Well, I'm not continuing this thread anymore, but if others do I'll update the relevant links in the OP.
Honestly I would just put this one down to consistency. Paire has limitless talent, but is a incredible head case and is known for his inconsistency.
Interesting that the Federer-Murray matchup is going even more towards Federer's way since this post. Post 2013 AO, Federer has not lost in their last 4 matches. I guess some fans will use the back surgery & recovery as a reason, and perhaps that had some merit for awhile, but I think it is because Federer has been determined (as you put it) to take the initiative off Murray, his more aggressive game in general these days, and punish him whenever possible, and finally, I think Federer has built confidence that Murray has no shot to hurt him with, and it is helping him to dominate the match, and Murray must feel somewhat the reverse. Frustrated that he can't cause Federer to play at a worse level.Time to revive this thread with one more mismatch. I'll look through the entire thread and add links to specific matchup analysis in the OP soon.
Murray vs Simon
Murray vs Murray light? Everything Simon does, Murray does better - he's pretty much a fitter, stronger and more athletic version of Simon. You almost feel that he can routine Simon without really getting out of second gear. This is arguably one of the very worst mismatches in tennis: in a matchup like say Berdych vs Nadal, if Tomas redlines his game and plays his best he can definitely win, if Simon plays his very best against Murray odds are he's still losing in quite straightforward fashion. He doesn't have any weapons to hit through Murray and while he's consistent off the baseline, Murray is even more so.
Karlovic's serve is not your traditional big serve, it's the best there ever was. Some players could get a decentish read on it, Hewitt wasn't one of them, he couldn't cope with the combination of power and angles.
Federer vs Murray is an interesting one. When Federer is really on his game, Murray pretty much has no chance as he doesn't have the tools to take the initiative off Federer. But when Federer is even a bit off ie prone to shank every third backhand, Murray has the ideal skillset to frustrate him ie he can attack his second serves and defend him into oblivion provoking shanks and mishits, etc... Post-2007 Federer was rarely at his best for non-Slams/WTF, which explains the H2H. Even at their respective ages, I'd still expect Federer to win most of their Slam meetings, although his decreased recovery powers might throw a spanner in the works (ie if he plays a five setter before facing Murray his task will be much harder).
What incredible analysis? lolAnd with all this incredible analysis regarding match-ups
Del Potro has never dropped a set to Nishikori you complete clown :facepalm:What incredible analysis? lol
OP for example starts with Nadal-Berdych - apparently the idea being that Nadal is bad match-up for Berdych. In fact in their rivalry early on the general consensus was that Berdych is a bad match-up for Nadal!
In reality their h2h is EXACTLY what one would expect from players of their status.
...Then OP lists h2hs like Delpo vs Nishikori with only four matches which include tie-breaks and deciding sets. Right...
Indeed, sloppy score reading from my part. Still, leading someone 4-0, who is career-wise the lesser player doesn't suggest match-up issue at all. The sample is too small and Delpo is simply a better player career-wise.Del Potro has never dropped a set to Nishikori you complete clown :facepalm:
He's a better player but watch their matches and you'll see what Lenders is getting at. Nishikori would probably lose 10 times out of 10.Indeed, sloppy score reading from my part. Still, leading someone 4-0, who is career-wise the lesser player doesn't suggest match-up issue at all. The sample is too small and Delpo is simply a better player career-wise.
There are lots of h2hs like this, simply from probability point of view alone.