinion. Murray certainly uses his slice a lot more often.

prima donna
11-20-2009, 02:11 AM
Ha.

kyleskywalker007
11-20-2009, 02:14 AM
In zero ways ;)

Farenhajt
11-20-2009, 03:19 AM
1. Native accent.

2. Doesn't waste money on dental jobs.

casabe
11-20-2009, 03:23 AM
in playing crap at slams

Turquoise
11-20-2009, 04:23 AM
Murray believes he's better than Federer, even relishes the challenge of beating him. Irrelevant what other people think about his game, he's got the results to back it up.

Huey84
11-20-2009, 04:45 AM
Even Djokovic is better than Murray. All Murray can do is (poo)push.

kindling
11-20-2009, 05:08 AM
he's not.

duong
11-20-2009, 06:50 AM
Well I don't think it's Murray's strength to hit flashy shots without mixing it up. There's a time and a place for it for him, and it might not be anywhere near the start of a rally.

I don't really see it like that : for instance Simon is someone who really waits for the right moment and place to hit a shot, when he has that opportunity he generally takes it (although since this year sometimes he's liked hitting some shots in the beginning of the rally ... but generally speaking his attitude is "being patient, but if I have an opportunity, I will absolutely take it").

Murray I think doesn't have the same attitude : he doesn't take many of these opportunities in long rallies like Simon, but on the opposite there are some moments when he decides hitting a risky shot quite early in a rally. He can do it as he's more talented than Simon.

It doesn't look as "calculated" to me as for Simon or some other players (like Youzhny sometimes).

It rather comes from Murray's general attitude imo : he likes playing these long rallies and making the opponent miss, his state of mind is "how can I bother the opponent ?".

I think it's more that than percentage-tennis like Simon.

David Kenzie
11-20-2009, 07:38 AM
He's better at beeing scottish

Goldenoldie
11-20-2009, 08:48 AM
Murray has a better looking woman

Apemant
11-20-2009, 08:54 AM
Better BH and better returns.

Right now he also has better movement, because Federer isn't exactly a young gun anymore. But Clydey, you're pushing it way too far with your list. :devil:

ShotmaKer
11-20-2009, 09:00 AM
Murray has a better looking woman


Federer's woman can deliver twins anyday :shrug:

Commander Data
11-20-2009, 09:14 AM
Head to head.

zcess81
11-20-2009, 09:30 AM
Better backhand, better defence.

I don't think so. Roger's defensive skills are sometimes underrated.

As for the question...Murray has better backhand. That's it. I'm assuming we're comparing Murray to Fed's best level and not his current level.

Vida
11-20-2009, 09:30 AM
rogelio popped the cherry with murray in sincinaty... he had him 'figured out' - so now there is no coming back.

zcess81
11-20-2009, 09:36 AM
He's faster around the court and he moves really well from side to side. He's able to keep the ball in play for longer in general by not going for the lines but still keeps a good length (true for the backhand side anyway, FH not so much). Murray wins those long extended rallies in those matches against Federer most of the time.

That is against Federror. When Fed plays his best Murray can do nothing (Like USO final), like he can do nothing against other attacking players when they play well (Davydenko, Verdasco, Cilic, Tsonga, Gonzalez etc etc).

Good attacking player (Fed, Davydenko etc) vs. Good defensive player (Murray, Simon etc), assuming that both play to the best of their abilities, attacking player will win 9/10 times.

zcess81
11-20-2009, 09:41 AM
Backhand - Yes

Return of serve - About Even

Movement (on hard only) - No

Defence (again, only on hard) - No imo

Volleys (however, doesn't use it often enough and doesn't cover the net as well as Federer) - No

Passing shots - About even

Slice is about even - Fed's slice is better


That's about all, off the top of my head.

I'm comparing Murray's current level to Fed's PRIME level.

paseo
11-20-2009, 09:49 AM
I think Federer is better at the net than Murray. I don't think he actually volley's better, though. He just covers the net a lot better. All things being equal, with them both getting their racquet on the ball, I think Murray volley's a bit better.

Slice is debatable. It could go either way, in my opinion. Murray certainly uses his slice a lot more often.

Murray's volley looks better because he only comes to the net when he has a relatively easy volleys to hit. Whereas Fed comes to the net in a tougher/more risky situations. IMO, Fed has a better volley. He used to play S&V a lot when he was younger.

Well, I don't know the stats but, seems to me that Fed hits a lot of slice backhands.

zcess81
11-20-2009, 09:53 AM
Murray's volley looks better because he only comes to the net when he has a relatively easy volleys to hit. Whereas Fed comes to the net in a tougher/more risky situations. IMO, Fed has a better volley. He used to play S&V a lot when he was younger.

Well, I don't know the stats but, seems to me that Fed hits a lot of slice backhands.

It's not about quantity it's quality of Fed's slice that's better, he keeps them low and deep, real ackward to hit the ball back with any aggression...I don't know the stats either, but if I had to guess I'd say Fed uses slice more than Murray.

alter ego
11-20-2009, 09:58 AM
I think Federer is better at the net than Murray. I don't think he actually volley's better, though. He just covers the net a lot better. All things being equal, with them both getting their racquet on the ball, I think Murray volley's a bit better.



Fanboying taken to a new level. :lol:

duong
11-20-2009, 09:59 AM
Murray's volley looks better because he only comes to the net when he has a relatively easy volleys to hit. Whereas Fed comes to the net in a tougher/more risky situations.

I think Murray's volley is overrated : one important problem he has for that is that he doesn't bend enough on his feet, whereas it's a major clue of volley game as Edberg and Cash showed it. Also because he's tall.

That's why he has a good high volley but not so good for low volleys.

I won't say that Fed's volley is great, but surely I think that Murray's volley is overrated.

bokehlicious
11-20-2009, 10:00 AM
Doesn't attract the gloryhunters as much as Fed

:haha:

paseo
11-20-2009, 10:02 AM
It's not about quantity it's quality of Fed's slice that's better, he keeps them low and deep, real ackward to hit the ball back with any aggression...I don't know the stats either, but if I had to guess I'd say Fed uses slice more than Murray.

Yeah, I know. I also think Fed has the better slice. I was responding to Clydey's post.

I think Federer is better at the net than Murray. I don't think he actually volley's better, though. He just covers the net a lot better. All things being equal, with them both getting their racquet on the ball, I think Murray volley's a bit better.

Slice is debatable. It could go either way, in my opinion. Murray certainly uses his slice a lot more often.

Bernard Black
11-20-2009, 10:10 AM
Tough question, and there are very few areas Murray exceed Federer in and this is the reason one has achieved much more than the other. I'll give my thoughts anyway.

Flat serve - very debatable this one. Murray hits the out and out flat serve with more fire than Federer, and arguably gets a greater angle out to the ad side. Federer, however, has the better serve overall with higher accuracy / percentage and superior spin.

Second serve return - this is definitely an area where Murray excels over Federer, hitting through the ball to generate more pace - especially on the backhand and therefore putting the opponent on the back foot more often that the Swiss. I don't think there is much to separate them on the first serve return though, they both deal well with big servers.

Cross-court forehand pass - Federer possesses one of the greatest forehands of all time, but I think Murray actually trumps him in this area. Hardly ever see the Scot miss a forehand cross-court pass, it's a terrific shot. Federer is better down the line though, and better all-round backhand passing shot too.

Speed around the court - both have great movement, I give Federer the edge overall in this area but no doubt Murray has faster out and out defensive speed, which help him to retrieve balls from helpless positions. Age is definitely a factor, Federer has lost a step whereas Murray is at his physical peak.

That's all I can think of for now, Federer is just that much superior to Murray at the moment - and that's coming from a Murray fan.

leng jai
11-20-2009, 10:21 AM
Better looking.

Bernard Black
11-20-2009, 10:22 AM
Better looking.

Damn, I knew I was forgetting something :lol:

adee-gee
11-20-2009, 10:22 AM
Federer is superior in basically every tangible sense.
Obviously, hence their head to head record :D



In answer to the thread starter....nationality.

ShotmaKer
11-20-2009, 10:24 AM
Obviously, hence their head to head record :D



In answer to the thread starter....nationality.


:baby:

Commander Data
11-20-2009, 10:36 AM
better sheep-shearing abilities?

or should I rather say

goat-shearing?

:aparty:

Clydey
11-20-2009, 11:25 AM
Better BH and better returns.

Right now he also has better movement, because Federer isn't exactly a young gun anymore. But Clydey, you're pushing it way too far with your list. :devil:

The only two things that are debatable are slice and volleys. I think it's clear that Murray moves and defends better on a hard court, while Federer moves and defends better on clay and grass. I'm not sure you can disagree with anything beyond that.

Clydey
11-20-2009, 11:27 AM
I'm comparing Murray's current level to Fed's PRIME level.

Murray returns better than Fed did even in his prime. The stats back it up, too.

The others are debatable, though I don't agree.

bokehlicious
11-20-2009, 11:57 AM
In answer to the thread starter....nationality.

:spit: :haha: yeah sure :silly: :p

Florida
11-20-2009, 12:23 PM
What a pathetic thread???? LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL......... How can you compare Murray the MUG with Federer the GOAT.......... Murray is overated by British media and dilusional fans............. I just cannot stop LOL!!!!!! If we are talking about the H2H record and all the pathetic wins Murray had in all the pathetic tournaments, when Fed was injured and pregnant, than it's even more ridiculous.... I have nothing against Murray, but his fan base is just depressed and in need of a Murray win so they come up with all sorts of non-sense........

Byrd
11-20-2009, 12:34 PM
Better lob

tennisace
11-20-2009, 12:36 PM
Murray is not afraid of Fed, Fed is afraid of Murray,that's the main difference

Clydey
11-20-2009, 12:39 PM
Better lob

Better biceps.

bokehlicious
11-20-2009, 12:43 PM
Murray is not afraid of Fed, Fed is afraid of Murray,that's the main difference

I think that explains Roger's fast decline: he's that scared by/obsessed with the Scottish Wonderboy that he can't sleep more than a few minutes a night...

Burrow
11-20-2009, 12:50 PM
Better passing shots as well.

Slightly better return of serve. Equally as good at getting returns in the court as Federer but does a little more with them, not blocking it as much.

Better shot tolerance and patience (which works better in some match-ups).

More crafty, better finesse but not as good of a shotmaker.

:lol: :retard:

TheBoiledEgg
11-20-2009, 12:56 PM
better at boring opponents to death

rocketassist
11-20-2009, 12:56 PM
Younger.

rocketassist
11-20-2009, 12:58 PM
What a pathetic thread???? LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL......... How can you compare Murray the MUG with Federer the GOAT.......... Murray is overated by British media and dilusional fans............. I just cannot stop LOL!!!!!! If we are talking about the H2H record and all the pathetic wins Murray had in all the pathetic tournaments, when Fed was injured and pregnant, than it's even more ridiculous.... I have nothing against Murray, but his fan base is just depressed and in need of a Murray win so they come up with all sorts of non-sense........

He must have been suffering from post-natal depression when Del Potro beat him then.

thrust
11-20-2009, 01:00 PM
He has a better 2 hander.

LOL!! There is no area in which Murray's game is better the Federer's, at Rogers best or near best.

Byrd
11-20-2009, 01:40 PM
Better biceps.

The Murray love is strong in this one :lol:

Dini
11-20-2009, 01:45 PM
I don't agree with the slice being even. I think Fed's is superior - the things he does with it on grass especially really puts players off, I remember how low and awkward his slices were for Gicquel last year in Wimbledon, he couldn't even get the racquet to touch the ball. He also does that slice lob thing that he likes to frustrate opponents with (did it like 3/4 times against Haas this year :lol:).

out_here_grindin
11-20-2009, 01:56 PM
Not so much that he does anything better but he does things that can throw Federer off of his best game

Aaric
11-20-2009, 02:03 PM
In no way :spit:

alfonsojose
11-20-2009, 02:05 PM
Better bulge, better body :drool: :drool:

denisgiann
11-20-2009, 02:46 PM
Murray can maintain the hype surrounding his name without even winning a slam.The man is a legend in his own right :rolleyes:.

oliverbwfc
11-20-2009, 03:09 PM
Murray believes he's better than Federer, even relishes the challenge of beating him. Irrelevant what other people think about his game, he's got the results to back it up.

Aside from the H2H he really dosen't

Ichiban1920
11-20-2009, 03:47 PM
Mugray is in no ways better than Federer. All these mugray fans whoh think otherwise need ad labotomy. Retards.

duong
11-20-2009, 04:09 PM
I don't agree with the slice being even. I think Fed's is superior

I also think so : Murray's slice is good but not as good as Federer's.

gusavo
11-20-2009, 05:08 PM
Federer is superior in basically every tangible sense.
because he can hit the ball harder?

To see if anyone actually pays attention to the tennis.
oh you got proof?


Good attacking player (Fed, Davydenko etc) vs. Good defensive player (Murray, Simon etc), assuming that both play to the best of their abilities, attacking player will win 9/10 times.
made up number, bad analysis
its true that equal players with one offensive player and one defensive player both playing their best the attacker should be the favourite. Its the way tennis works, the sport is imbalanced.

Mugray is in no ways better than Federer. All these mugray fans whoh think otherwise need ad labotomy. Retards.
check return stats. I suggest you stop posting here. Especially when it comes to such clear errors as this, its embarrasing.

Aside from the H2H he really dosen't
how?

oranges
11-20-2009, 05:22 PM
its true that equal players with one offensive player and one defensive player both playing their best the attacker should be the favourite. Its the way tennis works, the sport is imbalanced.


:spit: It wasn't unbalanced even when the fast surfaces were actually fast, let alone today. Aside from the fact that there's always clay to tip the scales to defense, aggressive game means risk, which in itself creates balance.

Quakes
11-20-2009, 05:53 PM
He's taller.

Quakes
11-20-2009, 05:55 PM
He also has more desire to win ATP1000/Masters events. That is certainly better for the fans.

Quakes
11-20-2009, 05:57 PM
He's probably also better at the English language, although I'm not 100% sure on this one.

Start da Game
11-20-2009, 06:01 PM
undoubtedly the backhand, as of this stage of his career.......i think both are pretty much equal in terms of defense, a slight edge to fed........

joshabner5
11-20-2009, 06:21 PM
At being a prick.

DrJules
11-20-2009, 06:48 PM
Obviously, hence their head to head record :D



In answer to the thread starter....nationality.

Scottish better than Swiss.:lol::lol::lol:

Holiday to Geneva, Montreaux or Gstaad or Edinburgh, Glasgow or Aberdeen.:scratch::scratch::scratch:

Obviously Scotland with cold damp weather, grumpy individuals and inaudible English is preferable.

momo_momo
11-20-2009, 07:05 PM
He's taller and younger. Aside from that this guy's not so special. :rolls:

GhostUnholy
11-20-2009, 07:11 PM
Backhand

Return of serve

Movement (on hard only)

Defence (again, only on hard)

Volleys (however, doesn't use it often enough and doesn't cover the net as well as Federer)

Passing shots

Slice is about even


That's about all, off the top of my head.



:bowdown:

It's hilarious how you seem so rational most of the time and yet are such a murray fanboy.

r2473
11-20-2009, 07:11 PM
2. Doesn't waste money on dental jobs.

This chick gave me the best dental job last week. Cost a lot, but worth it.

Commander Data
11-20-2009, 07:12 PM
Scottish better than Swiss.:lol::lol::lol:

Holiday to Geneva, Montreaux or Gstaad or Edinburgh, Glasgow or Aberdeen.:scratch::scratch::scratch:

Obviously Scotland with cold damp weather, grumpy individuals and inaudible English is preferable.

:D

Burrow
11-20-2009, 07:14 PM
Scottish better than Swiss.:lol::lol::lol:

Holiday to Geneva, Montreaux or Gstaad or Edinburgh, Glasgow or Aberdeen.:scratch::scratch::scratch:

Obviously Scotland with cold damp weather, grumpy individuals and inaudible English is preferable.

:worship:

Clydey
11-20-2009, 08:08 PM
Scottish better than Swiss.:lol::lol::lol:

Holiday to Geneva, Montreaux or Gstaad or Edinburgh, Glasgow or Aberdeen.:scratch::scratch::scratch:

Obviously Scotland with cold damp weather, grumpy individuals and inaudible English is preferable.

I'll take Scottish scenery and Scottish history any day of the week.

Clydey
11-20-2009, 08:13 PM
:bowdown:

It's hilarious how you seem so rational most of the time and yet are such a murray fanboy.

Which parts am I wrong about?

I specified that Murray defends better and moves better on hard only. How is that irrational? Everything besides backhand and return is debatable (from my list), since those certainly go to Murray. Perhaps my bias tips me towards Murray on those, but how can you honestly suggest that it's irrational to even think that Murray volley's better, moves better on hard, and has a better slice?

You might disagree, but I'm not making any outlandish statements. If I had said that Murray has a better forehand, I could see your point.

leng jai
11-20-2009, 08:19 PM
Fedclown's slice is far superior to Murray's. Its not even debatable.

Clydey
11-20-2009, 08:23 PM
Fedclown's slice is far superior to Murray's. Its not even debatable.

Beg to differ. I can't remember Federer ever almost single-handedly beating someone with a slice, the way Murray beat Del Potro with the slice at the USO.

:worship:

As ashamed as you apparently are to be Scottish, Scotland is equally ashamed to have produced you. Maybe you should pick up a book and read up on your country's history? Just a thought.

MrChopin
11-20-2009, 08:32 PM
Beg to differ. I can't remember Federer ever almost single-handedly beating someone with a slice, the way Murray beat Del Potro with the slice at the USO.

Maybe that is because Murray had no other way to beat him. Do you remember the match? It was not pretty.

Dini
11-20-2009, 08:34 PM
PvY0qP4mCXg

More variation. Better disguise, too.

dOFaMQXJA1c&feature=related

Clydey
11-20-2009, 08:35 PM
Maybe that is because Murray had no other way to beat him. Do you remember the match? It was not pretty.

He has beaten him in other ways since. He certainly hasn't used the slice nearly as much in more recent matches with Pony. I can scarcely remember Murray hitting more than one 2-hander in a rally in that USO match.

I actually enjoyed it. It turned into a fairly dramatic encounter.

Dini
11-20-2009, 08:37 PM
So utilising it more makes it a better shot? :confused: Nadal has used the slice a lot since his return (more than Roger does on average anyway) can you say with a straight face that Rafa's floating slice is better? :scratch:

Burrow
11-20-2009, 08:38 PM
Beg to differ. I can't remember Federer ever almost single-handedly beating someone with a slice, the way Murray beat Del Potro with the slice at the USO.



As ashamed as you apparently are to be Scottish, Scotland is equally ashamed to have produced you. Maybe you should pick up a book and read up on your country's history? Just a thought.

I'm ashamed that this country is full of gingers like you.

Just saying.

Vida
11-20-2009, 08:38 PM
fedz slice is way better, as is defense on hard courts. for him, playing defensive is option to choose depending on the moment. for murray, there is no choice at all because defense is the only option hes got.

safin-rules-no.1
11-20-2009, 08:39 PM
I'm ashamed that this country is full of gingers like you.

Just saying.

Wise words.

Clydey
11-20-2009, 08:40 PM
More variation. Better disguise, too.


In your opinion. I can put together some clips of the Murray slice, too.

If you go to around 2 minutes into the clip, you'll see that it is the slice that literally wins Murray the match vs. Del Potro. He finishes it with 2 BH slices (the second of which Del Potro nearly falls over trying to retrieve) and a forehand slice approach. Shame the quality of the clip is so poor.

Y6EMVKFaKHI

Clydey
11-20-2009, 08:41 PM
So utilising it more makes it a better shot? :confused: Nadal has used the slice a lot since his return (more than Roger does on average anyway) can you say with a straight face that Rafa's floating slice is better? :scratch:

When did I say that using it more means that it's better?

oranges
11-20-2009, 08:42 PM
Beg to differ. I can't remember Federer ever almost single-handedly beating someone with a slice, the way Murray beat Del Potro with the slice at the USO.


I always thought slice-proof as a nickname originates from that double bagel beatdown he received at AO. Does that qualify or it needs to be tight ;)

Clydey
11-20-2009, 08:43 PM
I'm ashamed that this country is full of gingers like you.

Just saying.

Pick up a book, Burrow. Educate yourself a little. I'll even give you some guidance. Do some reading on the Scottish Enlightenment.

safin-rules-no.1
11-20-2009, 08:45 PM
Pick up a book, Burrow. Educate yourself a little. I'll even give you some guidance. Do some reading on the Scottish Enlightenment.

Heroin or extra strength cider?

Clydey
11-20-2009, 08:45 PM
I always thought slice-proof as a nickname originates from that double bagel beatdown he received at AO. Does that qualify or it needs to be tight ;)

Fed gave him a beatdown, but it had very little to do with the slice. The first thing to note is that Del Potro had almost given up by the second set. Secondly, Federer was hitting over most of his backhand. Murray was slicing something like 7/10 backhands.

Vida
11-20-2009, 08:45 PM
ho ho ho, who's wearing the kilt now?:eek:

Clydey
11-20-2009, 08:48 PM
Heroine or extra strength cider?

Shouldn't you be somewhere getting your hemorrhoids and anal warts treated?

safin-rules-no.1
11-20-2009, 08:49 PM
Shouldn't you be somewhere getting your hemorrhoids and anal warts treated?

already treated :D Go back to shooting up and stop posting pro Murray shite on here

Dini
11-20-2009, 08:51 PM
In your opinion. I can put together some clips of the Murray slice, too.

If you go to around 2 minutes into the clip, you'll see that it is the slice that literally wins Murray the match vs. Del Potro. He finishes it with 2 BH slices (the second of which Del Potro nearly falls over trying to retrieve) and a forehand slice approach. Shame the quality of the clip is so poor.

Y6EMVKFaKHI

The clip I posted (the first one) is analysis by Jason Godall, showing some of the variation and disguise Federer possesses with the backhand slice. The second clip is showing how awkward Federer's slice can be for opponents. He surprises people with it and it puts them off their rhythm.

Del Potro is known to have trouble dealing with backhand slices (much better these days though). I don't think that match is any evidence for his slice being better than Fed's. My videos weren't evidence either but I thought they showcased Fed's backhand slice repertoire pretty well.

Clydey
11-20-2009, 08:52 PM
already treated :D Go back to shooting up and stop posting pro Murray shite on here

Now all you have to worry about is that anal fissure. No doubt you're posting while standing up or while sitting on a mountain of feathers.

Just wipe your ass in future. That's all I'm saying. :shrug:

Clydey
11-20-2009, 08:54 PM
The clip I showed (the first one) is analysis by Jason Godall, showing some of the variation and disguise Federer possesses with the backhand slice. The second clip is showing how awkward Federer's slice can be for opponents. He surprises people with it and it putts them off their rhythm.

Del Potro is known to have trouble dealing with backhand slices (much better these days though). I don't think that match is any evidence for his slice being better than Fed's. My videos weren't evidence either but I thought they showcased Fed's backhand slice repertoire pretty well.

I'm not arguing that Federer has a poor slice. I'm not even arguing that Murray's slice is better. Like I said, my bias might very well tip me in that direction. What I am arguing about is the notion that it's not even debatable. Of course it's debatable. They both possess a tremendous slice.

safin-rules-no.1
11-20-2009, 08:56 PM
Now all you have to worry about is that anal fissure. No doubt you're posting while standing up or while sitting on a mountain of feathers.

Just wipe your ass in future. That's all I'm saying. :shrug:

Nope i'm sitting in a nice comfy chair :D And i do wipe my ass :D I hope you stocked up on your White Lightening, the offlicience will close soon, we can't have you sober whilst the rest of Scotland goes and gets twated

oranges
11-20-2009, 08:57 PM
Fed gave him a beatdown, but it had very little to do with the slice. The first thing to note is that Del Potro had almost given up by the second set. Secondly, Federer was hitting over most of his backhand. Murray was slicing something like 7/10 backhands.

What are you talking about? He doesn't have to use it 70 percent of the time to make it instrumental to the strategy. It had everything to do with it. Perhaps the author (leng jai?) can confirm that's when the nickname was born.

Clydey
11-20-2009, 08:58 PM
Nope i'm sitting in a nice comfy chair :D And i do wipe my ass :D I hope you stocked up on your White Lightening, the offlicience will close soon, we can't have you sober whilst the rest of Scotland goes and gets twated

Shouldn't you be at a football game causing a riot?

See, I can use stereotypes too.

safin-rules-no.1
11-20-2009, 08:59 PM
Shouldn't you be at a football game causing a riot?

See, I can use stereotypes too.

except i don't like football. FAIL.

Clydey
11-20-2009, 09:01 PM
What are you talking about? He doesn't have to use it 70 percent of the time to make it instrumental to the strategy. It had everything to do with it. Perhaps the author (leng jai?) can confirm that's when the nickname was born.

My point was that I have never seen Federer beat someone almost single-handedly with the slice, not that he has never successful employed it as part of a strategy.

However, I saw the AO match and Federer's slice was hardly the main reason for his victory. If anything, his win over Pony in Madrid 08 was more about the slice.

Dini
11-20-2009, 09:04 PM
I'll give Murray the edge on the backhand, ROS, defence but I seriously have a hard time agreeing with his volleys or BH slices being even or superior to Federer's. I haven't watched every Murray match this year, but I believe Fed's technique and the timing of volleys (knowing when to move forward) is a notch above. As for the slice, I think Fed's got the better disguise on the shot and can do more with it (chip backhand return stays low, droppers that die on the bounce, deep and low slices in rallies, short ones bringing opponent forward causing discomfort and of course the slice lob that frustrates so many players).

None of these are not "not debatable" though, I agree.

Clydey
11-20-2009, 09:04 PM
except i don't like football. FAIL.

Way to miss the point. :lol:

I don't like cider or heroin, but that didn't stop you throwing a stereotype at me. :shrug:

safin-rules-no.1
11-20-2009, 09:04 PM
Way to miss the point. :lol:

I don't like cider or heroin, but that didn't stop you throwing a stereotype at me. :shrug:

Its all true :kiss:

Clydey
11-20-2009, 09:07 PM
I'll give Murray the edge on the backhand, ROS, defence but I seriously have a hard time agreeing with his volleys or BH slices being even or superior to Federer's. I haven't watched every Murray match this year, but I believe Fed's technique and the timing of volleys (knowing when to move forward) is a notch above. As for the slice, I think Fed's got the better disguise on the shot and can do more with it (chip backhand return stays low, droppers that die on the bounce, deep and low slices in rallies, short ones bringing opponent forward making opponent uncomfortable and of course the slice lob that frustrates so many players).

None of these are not "not debatable" though, I agree.

That's all I'm saying. It's debatable.

What I would point towards is the fact that Federer will try to get onto his forehand under any circumstances. He will take a forehand over a BH slice every single time. Murray, on the other hand, will go through an entire rally just slicing, rather than hitting over his stronger wing. That doesn't necessarily prove that Murray has a better slice, but I think it demonstrates who puts more emphasis on it.

oranges
11-20-2009, 09:32 PM
My point was that I have never seen Federer beat someone almost single-handedly with the slice, not that he has never successful employed it as part of a strategy.

However, I saw the AO match and Federer's slice was hardly the main reason for his victory. If anything, his win over Pony in Madrid 08 was more about the slice.

Murray always plays a large part of his rally BHs as slices, it doesn't in itself win him matches against guys who are not almost 2 meters tall. Federer never uses it as much ,it doesn't make it any less effective. So once again, what are we talking about here? It's a better slice, with more bite to it.

Clydey
11-20-2009, 09:38 PM
Murray always plays a large part of his rally BHs as slices, it doesn't in itself win him matches against guys who are not almost 2 meters tall. Federer never uses it as much ,it doesn't make it any less effective. So once again, what are we talking about here? It's a better slice, with more bite to it.

And I think the Murray slice is better. I'm not even going to argue over whether Federer's slice is better, since I think it's pretty tight. What I will argue over is the idea that it's not even debatable.

bokehlicious
11-20-2009, 09:38 PM
I'll take Scottish scenery and Scottish history any day of the week.


Maybe you should pick up a book and read up on your country's history? Just a thought.

Pick up a book, Burrow. Educate yourself a little. I'll even give you some guidance. Do some reading on the Scottish Enlightenment.

This Clydey's so proud of Scottish history :lol: almost touching :awww: :hug:

leng jai
11-20-2009, 09:40 PM
That's all I'm saying. It's debatable.

What I would point towards is the fact that Federer will try to get onto his forehand under any circumstances. He will take a forehand over a BH slice every single time. Murray, on the other hand, will go through an entire rally just slicing, rather than hitting over his stronger wing. That doesn't necessarily prove that Murray has a better slice, but I think it demonstrates who puts more emphasis on it.

You say you don't think that using the slice more makes it better and yet you keep mentioning that Murray uses it all the time. The only reason he uses it so much is because hes a defensive player and prefers to junkball half the time. I'd imagine that the ratio of useless floaty slices compared to attacking slices hit with intent would be very lopsided. I've said a billion times before that Fedclown should slice more often.

Clydey
11-20-2009, 09:49 PM
You say you don't think that using the slice more makes it better and yet you keep mentioning that Murray uses it all the time. The only reason he uses it so much is because hes a defensive player and prefers to junkball half the time. I'd imagine that the ratio of useless floaty slices compared to attacking slices hit with intent would be very lopsided. I've said a billion times before that Fedclown should slice more often.

I said that it demonstrates who puts more emphasis on the slice, not who hits it better. And it would be pointless for Murray to slice so frequently if the vast majority were "useless floaty slices". He's not like Nadal, whose slice is used almost exclusively from a defensive position.

The only time I would say that Murray's slice has had no real purpose is over the last few months. I think he has been using it to the point that his opponents are finding a good rhythm on it. Whether that has something to do with his wrist, I don't know. He is certainly using it too often now.

rocketassist
11-20-2009, 09:53 PM
Federer's slice is the better slice.

safin-rules-no.1
11-20-2009, 09:56 PM
This Clydey's so proud of Scottish history :lol: almost touching :awww: :hug:

Or, more accurately, vomit inducing

Clydey
11-20-2009, 09:56 PM
Federer's slice is the better slice.

End of discussion? Glad we've sorted that out. Those pesky opinions were starting to get in the way.

rocketassist
11-20-2009, 09:57 PM
End of discussion? Glad we've sorted that out. Those pesky opinions were starting to get in the way.

Just my opinion really... Murray's is more defensive and Federer comes in off his slice quite a bit.

Clydey
11-20-2009, 09:57 PM
This Clydey's so proud of Scottish history :lol: almost touching :awww: :hug:

That's because there's plenty to be proud of.

bokehlicious
11-20-2009, 10:01 PM
End of discussion? Glad we've sorted that out.

150 posts on this thread and you're alone vs the rest to defend Muzza's slice... I see no discussion here, some mere trolling from you at most...

That's because there's plenty to be proud of.

I can get it how it makes you feel stronger...

Clydey
11-20-2009, 10:01 PM
Just my opinion really... Murray's is more defensive and Federer comes in off his slice quite a bit.

Like I said, I have no real problem with people thinking Federer has a better slice. However, I do find it ridiculous that people think that it's not even debatable.

Also, I'm not sure how you can call Murray's slice more defensive, given that he often uses it when he's in a neutral position or even when he's in charge of a point. His slice generally has plenty of purpose, although not so much recently.

Clydey
11-20-2009, 10:05 PM
150 posts on this thread and you're alone vs the rest to defend Muzza's slice... I see no discussion here, some mere trolling from you at most...

The slice debate has involved around 4 or 5 people. It's hardly the entire forum.

I can get it how it makes you feel stronger...

I'm sorry, but I've lost you. What makes me feel stronger?

bokehlicious
11-20-2009, 10:09 PM
I'm sorry, but I've lost you. What makes me feel stronger?

By repeating three times your love and pride of Scottish history it was as if you were somehow thinking it was helping your arguments... :o

fast_clay
11-20-2009, 10:10 PM
Murray has a better trash talking game than Federer... but I would criticise murray of employing the defensive comeback too much and needs to be much more offensive with sledging leading into big matches...

Burrow
11-20-2009, 10:12 PM
Pick up a book, Burrow. Educate yourself a little. I'll even give you some guidance. Do some reading on the Scottish Enlightenment.

Why? What is that going to achieve and how will that help me in life?

You're ginger. You're one of the reasons why this country is a shambles, you probably have squint, yellow teeth, too.

DrJules
11-20-2009, 10:13 PM
This Clydey's so proud of Scottish history :lol: almost touching :awww: :hug:

That's because there's plenty to be proud of.

Totally agree.

All those years of losing at so many sports to England.:devil:

safin-rules-no.1
11-20-2009, 10:13 PM
Why? What is that going to achieve and how will that help me in life?

You're ginger. You're one of the reasons why this country is a shambles, you probably have squint, yellow teeth, too.

omg :haha: :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Clydey
11-20-2009, 10:13 PM
By repeating three times your love and pride of Scottish history it was as if you were somehow thinking it was helping your arguments... :o

It had nothing to do with the slice debate. Are you feeling alright? Those posts were in reply to Burrow and safin-rules-no1. They literally had nothing to do with the Federer-Murray discussion, nevermind "helping my argument". As a general rule, I don't point towards the Scottish Enlightenment as proof that a player has a superior backhand slice.

safin-rules-no.1
11-20-2009, 10:13 PM
Totally agree.

All those years of losing at so many sports to England.:devil:

it gets better :lol:

Burrow
11-20-2009, 10:14 PM
Who Posted?
Total Posts: 157
User Name Posts
Clydey 27
FlavorNuts 11
safin-rules-no.1 8

Clydey
11-20-2009, 10:18 PM
Why? What is that going to achieve and how will that help me in life?

You're ginger. You're one of the reasons why this country is a shambles, you probably have squint, yellow teeth, too.

What is an education going to help you achieve? It'll probably keep you away from the Job Centre every week.

You have safin-rules-no1 as your cheerleader now. I hope you feel suitably embarrassed. :lol:

Clydey
11-20-2009, 10:20 PM
Totally agree.

All those years of losing at so many sports to England.:devil:

I'll take Scotland's intellectual, engineering, and scientific achievements over the 1966 World Cup.

Burrow
11-20-2009, 10:21 PM
What is an education going to help you achieve? It'll probably keep you away from the Job Centre every week.

You have safin-rules-no1 as your cheerleader now. I hope you feel suitably embarrassed. :lol:

No. I like the way you've changed that from informing myself about Scottish history to general education.

I probably have a better education than you, I'm sure I asked you where the tinned tomatoes where in Tesco Metro the other week.

safin-rules-no.1
11-20-2009, 10:22 PM
What is an education going to help you achieve? It'll probably keep you away from the Job Centre every week.

You have safin-rules-no1 as your cheerleader now. I hope you feel suitably embarrassed. :lol:

:hearts: he's a lucky bitch :D

Burrow
11-20-2009, 10:23 PM
I'll take Scotland's intellectual, engineering, and scientific achievements over the 1966 World Cup.

The only decent thing Scotland has is Billy Connolly, to be honest, the rest of the population is either Alcoholics and/or neds, Druggies or the worst of them all, gingers. :shrug:

Clydey
11-20-2009, 10:25 PM
No. I like the way you've changed that from informing myself about Scottish history to general education.


Ok, so what is a knowledge of Scottish history going to help you achieve? Perhaps it will remove that massive chip from your shoulder. You'll loathe yourself a little less, too.

You don't have a clue about your own country, yet you claim to despise it. How can you have such strong views on something you clearly know nothing about?

Clydey
11-20-2009, 10:28 PM
The only decent thing Scotland has is Billy Connolly, to be honest, the rest of the population is either Alcoholics and/or neds, Druggies or the worst of them all, gingers. :shrug:

Keep saying "gingers". It's going to get on my nerves any minute now. 10th time is usually the charm. :lol:

You know nothing about Scotland. Once you educate yourself you can talk about what Scotland has going for it.

Burrow
11-20-2009, 10:30 PM
Ok, so what is a knowledge of Scottish history going to help you achieve? Perhaps it will remove that massive chip from your shoulder. You'll loathe yourself a little less, too.

You don't have a clue about your own country, yet you claim to despise it. How can you have such strong views on something you clearly know nothing about?

I live in the capital, I know that this country is shit. I'm half Turkish and I'd rather be over there, any day of the week. I prefer the people, the weather, the sights.

This country is terrible. Shit weather, a terrible culture, terrible food, gingers.

Hell, even England is 10x better than this place for obvious reasons.

Burrow
11-20-2009, 10:30 PM
Keep saying "gingers". It's going to get on my nerves any minute now. 10th time is usually the charm. :lol:

You know nothing about Scotland. Once you educate yourself you can talk about what Scotland has going for it.

Why don't you tell me what Scotland has going for it, please do.

I bet you won't come up with a reply because this place is a disgrace.

Clydey
11-20-2009, 10:39 PM
I live in the capital, I know that this country is shit. I'm half Turkish and I'd rather be over there, any day of the week. I prefer the people, the weather, the sights.

This country is terrible. Shit weather, a terrible culture, terrible food, gingers.

Hell, even England is 10x better than this place for obvious reasons.

You know nothing about this country. Put up a Turkish flag if you hate Scotland so much. Hell, move there.

You don't have a clue, bud. You are in desperate need of an education. Like I said, read up on the Scottish Enlightenment. That period of intellectual progress eclipses just about anything Turkey has contributed to the world.

Clydey
11-20-2009, 10:42 PM
Why don't you tell me what Scotland has going for it, please do.

I bet you won't come up with a reply because this place is a disgrace.

Unlike you, I actually appreciate the culture and so do many others. Most of all, I appreciate the history and our contributions to the world.

Scotland was one of the main inspirations for the Enlightenment and one of the driving forces behind modernity.

safin-rules-no.1
11-20-2009, 10:46 PM
Note to Clydey: Get a life

Clydey
11-20-2009, 10:48 PM
Note to Clydey: Get a life

Note to safin-rules-no1: Wipe your ass in future and it'll help you avoid getting anal fissures.

safin-rules-no.1
11-20-2009, 10:49 PM
Note to Clydey: Refer to post 171

Vida
11-20-2009, 11:02 PM
Murray has a better trash talking game than Federer... but I would criticise murray of employing the defensive comeback too much and needs to be much more offensive with sledging leading into big matches...

he is certainly more talented in that department... perhaps not as polished but the core is there... kinda like a diamond in the rough... there are ground rules, x's and o's for how to do it, and he hasnt learned a lesson... you can say 'federer is the greatest of all time' only so many times.. so absolutely, the spit needs more green in it.

GhostUnholy
11-20-2009, 11:25 PM
Which parts am I wrong about?

I specified that Murray defends better and moves better on hard only. How is that irrational? Everything besides backhand and return is debatable (from my list), since those certainly go to Murray. Perhaps my bias tips me towards Murray on those, but how can you honestly suggest that it's irrational to even think that Murray volley's better, moves better on hard, and has a better slice?

You might disagree, but I'm not making any outlandish statements. If I had said that Murray has a better forehand, I could see your point.

It's your extreme bias that I'm talking about, I called you a fanboy because in 5/7 categories you named, the issue is very debatable, and yet you handed them ALL to Murray, which I find pretty laughable. I can understand more where you're coming from if you're comparing Murray's peak form to Federer's current weak form, but I think most people are comparing prime levels. Otherwise what would be the point of comparing, it'd be like people comparing peak Federer to 2001 Sampras to show that he's better.

I think return of serve and consistency/reliability of the backhand are two areas that can be given to Murray, based on return numbers and Fed's obvious weakness on the backhand side on these days. The difference in those categories is not large at all though, as Federer has consistently taken apart big servers over the course of his career, and has produced magical shots with his backhand despite the times when it breaks down. For Murray it's more a consistent weapon.

Passing shots, I don't really see how you can say Murray is better. I wouldn't necessarily argue that Federer is better, both of them on their best days produce incredible passing shots. I think in past year, Murray has probably been able to pass players at the net more consistently and in more impressive fashion due to the fact that he's at his fastest while Federer is slower (and movement is such a big part of striking tight angled passing shots). But is he better at hitting passing shots than 2004-2006 Federer? I doubt it. And that's relevant since Murray is in his physical prime right now.

Movement, as you mentioned Federer is clearly better on natural surfaces. Now, Murray is extremely quick and has very impressive movement, but Federer's footwork is textbook, and when combined with his former speed was truly a work of art to behold. I would have to watch a lot of tapes of both to make a confirm my decision, by Murray's footwork is not as efficient and explosive as Federer's was. He was able to get himself into a perfect position to attack without seeming like he was expending much energy, while you see Murray using his great footspeed to scramble around the baseline. While this takes endurance and speed, Federer has shown at times his ability to execute this kind of footwork and gameplan at a high level, while also being much more comfortable moving forward, being explosive, moving fast while sticking to the baseline and attacking, etc.

Defense on hardcourts, can very possibly can go to Murray, he is definitely incredibly fast and gets a ridiculous number of balls back. I don't think that the fact he stays in rallies longer when on the defensive is a true indicator that his defense is better than Federer's (in terms of movement, strategy, ability to grind out a point, stamina, etc) , I think that speaks more to the difference in backhands. On every other surface, obviously it goes the other way.

Vida
11-20-2009, 11:26 PM
speak of the devil...

Murray: 'I can beat Federer twice in a week'
Andy Murray's confidence is sky high after his best ever season – and he insists he's not daunted by fierce competition in the week ahead at the O2 Arena.
.
.
.
Murray said he would adopt the same approach if a similar situation arose next week. "A lot of people said I focused too much on results and winning all the time, but obviously winning against Federer in one of the year's biggest competitions is one of the best wins of the year for me," he said.

"Unfortunately it didn't go well for me the next day, but I've won six and lost three against Federer and I can take that with me for my career. It's not always just about winning tournaments. It's sometimes nice to beat the big players in epic matches. Unfortunately that takes a little bit out of you sometimes."

How did Murray feel about the fact that in order to win the title he might have to beat Federer twice, having been drawn in a group with the world No 1, Juan Martin del Potro and Fernando Verdasco?

"I've won against him before so I obviously think I can do it again," Murray said. "It's a great challenge every time you play against him."
.
.
.


http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/murray-i-can-beat-federer-twice-in--a-week-1824831.html

well, at least it sounds cool. you'd think he eats, drinks and sleeps federer.

GhostUnholy
11-20-2009, 11:31 PM
What interests me is that despite Murray's hard work on his fitness, he seems to have problems with fatigue. Not so much in terms of an inability to play a long physical match, but more in terms of recovering for subsequent matches. After so much training, I wonder if that's just something he won't be able to overcome, as in genetically he doesn't recover as fast as some indivduals like Nadal for example, who has show an amazing ability to play long, hard back to back matches (in terms of stamina, injuries are another story). You see this talked about most in bodybuilding and powerlifting I think; i.e. how training needs to be tweaked in response to someone's natural capacity to recover. I wonder if this will be a long term weakness for him.

Clydey
11-21-2009, 12:13 AM
It's your extreme bias that I'm talking about, I called you a fanboy because in 5/7 categories you named, the issue is very debatable, and yet you handed them ALL to Murray, which I find pretty laughable. I can understand more where you're coming from if you're comparing Murray's peak form to Federer's current weak form, but I think most people are comparing prime levels. Otherwise what would be the point of comparing, it'd be like people comparing peak Federer to 2001 Sampras to show that he's better.

I think return of serve and consistency/reliability of the backhand are two areas that can be given to Murray, based on return numbers and Fed's obvious weakness on the backhand side on these days. The difference in those categories is not large at all though, as Federer has consistently taken apart big servers over the course of his career, and has produced magical shots with his backhand despite the times when it breaks down. For Murray it's more a consistent weapon.

Passing shots, I don't really see how you can say Murray is better. I wouldn't necessarily argue that Federer is better, both of them on their best days produce incredible passing shots. I think in past year, Murray has probably been able to pass players at the net more consistently and in more impressive fashion due to the fact that he's at his fastest while Federer is slower (and movement is such a big part of striking tight angled passing shots). But is he better at hitting passing shots than 2004-2006 Federer? I doubt it. And that's relevant since Murray is in his physical prime right now.

Movement, as you mentioned Federer is clearly better on natural surfaces. Now, Murray is extremely quick and has very impressive movement, but Federer's footwork is textbook, and when combined with his former speed was truly a work of art to behold. I would have to watch a lot of tapes of both to make a confirm my decision, by Murray's footwork is not as efficient and explosive as Federer's was. He was able to get himself into a perfect position to attack without seeming like he was expending much energy, while you see Murray using his great footspeed to scramble around the baseline. While this takes endurance and speed, Federer has shown at times his ability to execute this kind of footwork and gameplan at a high level, while also being much more comfortable moving forward, being explosive, moving fast while sticking to the baseline and attacking, etc.

Defense on hardcourts, can very possibly can go to Murray, he is definitely incredibly fast and gets a ridiculous number of balls back. I don't think that the fact he stays in rallies longer when on the defensive is a true indicator that his defense is better than Federer's (in terms of movement, strategy, ability to grind out a point, stamina, etc) , I think that speaks more to the difference in backhands. On every other surface, obviously it goes the other way.

What extreme bias? If my bias is so extreme, I wouldn't so readily acknowledge that it is perhaps my bias that makes me lean towards Murray in some of the categories mentioned. People who are hopelessly biased generally aren't aware of it.

I have stated that the other categories are debatable and that I would not take any real issue with someone giving them to Federer. However, it's not just Murray fans who give him the edge in some of those categories. It's perfectly reasonable to be impartial and think that Murray moves and defends better than Federer on a hardcourt. It seems like any time I favour Murray, I'm being biased. People seemingly forget the frequency with which I favour others over Murray in other discussions.

It's just lazy for people to keep pointing to the fact that I'm a Murray fan whenever I say something positive about him, yet ignore my allegiance when I suggest that, for example, Murray was not a legitimate number 2 when he overtook Nadal.

I could make a case for Murray having a better first serve than Federer, but the fact is that I think Federer's first serve is better because it's more accurate and more consistent, if a little less powerful. This thread is about the ways in which Murray is better than Federer. That's why my list was framed as such. I could just as easily have made a list of the ways in which Federer is superior to Murray, and it would probably have been a longer list. That's not what the thread is about, though.

It wouldn't hurt to give me the benefit of the doubt, despite the temptation to put everything down to the fact that I'm a fan of Murray.

GhostUnholy
11-21-2009, 12:37 AM
What extreme bias? If my bias is so extreme, I wouldn't so readily acknowledge that it is perhaps my bias that makes me lean towards Murray in some of the categories mentioned. People who are hopelessly biased generally aren't aware of it.

...

It wouldn't hurt to give me the benefit of the doubt, despite the temptation to put everything down to the fact that I'm a fan of Murray.


As to the first, remember that the post I responded to, was simply a list of categories. You at this point hadn't acknowledged any bias, and so it seemed hilarious that you gave all those categories to Murray when many of them were very questionable decisions and probably needed some qualification to seem reasonable, and I know you're not shy of making long posts.

As to the other stuff in your post, I don't know you well and can't really comment. I remember you from the homosexuality and evolution thread last off season (hence my comment about you being rational), and otherwise I've randomly seen you arguing about Murray with other people when I feel like dropping by the forums. I called you a fanboy because that's really how your list came off.

Clydey
11-21-2009, 12:47 AM
As to the first, remember that the post I responded to, was simply a list of categories. You at this point hadn't acknowledged any bias, and so it seemed hilarious that you gave all those categories to Murray when many of them were very questionable decisions and probably needed some qualification to seem reasonable, and I know you're not shy of making long posts.

As to the other stuff in your post, I don't know you well and can't really comment. I remember you from the homosexuality and evolution thread last off season (hence my comment about you being rational), and otherwise I've randomly seen you arguing about Murray with other people when I feel like dropping by. I called you a fanboy because that's really how your list came off.

Would I also come off as a fanboy if I created an even longer list of the ways in which Federer is superior to Murray?

I'm always rational. I don't have to like something to concede that it's true. I can't state with any certainty that my bias hasn't coloured my views in this case, but those are my opinions as honestly as I can express them. I do believe Murray is superior in those areas. Like I said, though, I wouldn't go out of my way to argue with someone who sees it differently, as I think each point is debatable. Being rational is much more important to me than blindly praising Andy Murray, since rationality is the closest thing I have to a religion. :lol:

GhostUnholy
11-21-2009, 01:43 AM
Would I also come off as a fanboy if I created an even longer list of the ways in which Federer is superior to Murray?

I'm always rational. I don't have to like something to concede that it's true. I can't state with any certainty that my bias hasn't coloured my views in this case, but those are my opinions as honestly as I can express them. I do believe Murray is superior in those areas. Like I said, though, I wouldn't go out of my way to argue with someone who sees it differently, as I think each point is debatable. Being rational is much more important to me than blindly praising Andy Murray, since rationality is the closest thing I have to a religion. :lol:

Thing is, like 10 pages and 50 posts later, yeah your reasoning has all been laid out. I don't think it's really hard to see why I, and a few other posters, thought your first post was funny.

kengyin
11-21-2009, 01:44 AM
my answer to the thread question: in no ways is murray better than federer

NicolasKiefer44
11-21-2009, 02:23 AM
None. Murray is 15 slams from being better than Rog. Rog is the ultimate male.

ForehandWinner
11-21-2009, 02:53 AM
You mean..how happy?

gusavo
11-21-2009, 03:57 AM
:spit: It wasn't unbalanced even when the fast surfaces were actually fast, let alone today. Aside from the fact that there's always clay to tip the scales to defense, aggressive game means risk, which in itself creates balance.
how do you know it wasnt? you sit here guessing through what you have been observing, you dont have anything real.

Just my opinion really... Murray's is more defensive and Federer comes in off his slice quite a bit.
where does that in any way have relevance to whos slice is better

150 posts on this thread and you're alone vs the rest to defend Muzza's slice... I see no discussion here, some mere trolling from you at most...

thats no surprise, people here are some of the most biased monkeys ive seen anywhere. It would be possible to get a fairly certain result on who has got the better slice with just watching a couple matches of the two players and each time they hit a backhand slicelike shot you give it a rating and then averaging them, wouldnt take too long to get a decent enough sample size.

I can understand more where you're coming from if you're comparing Murray's peak form to Federer's current weak form whats murrays peak form?

but I think most people are comparing prime levels.
exaclty, because they are biased.

The difference in those categories is not large at all though, as Federer has consistently taken apart big servers over the course of his career, and has produced magical shots with his backhand despite the times when it breaks down.
thats the reasons that you think you know they arent big differences? Horrible analysis

And that's relevant since Murray is in his physical prime right now.
stamina peak for maraton running is around 28, physical peak is at 22?

GhostUnholy
11-21-2009, 04:22 AM
28 is obviously not prime tennis age, most players have their best results before then, with some notable exceptions.
And Murray's physical peak is not because of his age, its because hes trained to be stronger and faster than ever before. As to your question about Murray's peak form, I mean late 08-early 09 where he produced the best results we've seen from him TO DATE. Obviously I have no idea how his game and conditioning will develop from here. Both of those things are irrelevant to what Clydey and I were discussing though. As far as I can tell we were arguing over whether or not his first post was fanboyish :P

As for my "analysis" I was trying to address a lot of points quickly without wasting too much of my life posting on MTF, don't expect any full in depth descriptions. I already don't write very concisely, to be detailed would take too long and this thread is not really for analyzing the differences.

oranges
11-21-2009, 10:25 AM
how do you know it wasnt? you sit here guessing through what you have been observing, you dont have anything real.

Haven't I explained it already or it doesn't exist because you chose to ignore that part of the post? Good work having something "real". :worship: Also, it makes perfect sense in general to argue that any sport is imbalanced because offense CAN be superior to defense. Someone needs to do something finally about supreme shooters in basketball, make them wear weights so that defense has a better chance I say.

GhostUnholy
11-21-2009, 02:54 PM
Someone needs to do something finally about supreme shooters in basketball, make them wear weights so that defense has a better chance I say.

:lol:
good call :P

habibko
11-21-2009, 04:17 PM
I'm not arguing that Federer has a poor slice. I'm not even arguing that Murray's slice is better. Like I said, my bias might very well tip me in that direction. What I am arguing about is the notion that it's not even debatable. Of course it's debatable. They both possess a tremendous slice.

it's not debatable at all, Federer has by far the better slice and volleys by all means and standards, be it technique, execution, timing, underspin, bite, control and whatever else, you are the first and only one I ever heard who argues that Murray has a better slice or volleys.

some people still believe that Earth is flat and is only 6000 years old, does that make it debatable?

That's all I'm saying. It's debatable.

What I would point towards is the fact that Federer will try to get onto his forehand under any circumstances. He will take a forehand over a BH slice every single time. Murray, on the other hand, will go through an entire rally just slicing, rather than hitting over his stronger wing. That doesn't necessarily prove that Murray has a better slice, but I think it demonstrates who puts more emphasis on it.

your only argument for Murray possessing better slice is that he uses is more often? :spit:

have you never listened to countless analyses of both their slice techniques and how Fed is superior in every way?

and what's your argument for Murray having a better volley? :help:

Matt01
11-21-2009, 04:40 PM
Things I have learned from reading this thread:

1. Murrays's slice is better than Federer's slice :lol:

2. Murray beats Federer twice a week :D

3. Wiping your ass prevents you from getting anal fissures :tape:

Clydey
11-21-2009, 05:42 PM
it's not debatable at all, Federer has by far the better slice and volleys by all means and standards, be it technique, execution, timing, underspin, bite, control and whatever else, you are the first and only one I ever heard who argues that Murray has a better slice or volleys.

some people still believe that Earth is flat and is only 6000 years old, does that make it debatable?



your only argument for Murray possessing better slice is that he uses is more often? :spit:

have you never listened to countless analyses of both their slice techniques and how Fed is superior in every way?

and what's your argument for Murray having a better volley? :help:

My argument? It's no less convincing than any other argument that is entirely based on subjectivity.

Despite what you seem to think, there's no empirical evidence to suggest that either player has the better slice. What exactly is your argument? You don't have one. You have an opinion.

When are you going to learn to read? I stated several times that the frequency with which Murray uses the slice has no bearing on whether or not his slice is superior.

And by all means point me towards these "countless analyses". I look forward to reading them, since they are apparently so compelling that you think they amounnt to definitive evidence.

Bernard Black
11-21-2009, 05:54 PM
Despite what you seem to think, there's no empirical evidence to suggest that either player has the better slice.


Clydey, sometimes you don't need evidence to come to a conclusion if you simply have the use of your eyes.

Federer has the best slice in the game at the moment, he hits it as smoothly as you could wish and it's just a damn sexy shot. As many people have mentioned, Federer can do anything with it, whereas Murray is more limited with the shot. Infini's video demonstrated really well the options Federer has with the shot, and I can't remember a time he's had a bad day with the slice or where his opponent has taken it apart. Murray has a great slice too, but it's just not in the same league. You'll slate me no doubt for not having statistical evidence to back up my reasoning, but you'd have to be a sad individual to keep an Excel sheet on successful / failed slices players have hit - such excessive measures aren't necessary when you can see what's right in front of you.

Clydey
11-21-2009, 06:05 PM
Clydey, sometimes you don't need evidence to come to a conclusion if you simply have the use of your eyes.

Federer has the best slice in the game at the moment, he hits it as smoothly as you could wish and it's just a damn sexy shot. As many people have mentioned, Federer can do anything with it, whereas Murray is more limited with the shot. Infini's video demonstrated really well the options Federer has with the shot, and I can't remember a time he's had a bad day with the slice or where his opponent has taken it apart. Murray has a great slice too, but it's just not in the same league. You'll slate me no doubt for not having statistical evidence to back up my reasoning, but you'd have to be a sad individual to keep an Excel sheet on successful / failed slices players have hit - such excessive measures aren't necessary when you can see what's right in front of you.

I know that you don't need evidence in this type of discussion. That was the whole point of my post. Habib was suggesting that his view is based on some sort of concrete evidence. That's why I said, "Despite what you seem to think, there's no empirical evidence to suggest that either player has the better slice".

And no, I won't slate you for not having statistical evidence. Seriously, how clear do I need to make myself? Habib is the one pretending that he has a compelling case to backup his opinion. This kind of thing could not be more subjective.

I simply don't agree with your assessment. What can Federer do with the slice that Murray cannot, out of curiosity?

habibko
11-21-2009, 06:11 PM
I know that you don't need evidence in this type of discussion. That was the whole point of my post. Habib was suggesting that his view is based on some sort of concrete evidence. That's why I said, "Despite what you seem to think, there's no empirical evidence to suggest that either player has the better slice".

And no, I won't slate you for not having statistical evidence. Seriously, how clear do I need to make myself? Habib is the one pretending that he has a compelling case to backup his opinion. This kind of thing could not be more subjective.

I simply don't agree with your assessment. What can Federer do with the slice that Murray cannot, out of curiosity?

what kind of evidence can you bring when it comes to technique and execution? yes it may be subjective but is it debatable to say Federer has a better forehand than Murray? or Murray has a better slice than Djokovic? it's the same situation here.

in such subjective matters, we listen to the opinion of many experts and analysts, and they all hailed Federer's slice as the best of his generation for a long time now, and no one dared to boldly say Murray has a better slice except you, because he doesn't.

and it's even more pathetic to suggest he has better volleys.... REALLY? he volleys better than a former highly successful S&Ver? :spit:

Clydey
11-21-2009, 06:18 PM
what kind of evidence can you bring when it comes to technique and execution? yes it may be subjective but is it subjective to say Federer has a better forehand than Murray? or Murray has a better slice than Djokovic? it's the same situation here.

in such subjective matters, we listen to the opinion of many experts and analysts, and they all hailed Federer's slice as the best of his generation for a long time now, and no one dared to boldly say Murray has a better slice except you, because he doesn't.

and it's even more pathetic to suggest he has better volleys.... REALLY? he volleys better than a former highly successful S&Ver? :spit:

What experts? I don't recall ever having seen an expert say that Federer has a better slice than Murray. You are essentially just making things up now. Who has hailed Federer's slice as the best of his generation? If you are going to make these claims, link me to some articles or videos of experts expressing this view.

And there's a difference between being a good volleyer and a good net player. Murray has excellent volleys, but his net positioning is horrendous. Federer, on the other hand, is a much better net player because he is so much more difficult to pass.

habibko
11-21-2009, 06:26 PM
What experts? I don't recall ever having seen an expert say that Federer has a better slice than Murray. You are essentially just making things up now. Who has hailed Federer's slice as the best of his generation? If you are going to make these claims, link me to some articles or videos of experts expressing this view.

And there's a difference between being a good volleyer and a good net player. Murray has excellent volleys, but his net positioning is horrendous. Federer, on the other hand, is a much better net player because he is so much more difficult to pass.

so many commentators have said that many times during matches, I don't have links for you right now, but this is a popular observation and not me making it up.

so the question is, on which basis do you say Murray volleys better or slices better?

oh and to quote you on one of your favorite phrases, here, educate yourself:

http://virtualtenniscoach.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/roger-federer-slice-backhand-analysis-from-peter-smith-wwwvirtualtenniscoachcom/

Clydey
11-21-2009, 06:33 PM
so many commentators have said that many times during matches, I don't have links for you right now, but this is a popular observation and not me making it up.

so the question is, on which basis do you say Murray volleys better or slices better?

oh and to quote you on one of your favorite phrases, here, educate yourself:

http://virtualtenniscoach.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/roger-federer-slice-backhand-analysis-from-peter-smith-wwwvirtualtenniscoachcom/

Oh, you don't have links for me right now? There's a surprise. If you're going to make such claims, try and back them up. I have never heard anyone say that Federer has the best slice of his generation, nor have I heard any expert say that he has a better slice than Murray.

You linked me to an analysis of the Federer slice. So what? I know he has an excellent slice. I'm not sure what that is supposed to prove.

My opinion is based on my own observations, just as your opinion is based on your observations. Despite your best efforts to pretend that the experts agree with you, you haven't linked me to any articles or videos that backup your assertion. And that would be fine if it wasn't for the fact that you are simply making things up.

decrepitude
11-21-2009, 06:42 PM
Mods - can we have a separate forum for Clydey to argue with Burrow, Safinrules, Habibko et al? :lol:

Clydey
11-21-2009, 06:45 PM
Mods - can we have a separate forum for Clydey to argue with Burrow, Safinrules, Habibko et al? :lol:

I just attract arguments, dude. Hiding me away in a dark corner is just papering over the cracks.

SaFed2005
11-21-2009, 07:20 PM
Mods - can we have a separate forum for Clydey to argue with Burrow, Safinrules, Habibko et al? :lol:

LMAO :worship:

SaFed2005
11-21-2009, 07:21 PM
Murray does everything better than Federer, no?

Murray 0 >>> Federer 15, si?

Burrow
11-21-2009, 07:40 PM
Unlike you, I actually appreciate the culture and so do many others. Most of all, I appreciate the history and our contributions to the world.

Scotland was one of the main inspirations for the Enlightenment and one of the driving forces behind modernity.

I barely know any Scottish person who likes this country, it's boring, it's rainy, it looks like crap and it's full of useless people. I couldn't care less what Turkiye has contributed to the world, it's a nicer place to live :shrug:

You're just full of the same crap, you still haven't told me what you like about Scotland. Why do you like living in Scotland?

Clydey
11-21-2009, 08:12 PM
I barely know any Scottish person who likes this country, it's boring, it's rainy, it looks like crap and it's full of useless people. I couldn't care less what Turkiye has contributed to the world, it's a nicer place to live :shrug:

You're just full of the same crap, you still haven't told me what you like about Scotland. Why do you like living in Scotland?

I told you that I love the culture. I also love the weather, believe it or not. I'm actually a fan of the rain and I couldn't stand to be in a warm climate.

MsTree
11-21-2009, 08:28 PM
Scotland's an awesome country to live in, unless you're scared of a wee bit of rain :lol: Mind you I live in a beautiful part of it, not some shitty city like Glasgow or Dundee. :p

jonathancrane
11-21-2009, 08:33 PM
Who Posted?
Total Posts: 204
User Name Posts

Clydey 42
safin-rules-no.1 12
FlavorNuts 11
Burrow 10
Infini. 7
GhostUnholy 7
duong 6
P. Antonius 6
Vida 5
oranges 5
zcess81 4

Burrow
11-21-2009, 08:37 PM
I told you that I love the culture. I also love the weather, believe it or not. I'm actually a fan of the rain and I couldn't stand to be in a warm climate.

Describe me the culture and how it differs from other countries please. Tell me more, you probably don't have much good about to say about this shitty place.

Burrow
11-21-2009, 08:39 PM
Scotland's an awesome country to live in, unless you're scared of a wee bit of rain :lol: Mind you I live in a beautiful part of it, not some shitty city like Glasgow or Dundee. :p

You live in a beautiful part? Which is where?

MsTree
11-21-2009, 08:47 PM
In case you're some mad stalker after my Marat dvds I'll just say the remote Highlands :lol:

Clydey
11-21-2009, 08:57 PM
Describe me the culture and how it differs from other countries please. Tell me more, you probably don't have much good about to say about this shitty place.

How it differs from other cultures? :lol:

You're right, Burrow. Scottish culture and Turkish culture are basically the same.

Clydey
11-21-2009, 08:57 PM
You live in a beautiful part? Which is where?

The highlands are beautiful. I used to live there. I'm guessing you've never set foot outside of Edinburgh.

Burrow
11-21-2009, 09:00 PM
How it differs from other cultures? :lol:

You're right, Burrow. Scottish culture and Turkish culture are basically the same.

What? Did I say it was?

I'm asking you why you prefer it over other cultures, but being the ginger you are...

Burrow
11-21-2009, 09:01 PM
The highlands are beautiful. I used to live there. I'm guessing you've never set foot outside of Edinburgh.

I've lived in 3 different parts and have played tennis basically everywhere, buddy. It's all shit and Edinburgh is by far the best.

Clydey
11-21-2009, 09:01 PM
What? Did I say it was?

I'm asking you why you prefer it over other cultures, but being the ginger you are...

Why do you prefer Turkish culture to Scottish culture? It's purely down to one's own taste.

Clydey
11-21-2009, 09:02 PM
I've lived in 3 different parts and have played tennis basically everywhere, buddy. It's all shit and Edinburgh is by far the best.

Lived in 3 different parts of Edinburgh? You're well travelled.

Burrow
11-21-2009, 09:04 PM
Probably because in Turkiye things are less superficial, people are generally nice to one another and welcoming to people of other cultures whereas Scotland is the opposite.

You still haven't told me what you like about Scottish culture, do you like the fact that there are junkies on every street corner? Do you like the fact half the population are fat and are on the verge of a heart attack at any given moment? Are you one of these guys who's drinking his life away at the pub?

Scotland is terrible. :lol:

Burrow
11-21-2009, 09:05 PM
Lived in 3 different parts of Edinburgh? You're well travelled.

Gingers tend to have bad eye sight, right enough.

Buhweet
11-21-2009, 09:09 PM
smaller nose?

Larger canines, a smaller head placed atop a longer neck. But his tennis? If he's better than Roger, where is the proof? Andy got any slams? Huh......NOPE!Roger 15, Andy 0! Who's got a better game? Look at the records.........

Clydey
11-21-2009, 09:10 PM
Probably because in Turkiye things are less superficial, people are generally nice to one another and welcoming to people of other cultures whereas Scotland is the opposite.

You still haven't told me what you like about Scottish culture, do you like the fact that there are junkies on every street corner? Do you like the fact half the population are fat and are on the verge of a heart attack at any given moment? Are you one of these guys who's drinking his life away at the pub?

Scotland is terrible. :lol:

You haven't mentioned anything about Turkish culture. You basically just said that the people are nice. I think the same about Scottish people.

Are you sure you actually live in Scotland? You're pretty much just rattling off stereotypes. Do you even leave your house? Why haven't you moved to Turkey? Scotland's average IQ would go up a few points if you fucked off somewhere else.

MsTree
11-21-2009, 09:14 PM
Probably because in Turkiye things are less superficial, people are generally nice to one another and welcoming to people of other cultures whereas Scotland is the opposite.


That wasn't my experience of Turkey, sleazy men, in one bazaar we got offered a baby for sale, in the interior of the country all the lazy bastard men sitting on their arses smoking while their women worked in the fields... If the people are so nice to each other why do all the police carry guns?

Anyway, I'm not here for an argument but if you hate where you live so much, why not just move?

Burrow
11-21-2009, 09:16 PM
You haven't mentioned anything about Turkish culture. You basically just said that the people are nice. I think the same about Scottish people.

Are you sure you actually live in Scotland? You're pretty much just rattling off stereotypes. Do you even leave your house? Why haven't you moved to Turkey? Scotland's average IQ would go up a few points if you fucked off somewhere else.

You are just so biased :lol: Those stereotypes are correct. Yes, I do actually. Don't worry, I will be moving soon as I have my degree, I'd rather learn a couple of languages before moving abroad. But good luck at Mcdonalds, anyway.

MsTree
11-21-2009, 09:16 PM
Larger canines, a smaller head placed atop a longer neck. But his tennis? If he's better than Roger, where is the proof? Andy got any slams? Huh......NOPE!Roger 15, Andy 0! Who's got a better game? Look at the records.........

The only record that counts in this particular argument is the 6-3 h2h :lol:

Buhweet
11-21-2009, 09:18 PM
so many commentators have said that many times during matches, I don't have links for you right now, but this is a popular observation and not me making it up.

so the question is, on which basis do you say Murray volleys better or slices better?

oh and to quote you on one of your favorite phrases, here, educate yourself:

http://virtualtenniscoach.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/roger-federer-slice-backhand-analysis-from-peter-smith-wwwvirtualtenniscoachcom/

He's a Murray poofter.....he won't read the record! He's star blind man! He won't admit that the best the UK can produce, is just a shadow of what Roger or Nadal are as tennis players. Andy is fast building a rep as the best choker on tour! Roger knows it!

Clydey
11-21-2009, 09:19 PM
That wasn't my experience of Turkey, sleazy men, in one bazaar we got offered a baby for sale, in the interior of the country all the lazy bastard men sitting on their arses smoking while their women worked in the fields... If the people are so nice to each other why do all the police carry guns?

Anyway, I'm not here for an argument but if you hate where you live so much, why not just move?

Yeah, Turkey has such a great culture. Especially for women. Nothing like raging misogyngy to bring people together.

Clydey
11-21-2009, 09:20 PM
He's a Murray poofter.....he won't read the record! He's star blind man! He won't admit that the best the UK can produce, is just a shadow of what Roger or Nadal are as tennis players. Andy is fast building a rep as the best choker on tour! Roger knows it!

Another person who is following me from forum to forum. Don't you have anything better to do than troll a Murray forum and then follow me to MTF? :lol:

You are just so biased Those stereotypes are correct. Yes, I do actually. Don't worry, I will be moving soon as I have my degree, I'd rather learn a couple of languages before moving abroad. But good luck at Mcdonalds, anyway.

The only way you're getting a degree is if you find it in a cereal box.

Burrow
11-21-2009, 09:21 PM
That wasn't my experience of Turkey, sleazy men, in one bazaar we got offered a baby for sale, in the interior of the country all the lazy bastard men sitting on their arses smoking while their women worked in the fields... If the people are so nice to each other why do all the police carry guns?

Anyway, I'm not here for an argument but if you hate where you live so much, why not just move?

What the hell are you talking about? Everybody in Turkiye is working, a bit opposite of here, where every lazy **** is on benefits. All of the police? Bit of an exaggeration, why shouldn't they carry guns? Maybe Scotland would be a little better if the police were armed.

Because I'm a student, I'm young, I'm not just gonna move abroad without any decent money for fucks sake. :rolleyes:

Burrow
11-21-2009, 09:23 PM
Yeah, Turkey has such a great culture. Especially for women. Nothing like raging misogyngy to bring people together.

You talk about me with stereotypes? :lol:

You haven't lived there for any period of time, you wouldn't know a thing. The country is far from perfect, but overall it's a much better place than your council estate :lol:

Buhweet
11-21-2009, 09:25 PM
The only record that counts in this particular argument is the 6-3 h2h :lol:

Get back to me after London, McPoof. For me, the only record that counts is the slams, not the women's matches Andy goes after, Roger is required to play and he could give a shit about winning.

Clydey
11-21-2009, 09:27 PM
You talk about me with stereotypes? :lol:

You haven't lived there for any period of time, you wouldn't know a thing. The country is far from perfect, but overall it's a much better place than your council estate :lol:

It's not a stereotype.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/turkey/090219/turkeys-shocking-domestic-violence-statistics

Four out of 10 women in Turkey are beaten by their husbands, according to the recent study entitled "Domestic Violence against Women in Turkey,” which has collected the first official statistics on this topic in Turkey. Even more disturbing, the study reveals that a significant number of abused women, almost 90 percent, do not seek help from any organization.

Clydey
11-21-2009, 09:28 PM
Get back to me after London, McPoof. For me, the only record that counts is the slams, not the women's matches Andy goes after, Roger is required to play and he could give a shit about winning.

Yeah, that whole racquet smashing incident in Miami showed us all just how little Federer cares about winning Masters Events.

MsTree
11-21-2009, 09:33 PM
I did fieldwork in Turkey for my degree and every single policeman I saw carried a gun. In the mountains, where we were working all I saw were women working the fields, the men were just dossing about. In the resorts the men seemed to think white women were just there to be pawed, I got followed back to my hotel by some sleazebag who couldn't believe no meant no. Far from perfect indeed :lol: I've never been so glad to see England from the plane window coming home :p

duong
11-21-2009, 09:35 PM
In your opinion. I can put together some clips of the Murray slice, too.

If you go to around 2 minutes into the clip, you'll see that it is the slice that literally wins Murray the match vs. Del Potro. He finishes it with 2 BH slices (the second of which Del Potro nearly falls over trying to retrieve) and a forehand slice approach. Shame the quality of the clip is so poor.

Y6EMVKFaKHI

you cannot sumarize this match with just that :shrug:

And drawing so many conclusions from one match :confused: in the USO 08 where JMDP was quite far from the best he achieved in USO 09 :confused:

I'm afraid you might be disappointed about JMDP-Murray's oppositions in the future (I don't say especially tomorrow)

There are so many things Murray can do better than Federer, why insist on the slice which is one of Fed's best shots ?

leng jai
11-21-2009, 09:36 PM
Yeah, that whole racquet smashing incident in Miami showed us all just how little Federer cares about winning Masters Events.

That racket smash probably had more to do with the fact that he had been playing like a clown for several weeks by that point.

MsTree
11-21-2009, 09:40 PM
Get back to me after London, McPoof. For me, the only record that counts is the slams, not the women's matches Andy goes after, Roger is required to play and he could give a shit about winning.

6-3 :lol: You would think even his pride would kick in and make him try harder no matter what level tourney they were playing. So there's another way Andy is better than Fed, less mentally fragile.

Oh and if you're going to try for an insult at least try to make it appropriate to the sex of the person you're slagging, you big girls blouse :lol:

Clydey
11-21-2009, 09:42 PM
That racket smash probably had more to do with the fact that he had been playing like a clown for several weeks by that point.

If he didn't care about the events, he wouldn't have cared that he was playing like a clown.

You don't throw a tantrum if you're indifferent to the outcome of a match. No player cares as much about the Masters as they do about the slams. That isn't exclusive to Federer. He seems to be the only player who people use it as an excuse for, though. Unless, of course, he wins the event. If he wins a Masters title, he has inexplicably decided to try for a change.

Isn't that right, Habib? :lol:

duong
11-21-2009, 09:46 PM
Murray always plays a large part of his rally BHs as slices, it doesn't in itself win him matches against guys who are not almost 2 meters tall. Federer never uses it as much ,it doesn't make it any less effective. So once again, what are we talking about here? It's a better slice, with more bite to it.

Are you sure Murray uses it so much, and uses it more often than Federer ?

I'm very surprised about that opinion.

The fact is that Murray has a better flat and spinned backhand than Federer : if he used slice more often than Federer, it would be strange.

And personally I don't have this impression at all.

Am I so blind about that quantity ? :confused:

leng jai
11-21-2009, 09:49 PM
If he didn't care about the events, he wouldn't have cared that he was playing like a clown.

You don't throw a tantrum if you're indifferent to the outcome of a match. No player cares as much about the Masters as they do about the slams. That isn't exclusive to Federer. He seems to be the only player who people use it as an excuse for, though. Unless, of course, he wins the event. If he wins a Masters title, he has inexplicably decided to try for a change.

Isn't that right, Habib? :lol:

I'm not saying he doesn't care about MS events, I'm just saying that that racket smash isn't fantastic evidence. He was angry about losing to Fakervic and that his form leading into his most important season was terrible.

Clydey
11-21-2009, 09:52 PM
you cannot sumarize this match with just that :shrug:

And drawing so many conclusions from one match :confused: in the USO 08 where JMDP was quite far from the best he achieved in USO 09 :confused:

I'm afraid you might be disappointed about JMDP-Murray's oppositions in the future (I don't say especially tomorrow)

There are so many things Murray can do better than Federer, why insist on the slice which is one of Fed's best shots ?

Because I think he has a better slice. It's also one of Murray's best shots. If I insist that Murray has a better slice, it's because I think he does. What is so hard to fathom? It's as though half of the people in this thread think that Fed knifes every slice so that it skids a centimetre off the ground.

And Del Potro had two further opportunities to beat Murray on hard in 2009, so I could just as easily have pointed towards those 2 matches.

habibko
11-21-2009, 09:53 PM
If he didn't care about the events, he wouldn't have cared that he was playing like a clown.

You don't throw a tantrum if you're indifferent to the outcome of a match. No player cares as much about the Masters as they do about the slams. That isn't exclusive to Federer. He seems to be the only player who people use it as an excuse for, though. Unless, of course, he wins the event. If he wins a Masters title, he has inexplicably decided to try for a change.

Isn't that right, Habib? :lol:

no, the racquet smash had little to do with Fed caring about winning a Masters shield at this stage, he showed how much he cares in his last match against Benneteau, completely indifferent throughout the match and even after defeat, his forehand was utter crap at that time and he was missing routine shots and he was just disgusted by how badly he was playing, against someone he hates to lose against so much (Djokovic), Fed said that himself about the racquet smash (the disgusted part) , he didn't say he did that because of how much he cares about winning Masters series, that's you because you want to give Murray's victories more meaning than what they actually have.

Dini
11-21-2009, 09:54 PM
Double standards. Fed cares about MS when he wins them but not when he loses? Never understood that.

The reason Federer didn't show much negative emotion after his loss to Bennetau was probably that he wasn't playing *disastrously* bad but more that Julien sought after the victory with something like 25 consecutive first serves and not backing down. Against Djokovic in Miami though he was just bloody AWFUL. I even believed I could hit the forehand better and that says a lot about his horrible level that day.

Clydey
11-21-2009, 09:55 PM
Are you sure Murray uses it so much, and uses it more often than Federer ?

I'm very surprised about that opinion.

The fact is that Murray has a better flat and spinned backhand than Federer : if he used slice more often than Federer, it would be strange.

And personally I don't have this impression at all.

Am I so blind about that quantity ? :confused:

Murray slices much more often than Federer. It's not particularly relevant to who has the better slice, but it's not even close in terms of who uses it more often. I'd go so far as to say that Murray hits the slice as often as he hits his 2-hander. Federer, on the other hand, hits over his backhand more often than not. He also looks to run around his backhand at every opportunity.

Clydey
11-21-2009, 09:56 PM
Double standards. Fed cares about MS when he wins them but not when he loses? Never understood that.

I think that's mostly Habibko's view. He and a few others think that Federer only tries in Masters Events when he wins.

duong
11-21-2009, 09:58 PM
Because I think he has a better slice. It's also one of Murray's best shots. If I insist that Murray has a better slice, it's because I think he does. What is so hard to fathom? It's as though half of the people in this thread think that Fed knifes every slice so that it skids a centimetre off the ground.

And Del Potro had two further opportunities to beat Murray on hard in 2009, so I could just as easily have pointed towards those 2 matches.

Ok I'll stop with that.

But I'm more interested in another point :

some people here (you and Oranges) have said that Murray uses the slice more often than Federer.

I'm very surprised by this opinion, but this is anyway should be less subjective than the opinion on quality, then maybe we can get good arguments and people's opinions about that :shrug:

Is that true ?

Clydey
11-21-2009, 09:58 PM
no, the racquet smash had little to do with Fed caring about winning a Masters shield at this stage, he showed how much he cares in his last match against Benneteau, completely indifferent throughout the match and even after defeat, his forehand was utter crap at that time and he was missing routine shots and he was just disgusted by how badly he was playing, against someone he hates to lose against so much (Djokovic), Fed said that himself about the racquet smash (the disgusted part) , he didn't say he did that because of how much he cares about winning Masters series, that's you because you want to give Murray's victories more meaning than what they actually have.

Federer didn't care in Miami or IW, but he cared in Cinci, right? Jesus, habib, are you seriously so blind to your hypocrisy?

Clydey
11-21-2009, 10:00 PM
Ok I'll stop with that.

But I'm more interested in another point :

some people here (you and Oranges) have said that Murray uses the slice more often than Federer.

I'm very surprised by this opinion, but this is anyway should be less subjective than the opinion on quality, then maybe we can get good arguments and people's opinions about that :shrug:

Is that true ?

It's definitely true. I responded to this point above. It's not particularly close either. Murray goes through entire rallies just slicing and hits the slice as often as he hits his 2-hander. Federer is more aggressive. He mostly looks to hit over his backhand and/or run around it to get onto his forehand.

duong
11-21-2009, 10:00 PM
Murray slices much more often than Federer. It's not particularly relevant to who has the better slice, but it's not even close in terms of who uses it more often. I'd go so far as to say that Murray hits the slice as often as he hits his 2-hander. Federer, on the other hand, hits over his backhand more often than not. He also looks to run around his backhand at every opportunity.

OK I had not seen that post : I'm surprised about the two opinions :

"Murray hits the slice as often as he hits his 2-hander"

"Federer, on the other hand, hits over his backhand more often than not"

Does anyone else agree or disagree with that ? (and please I think that's a point about which we can forget who we prefer :lol: )

leng jai
11-21-2009, 10:03 PM
OK I had not seen that post : I'm surprised about the two opinions :

"Murray hits the slice as often as he hits his 2-hander"

"Federer, on the other hand, hits over his backhand more often than not"

Does anyone else agree or disagree with that ? (and please I think that's a point about which we can forget who we prefer :lol: )

I've always said that Fedclown hits his topspin backhand far too often, and in situations where the slice more have been far more effective. Especially when he plays Nadull. I suppose Nadull is "slice proof" and would "obliterate" any slice with his "wrist snap".

habibko
11-21-2009, 10:04 PM
Federer didn't care in Miami or IW, but he cared in Cinci, right? Jesus, habib, are you seriously so blind to your hypocrisy?

he cares about winning matches obviously, but not as much as he did in the past, right now slams are the only thing where he gives his 100%, like it or not, that doesn't mean he won't win Masters titles or 500 titles, even if he cares less.

Dini
11-21-2009, 10:07 PM
I've always said that Fedclown hits his topspin backhand far too often, and in situations where the slice more have been far more effective. Especially when he plays Nadull. I suppose Nadull is "slice proof" and would "obliterate" any slice with his "wrist snap".

Funny you say that. Fed was applauded for not slicing any of his backhands against Nadal in Madrid.

Clydey
11-21-2009, 10:09 PM
he cares about winning matches obviously, but not as much as he did in the past, right now slams are the only thing where he gives his 100%, like it or not, that doesn't mean he won't win Masters titles or 500 titles, even if he cares less.

That wasn't what you said after the Cinci win. You randomly decided that Federer had tried in Cinci simply because he won the event.

duong
11-21-2009, 10:09 PM
I've always said that Fedclown hits his topspin backhand far too often, and in situations where the slice more have been far more effective. Especially when he plays Nadull. I suppose Nadull is "slice proof" and would "obliterate" any slice with his "wrist snap".

OK but my question is not "does he use it not often enough ?" (I'd rather think he knows far better than anyone else about that question :shrug: None of us has played against Nadal and I don't have the impression that "supersliceman" Murray uses it much against Nadal :lol: )

but does he use it less than other backhand ?

the other question is : does Murray hit sliced backhand more often than not ?

I would be really interested in this answer.