Go,Murray....Can't wait to see it...

I do not think we should read too much into Federer'd defeat, other than the fact that Murray is really good and should win a GS really soon.

Yes, indeed Fed is done. Stick a fork now.

After a nice month prep, nothing to show for. Head to head 8-5 Murray.

Sorry, FED KADS, whatever little hope Fed makes for his fans, Murray just dashed it convincingly.

I can't wait till Steve will write, 'Fed is done' in much the same way he said, 'Nadal is done.'

Congrats Murray.

Now, the tables have turned. What an exciting time in tennis!

I agree we shouldn't read too much into the results, Murray played very well. He proved that he's still one of the best players over 3 sets. I wouldn't be surprised if he wins WTF. However, he remains woeful at the highest level and I'm still not convinced that he can win a slam.

cortomaltes,

Yes,in this match, we should read that Murray is really good at defeating Federer.

And that Federer is not that good in hardcourts anymore.

If it is any consolation, I think I feel your pain. LOL

wilson75,

I think when the head to head becomes 10-5 Murray over Roger, what can you read?

Even 9-5 in hardcourts?

Yes?

espnalanaldo, if you are implying that I am dissapointed at Federer's loss, I have to tell you that you could not be more wrong. Really.

espnalando: It seems I can read a lot better than you. H2H is 8-5.

TMF beats djokovic and gets to the finals. C'mon, give the man a little credit. Fed remains a great player and performs his best as a front runner in the 3 set formats. Murrays win probably impacts nadal and djokovic more the grand scheme. Both will be looking over their shoulders knowing Murray is still hungry! Love this game. M

wilson75,

No, no WTF soup for Roger, either.

It is now a time that Nadal particularly, Djok, Murray, Soderling, Berdych and the like are at ages of 24-26, the same age when Roger started winning a lot of times. A time when Roger is now 29.

Nothing to take away from Roger, since he did the same thing to Sampras. Now, Roger is getting the kick from the other boot.

Did you seriously think Roger will win forever? He was lucky RAfa was injured in 2009, else he could not have not have a chance in hell to break Sampras record of Grand Slams.

And yet, inspite of 16 quantity of Slams, fans and experts alike are shy nowadays to even mention the bogus Goat term, when there is that nagging 14-7 quality head to head of RAfa over Roger and the more quality achievement of Nadal's consecutive clay-grass-ushardcourts in a span of 3.5 months at age 24!

That is what happens when tennis powers-that-be come up with a manufactured appellation, GOAT, when there is no such thing to begin with. GOAT was manufactured to sucker in fans to pay high ticket prices and merchandise.

By the way, who is the BOZO who came up with that GOAT term, anyway?
It is ESPN? Bud Collins? I know it is not Martina, (he, he). Did Jmac came up with it? Who is that BOZO again?

Now, so-called tennis fanatics, you are on, let us see if you can give us this kernel of juicy information.

wilson,

see post at 7:57.

LOL

ok i am sorry to say but this espalanaldo guy realy is something do u know anything about tennis or the history of tennis? how many times have we see murray beat federer in a masters but yet when they meet in a grand slam he gets whooped by fed in straight sets. there i nothing to read in this match murray played a great match federer was below par and that is it period. u as i know is a nadal fan i presume. this murray has been a thorn in nadal's path on the hardcourts in the grand slams the ones on hardcourts he took nadal out now twice in a row on hardocourts in grand slams yet he cannot beat federer in a grand slam. so fix ur lesnses buddy and do the proper reading

also mr espalanaldo what u say about melzer at least roger reached the final ur man did not even make the 3rd round roger when he had his best years he would never lose to anyone outside the top 10 or even top 5 perhaps he only lost to 2 or 3 but ur rafa loses to low ranked people even at his best years so sorry to tell u the facts

Good job Murray, another hard court master's series title. This is to be expected; what is not to be expected is for anyone to take anything seriously from this win. This doesn't mean Fed is done, and it CERTAINLY doesn't make Murray all of a sudden a threat for major titles now. When he takes a set in a major final, which he's only been to two, then I'll consider him a threat. But this sort of result, we've seen before, nothing new to get too excited about.

Fedal,

Are your serious? Melzer was blown off the very next day after his Nadal's match.

THAT IS CERTIFIABLY a FLUKE win.

For all we know, Rafa planned it, for a much needed rest, in prep for WTF.

Remember Cincy? Then boom! USO title and to boot, consecutive clay-grass-ushardcourts career Golden Slam in a span of 3.5 months at age 24?

What little else you know about tennis, no?

its amazing how badly fed plays against murray. the scot just hits mid pace balls to his backhand and for some reason fed has trouble with this? yesterday djokovic played lights out tennis for a set and roger handled it. but today he goes off the boil when murray gives him nothing balls?? it makes no sense.

Daniel, I agree. I think when Fed is not 100% mentally he gets caught up in Murray's game too much. Meaning, Murray gives him these nothing balls over and over and Fed goes for too much and makes a ton of errors to keep the nothing balls from coming back at him. The difference when he's beaten Murray is Fed is 100% mentally focused and not affected by Murray's style of play (for example the AO final '10). But on days like today, he lets it frustrate him which makes his level of play even worse.

Someone could have a 20-0 advantage over someone, but never play him in grand slams and rarely in masters... the other guy on the other hand frequently wins grand slams and lots of masters... who would be the better player in your eyes (Andy Murray is a great example at the moment)? H2H only matters if both players have similar achievements. Rafa has been the best player since 2008 (injury in 2009 withstanding), and for all of his achievements they aren't quite where they need to be for him to considered greater than Federer. Until they are I don't know why people have this discussion... If it's about whether he will be a greater player or not? Now that is something that can be debated.

For a post about Murray now...

And yes McGrogan, just as Rafa (!!) used to be the greatest player to have not been ranked number 1, Andy Murray is definitely the greatest player to never win a grand slam; and like Rafa, I think he will definitely fix that problem one day! :)

Fedal,

Murray, like the rest of the top ten field are pretty much 23-25. Murray is not getting Slams yet because he is not in the same caliber as Nadal. But sorry for you. While Nadal was beating Roger in Slams, Murray is proving his mettle by defeating Roger in Masters.

You can denigrate the play of Murray all you want, but In effect, Roger has nowhere to go now. Those two guys just blocked Roger's path, and will do it consistently from now on.

It is funny when Roger kept losing in the Masters to Nadal, then he or his groupies say that it is all about the Slams now. Then, boom he got beat by Nadal, so they switched to Masters as being important now, though being poohpoohed just prior. Then boom, he got beat by Murray.

Before you know it, it will be all about Halle now, what is important is that glorified 250 grass tour now, since Roger has a lifetime commitment there.

Very funny, hah?

Indeed.

fed is done

OK, who is that BOZO who came up with that bogus GOAT term?

What a surprising result.Federer dislikes playing Murray because Murray wins ugly like Gilbert's book.He plays Murray but often beats himself.But there is an art to winning ugly.A deft dropshot.Power at the right moment.Deadly passing shots when given a target.Tiring out the opponent with junk.Accuracy and speed on the first serve.They don't come any fiercer or more mentally strong than Murray.My prediction ? Like Navratilova who was "cursed" at the US open,which was just trash talk that first worked for her opponents then didn't when she realized the power she was giving those words,Murray will win not one,but several slams throughout his career.He is a force to be reckoned with and ATP plyers downplay him at their own peril.

As far back as 2001, I can recall Pat McEnroe referring to the young and relatively new Fed as the guy who could possibly be the "greatest player we've ever seen" and talking about Federer quickly became a pissing contest to describe him ever more hyperbolically, even before the slams started piling up - based on the quality of his all-around game. So when he was defeated by Ancic at the next year's Wimbledon, it would be the biggest win of Mario's pro career. I never liked Sampras, so I was anxiously counting Fed's Grand Slam count, too. Once he surpassed Sampras, I began to start looking for the next generation players.

Fed insisted yesterday that he didn't care about his temporary ranking dip, but I didn't buy that at all. (He's a competitive guy, of course he wanted to be back at #2.) I prefer titles to get spread around a bit. Now I'm sorry I didn't wake up to watch this match live, to see how Murray's tactics worked.

Congrats to all MAndy fans and Scots; but I feel like I need not give commiserations to Fed fans, who surely aren't too upset about him losing in Shanghai.

espanaldo
again spewing venom and non-sensical comments on the message board. sad that you take so much pleasure in a loss of a tennis player regarded as the greatest ever by every sensible person. you should feel elation when nadal wins, not when federer loses! this is the height of hatred and fanaticism and can only be displayed by very narrow minded and spiteful individuals.
roger had nothing to prove to anyone, anymore. he rules with sixteen slams and might still win one more. he is the GOAT. whether nadal surpasses him or not, time will tell. Till then keep your acerbic and vitriolic comments to yourself. This is a site for tennis lovers, not hatred filled individuals.

ok, epsnalanaldo obviously knows nothing about tennis but reads a lot of articles about it, making him believe he has some knowledge. Federer is getting old and can't dominate the way he used to, but that doesn't mean he's done. Until he's out of the top 30(if that ever happens before he retires), he'll stay a threat to win any event he's in. And some people just match up well against others, Murray is in no way a better player than Federer, he just seems that way when they play each other because his style counters Fed's perfectly.

epalanaldo u obviously talk babble after babble first of all i sugget u learn from M.J. and Pierric Bross their assessment makes sense. u make no sense at all. in fact to say that nadal losing to melzer was afluke is balony sorry to say we know that rafa always gives 100 percent but melzer who is a lefty like him and who is a decent player beat him. the fact that melzer gets blown off the next game by monaco makes it even a worse loss for rafa since rafa is at his best. roger at his best never lost to nobody and there were no flukes roger won 24 consecutive tournaments which is a record when he was at his best. in the amount of 2 to 3 years in a row he lost as much games as nadal has lost in one of his best season i.e 08 0r 2010 there is no comparison. In roger's best days if you were to win a slam or a master or an atp u had to beat roger period always the person who beat roger is the one who wins if u dont beat roger u dont win that is why nadal won bcse he beat roger and roger lost only to nadal and mostly on clay. it is not roger's fault they have not met more times on hardcourts or grass bcse roger was always in finals. but u cannot say that about nadal. so of course nadal has a favorable head to head against roger bcse when roger was at his best they would only meet on grass and clay not on hardcourts if not roger would have blown him out on hardcourts. just like nadal beat him in the greatest match ever in 5 sets when roger was recovering from mono may i remind u that the only palyer to beat nadal in a caly final is roger twice. tell me of another player who has bagled nadal on the clay roger did in 2007 in hamburg. u obviously have a short memory. and roger blew off nadal twice in hardocourts when he was at his best in shanghai when the top 8 used to meet. and tell which other player can beat nadal when he is down two sets to nadal. only roger did it he beat nada im miami masters in 5 sets coming from 2 sets down. i suggest u do ur hoimework and know what u r talking about and stop being jewalous of roger's achievements. no one will ever equal roger's achievements. and u know i dont mean to take away anything of nadal's achievements i unlike u give nadal full credit for his achievements. but u forget one detail. nadal is not a natural left hander. a shrewed move by uncle toni. if nadal was right handed do u honestly believe the head to head would be the same? no way. that is the only advantage nadal uses against roger and still roger is his rival and has beaten him in slams etc. i mean just look at nadals head to head with everyone else and roger's there is no comparison. roger owns everyone except nadal i admit but that in itself should make u know that this head to head thing is meaningless. if that is true would i say that davydenko is better than nadal since dabydenko beat nadal more times then nadal beat him? of course not. yet rogers head to head with davydenko as u know is outrageous 14 and 2 something like that and what about roddick or soderling or berdych or james blake people roger has owned yet if u look at their head to head with nadal it is close. so look at the facts. only one player head to head with another does not tell the whole story. but when u put all together then u see the full picture. and u say nadal won 3 slams in one year well roger done that three times in 4 years so please man

prashant sharma,

Here is more venom, as you call it, to blind your eyes even more.

Roger is not the GOAT. You are definitely one of those gullible fans to be suckered in into believing of such an appellation. No such thing.

and when the time comes that Nadal surpasses Roger's GS pegged at 16, I am not going to claim that Rafa is the GOAT.

Are you understanding this point? If not, no soup for you, as they say.

BUT is RAFA a better player than ROGER?

Absolutely.

I will not care to list his accomplishments that is unique on its own and does not have to be compared to Roger's, but for starters, can you say .... OLYMPIC GOLD MEDAL, in SINGLES?

There. If that will not make a halleluyah seeing bright light revelation, I do not know what will.

(RAFA is a greater than Roger)

Sampras is the best No. 1 ever.

When the men surpass the records of Graf, or even Navratilova, then I'll be willing to refer to one of them as that word (can we change it to Voldemort?)

Wow, I am flattered that sometime has taken a deliberate attempt to spend precious time to actually come up and register a tag with my name on it.

I don't know if that is commendable or just begging for psychiatric intervention.

However,

Ihateespn......, (hah, hah)

I archived your post for posterity (hey!) so that when Roger becomes ranked outside of 30, (your own arbitrary rule of who is done or not), I will plaster it here to your fa.. so you will remember.

But, I think it will not happen that Roger will be out of top 30 because ... when he degenerates to #11, he will quit.

But, no worry, your post is still in data storage for the right moment.

epalanaldo come on olympics give me a break so waht and u realy think roger will stop at 16 and i doubt nadal will reach 16 anyways. on the other hand the olympic example is nothing i told look at all rogers records nadals dont compare they are pale in comparison well what compariso he only has a record on the clay while roger has on all surfaces plus u just dont want to look at all these things caue u know u will lose the argument. so ok fine if u think nadal is greater than roger u obviously 1)a blind nadal fan; 2)only watched tennis recently and 3)then that makes davydenko greater for instance greater than nadal.
and by teh way if u ask all the players on the tour and i have read their interviews many of them all of them say roger is head and shoulders above everyone and he is the greatest and they admit that roger is the most talented and enjoyable player to watch in the history of the game this is an almost unanimous opinion by past as well as current players. it is not me saying. even ur beloved nadal would admit it. and yeah of course u pick on roger now cause well he is 29 and he only started becoming vulnerable as of late but before who could dare pick on him
pathetic
and by the way say what ever u want i think i made my point and u can write hot air in response i already made my case and rest my case so dont expect a response cause arguijng with people like u is useless

@espanaldo
one can only argue with someone who understands logic. Not with someone immune to logic. Hence, I rest my case. Would reccomend the same to other tennis fans here as well.

I purposely wrote,

Wow, I am flattered that sometime ...

Because my initial reaction was, "... that somedodo has taken a deliberate ...

but that will come another day.

also by the way can u count the how many times people have said roger is done with and yet he comes and proves everyone wrong. so yeah keep saying it so i can laugh at you later

well i said i was not going to comment again but i remembered something else i left out. do u realy think nadal will be at the same level when he is 29? remember that. and for u mentioning the ranking well u know any player no matter who if they play a long will come a time they have to go down and be ranked low unless they retire when they are still on top. but the point u dont get is roger is not done yet that is the point. and just for u to remember, let me know how nadal will do when he is 29 then i can shove ur statments at ur face bcse no way nadal will do as well as roger considering his playing style mark my words and paste this paragraph too if u want

parshant sharma,

You did not get the simple logic that there is no such thing as GOAT, no matter how desperate you are to attach it to Roger? Now, that is just a shame!

I hate to remind you, by logic, that the word, GREATEST in the English language, is a SUPERLATIVE, not a comparative. You figure out the rest of the logic, if you can.

And now, what?

Have some spine, pal! Do not go around corraling people to rally around you or against me. That is just lame.

by the way prashant sharma thank you my feelings are the same

Fedal,

Take a few deep breaths. You are beside yourself in agony with this latest loss of Roger.

Roger lost. Just kinda accept it. I guarantee you, you will feel better.

None of this what if at age 29 garbage thing for RAFA, alright! I know, unfortunately for you, it is Roger, at 29 that is actually experiencing that garbage feeling now.

What is relevant is who is in that situation now, you see. It is Roger. And when that time comes for RAFA, oh well.

BUT RIGHT NOW, IT IS rOGER.

SAD, isn't it?

Fedal,

And that what is funny about it. Nadal, in his usual polite self, will praise everybody even Roger for his accomplsihments, but then boom!

Nadal kicks your a@@@ on the court! Nadal says oh you're great and no sooner kicking your behind! 14 times against Roger.

Very funny, indeed.

And never gets old.

tina with the longest tag,

Thanks for some snippets of the origin of the GOAT term?

Wow, with all the fanaticism here, I am surprised of no takers.

Either that, or whoever coined the term is too embarassed to come forward now.

spam

Espnalanaldo,

I hate it when Rafa fans decide to bring out the h2h and say that nadal is the better player. a bulk of when rafa and federer played was from 2005ish-to 2007, when federer was in his prime. all these matches were also played on clay, which of course is nadals best surface. So obviously he was gonna win those matches. But nadal was never the opponent for all those hardcourt finals that federer made it too. You know why? cuz he sucked to much to make it. if he had made those finals, he wouldve been crushed, and that h2h score would be vastly different. Furthermore, in the grand scheme of things, the h2h never means anything. did you know that richard krajicek had was 2-1 against sampras? is he a better player? of course not. only an idiot would say that. why? because talent wise, sampras is better. So if it all comes down to talent, the hands down, federer is better than nadal.

Murray 'junks' Roger and wears him down. I could go on, but anywhere espnronaldo shows up, with a near-sexual defense of anything Nadal, the place does go to h%&l. So why bother?

Murray always had the skills
plus the fab 7th sense reserved for tennis champs.
Now that he got his head sorted out be has become virtually invincible!

This from an 86 young champ in Sarasota Florida.

PS For head read SPIRIT,

only 2 torunaments this year, is a shame

Okay since it appears this board is lopsided with one nadal fan (albeit a bit of a homer) v. 3-4 fed fans I will chime in. In my mind Nadal is greater than Fed. If we took both at their peaks(even now not sure we can say Nadal has peaked as he is adding more weapons) I would be Nadal wins 70% of the time. Granted I am a Nadal fan so I will of course be biased. I am not claiming that this is some statistical regression I ran, but rather this is why I think Nadal is a better player. As for the GOAT debate (which is almost impossible b/c of guys like Laver (pro, amateur nonsense), technology, and changing courts) I think Nadal will surpass Fed assuming good health. This stems from my belief that he is a better player, so assuming he can stay on the court he'll be able to pass Fed IMHO. That is all, stay classy folks :-)

Federer has always had a horrible best 2 out of 3 record against Murray; he still does. I'm not sure whether the Shanghai final has any broader implications. Credit to Murray for playing amazing tennis during the final and credit to Federer for playing great tennis to get there.

Vince,

No, he is not.

This just in from the NNN (Nadal News Network): Any title not won over Rafa in a final must enter the record books with an asterix...

Espnalanaldo,

do you care to back up your statement? cause i can do that to.

yes he is.

People like you Vince are what spawned the Nadal homers that vex you now. I have often wondered what bothered me the most about Fed. I realized it had nothing to do with him, he seems like a great guy with albeit a faint streak of arrogance. What annoyed me the most were Fed fans is that they would continue to say he was perfect, that Nadal was some sort of sideshow freak who was everything wrong with tennis. Vince you represent the worst in Fed fans.

Vince,

No, no he is not.

Troller much?

Slick, I think people just prefer to see the best tennis possible. Right now, Nadal is the best. Who wouldn't want to see Murray/Nadal or Nadal/Fed or Djokovic/Nadal etc? Seeing Nadal go out to the likes of Melzer (a talent in his own right, though not as much as Nadal IMO), put a small damper on the rest of the tourney. It's his job to make it to the latter stages of a tournament though.

Vince 14-7 is very different than 2-1 bigger sample size. Additionally, it is just as easy to argue that Fed failed to show up for the last three finals.

Prehaps we are so use to see Roger win tournaments that when he looses we are shocked. Ok people- Andy out played Federer. He figured out what to do to make Roger beat himself. If Roger played his best tennis- who knows how this match would have turned out. Roger is not done by far... Until he mentally does not care anymore, there will always be a chance he will continue to win majors. I really get tired of people talking about his age also. So what,he is 29. It is about fitness and desire. I think Rafa is a great talent but does anyone think he can continue to play as hard as he does and his body hold up ?? That is what is physically impossible. So Congrats Andy ! ( I am not a fan of him either) When Andy plays his best tennis at a major and beats Federer or Nadal more than once-then I will be impressed.

that maybe. but don't get me wrong. i dont treat nadal like he is a sideshow freak. i think nadal is a fantastic player. in fact, federer can learn a few things from nadal. Nadal is a fabulous player. He is a hard worker, and really humble. i admit, that i used to dislike nadal. i thought he was really cocky on court.but i grew up, and realized that the guy is a tremendous player, and really humble. but i still think he needs to tone it down a little bit on court.

oops. lol. my bad. that was vince. not sanjay.

Now, it makes sense why Nadal lost Wednesday, I think.

Friday, he has to be at his Foundation's project to help poor folks in India.

Some priorities he has!

Well done, RAFA.

Does nobody here remember the book about Muhommad Ali titled "G.O.A.T"? Because after it came out, the term seemed to explode.

Plus - this is I just learned, and it's quite fitting: it's also internet argot for "Go Away Troll"!!!

Im happy for Murray... now he will win Valencia Nadal will win Paris and that would be cooool

tina,

That is not nice??!!!

So now, we can say, 'ROGER-GO AWAY, TROLL"??

lol, I think.

Lol trying to literally put words in my mouth eh Vince ;-) I got very confused for a second there reading that post and thinking uhhhh why did I write that? I suppose I am not aiming that whole post directly at you. Moreso that Fed fans at that time refused to even consider the idea that Nadal could beat fed on anything other than clay and that he was just this pain that Fed would eventually deal with. Similarly there are foolish Nadal fans out there that are doing the same and will spawn a new wave of people who will hate on Nadal. Just because I think Nadal is on a level higher than Fed does NOT mean that I think Fed sucks.

Like Murray & his game a lot...but the guy is frustrating. Plays well and keeps getting my hopes up..... and then come the slams. Needs to play like this at a slam.

Murray is ready to dominate the tour, he's proven he can beat everyone. lookout next year, that backhand, speed, and annoying backboard factor makes him the second man to beat on hardcourts.

wilson75,

I am posting this in the other blog as well.

------------------

I put the wrong reference article, where Steve wrote, 'Nadal is done.'

It is actually, "Reading the readers: Caro vs. Nadal Edition", not conspiracy edition.

Here's the excerpt.

========
Maybe you guys are on it, but I doubt it.—Davo

Nadal is done.

========

I do not say things, without proof.

Capiche.

espnalanaldo, your bias comments clearly show incompetence in your abilities to think logically. the man who you so vehemently accusing is over 29 years old and is still beating players much younger than him (clearly due to your short term memory loss you are forgetting the quarters and semis). we are trying to have an educated debate here, so if you have nothing better to do than to whine about nadal's loss and childishly insult federer, then i suggest that you leave.

Daniel,

Not worth my time.

Steve was joking, troll!

Now here is the real GOAT:

http://www.taschen-goat.com/index1.html

If Fed and Murray played at the Aussie Open in January would you seriously pick Murray to win? Wake up, we have seen this before. Fed has been losing Master's titles and then winning the "important" matches for years. He can't win every match. The same way it was unfair for Nadal to be judged negatively for losing to Garcia-Lopez and Melzer (clearly just off-days), I don't really feel comfortable judging Federer for this loss either. He avenged his loss to Djokovic convincingly and then just didn't get his game together out there. Really, there's no way Murray ever beats Fed in a slam. Really. Ever. Y'all deep down know it's true.

Also, GOAT may be a useless term, but it's nothing compared to "best player to never win a slam." You might as well just call it the "Most talented choker" award.

At first, I thought this was a terrible loss for Federer. To win this match would have been a sign of resurgent supremacy in the making. Solid wins over Isner, Soderling (well, maybe that was more an opening of a can of whoopass than a "solid" win), and Djokovic, followed by a win over Murray would have been a signature win. The way he lost this final initially told me any resurgency was clearly not in the making.

Then I realized what this particular loss means, and it is an interesting situation, with a fairly complex solution. It is obvious from the way Fed has been playing since he started working with Annacone that Paul is telling him, wisely so, to use first strike tennis again. The recent losses to players he had previously dominated was likely the result of being less offensive than Federer had been in recent memory - the chipped backhand returns, the less forceful forehands, the waiting for the opponent to make a mistake.

If you watched the wins this week, you would have seen Federer taking the initiative at every opportunity, scorching forehands, shortening points, and voila, he soundly beat a couple of guys he used to own or at least had solid records against - in convincing fashion. Job well done.

The loss to Murray presents an older, trickier proposition for Federer, one that makes this particular loss today not as bad as I first thought, but it has long term implications. You see, there are really only two guys on tour whose defense is so incredible that they can derail Federer's offense by way of causing the points to be long enough that Federer starts overhitting, and eventually gets frustrated. They are, you guessed it, Murray, and Nadal.

In fact, Federer had played this type of "redline" tennis a while back against Murray, and it got him a few losses in between some wins. Recently, though, Federer seemed to realize with Murray (still waiting for him to figure that out against Nadal) that he needs to bide his time, to allow the point to develop, and to pull the trigger at the right moment. Sure, Murray had a lot to do with this win by dictating play with excellent grounds strokes and returns, but the final game was a case in point for my argument. After going up 30-love, Federer: Served and volleyed on an approach to Murray's backhand (rushing the point) and dumped an easy volley into the net; hit a mid court easy forehand into the net; missed another backhand volley, hit a winner off the forehand side, hit a forehand 3 feet long, then wrapped up the loss with a blown backhand volley. The tally? At least 5 unforced errors in one game by Federer, in a game that he had to win to make Murray feel the pressure of serving it out.

What this all means is that if Paul Annacone gets Federer back to playing attacking, aggressive tennis, he will likely beat almost everyone regularly again, but may have trouble with the two guys that can make him hit more balls than anyone else.

My opinion is that it is refreshing to see the old Federer smacking forehand winners again, but the next challenge for he and Paul will be to sort out what to do when the guy on the other side of the net is a human - or superhuman - backboard.

Federer at his best solves all puzzles and looks at opponents' games as ways to use them against the opponents. For whatever reason that did not happen today - maybe Federer used too much of what worked in his previous Murray wins. When Federer's in the moment there's no better player.

It really doesn't matter with the "oh well, Nadal wasn't in the final at the hardcourt events" because the bottom line is out of the 21 times they played, Rafa won 14.
Think about if you were beating your best tennis buddy, but then he just wrote off your wins to another friend, with 'oh, but he beat me on clay or indoors, so it doesn't count." You would be saying that it is the most foolish thing you've ever heard.

Fed is good, he was one of the best of his time. There is no such thing as a GOAT, just greatest of your time.
7-14 against Nadal is significant, especially since Nadal has beaten him on 2 more surfaces in grand slam finals (AO,W) and Federer has only beaten him on Grass, but he still managed to play tight matches on his 'best surface'

Federer is better than most, but he is not better than Nadal. Despite having currently achieved more in tennis.

espnalanaldo, you are not worth anybody's time. at least have a proper debate instead of accusing people who don't say things you don't like.

I will concede one thing. Espnalanaldo is the GTOAT. Well done!

@ edoubleu

Nice analysis. Totally agree with you...

Honestly, I don't know why you people even bother replying to this espnalanaldo guy. He is obviously a troll, and not even a very entertaining one at that. Just ignore him.

Laskaris,

Envy much?

edoubleu,

Great analysis. Thanks.

Which boils down to what I posted earlier, that these two guys, Nadal and Murray pretty much closed down Roger's paths to plays. Nadal blocks him in all Slams and Murray defeats him in most Masters.

Roger has nowhere to go now, with additional barrage from Djok,etc and even possibly from Melzer.

Roger is getting confused. He does not know what to do. For the longest time, he has being doing it HIS way, not much help from coaches, and now he is forced to listen to Annacone, hoping that what worked for Sampras must also work for him.

Nyah!

There is this guy Nadal who knows how to problem solve on the spot, in all surfaces. Nadal willing to experiment and improve his game.

In fact, it was telling in the player vignettes featured at the US Open, when Roger declares that he plays for the enjoyment of him getting trohpies, but Nadal is more profound in saying he plays to learn, to improve!

now, there is your difference.

Advantage? Nadal.

To all you idiots claiming that NAdal is supirior to federer because of the head count 14-7, did you ever have the chance to use your little pea-sized brains to understand that most of these nadal victories were on clay because actually federer was THAT GOOD to actually reach the finals of these clay tournaments. However, nadal barely made it to so many finals on the other courts, you know why? Because he is not as superior as federer. Federer in his prime reached almost every tournament final, that was when he was as old as nadal, murray, djoker and that moron soderling who has the worst technique on earth. Appreciate federer for what he's done, you don't have to be his fan, the man has done wonders with his game, and with minimal effort, he didn't have to act like a human backboard, such as murray today!

I do not think Rafa is better than Federer. He is just a 1 of a kind specialist at his particular style of tennis. He is #1 for a reason as was Roger. At some point, each player will lose tournaments to their nemisis. And it is up to them to them to evaluate their performance and study their opponents to figure out a way to bet them. It is always very exciting to watch the top 4 men play each other.

"The Greatest Player Never to Win a Slam"

Thus phrase has a point... although what if he finally wins one... what will he be call..."Another Grand Slam winner?"

Why is it that every single time Federer plays, it has to involve Nadal, even though said Nadal wasn't in the finals? Rafans, wake up: Nadal didn't lose because he had an off-day, he lost because that day, Jurgen Melzer was the better player on that Stadium court. End of story. And why don't you guys mention his total lack of class at his presser? Because Nadal, when he loses, it's not because his opponent is the better guy tha day, oh! no! It's either because he's tired, injured or not playing well. Rarely because the guy on the other side of the net played a trememdous match. And Gosh knows Melzer did just that: played the match of his life, and won. That's just that.

So, Andy Murray was in the finals today, and won it with an impressive display of tennis, playing so well and in such an inspired way that he made Federer overhit his shots and making all those errors. He made such sick shots today that one can only hope he'll think about that when the next Grand Slam comes. Ed is right mentioning he's the greatest never to have won a Slam. And if he can keep that frame of mind at the AO in January, or just in London in a month's time, then he will be able to achieve the great things that a lot saw in him (and being a fan of the Scot since his first Wimbledon as a pro, I'm including myself in that lot). He's got the play, now, he just needs to prove he can go all the way.

As for Federer, of course he's not going to win as many tournaments as before, but that doesn't make him an opponent not worth considering. After all, the guy was so dominant that he raised the standards of tennis to a whole new level, one that everyone, including Nadal, had to work very hard to get to, and to try and surpass. That's just one of the reasons Federer is, rightly, and along with all his records (16 Grand Slam titles, that's not nothing), the GOAT.

Head to head matchups mean little when deciding who is a better player. What counts is how well you perform against the field. In tennis, unlike most other sports, player A can beat player B, and player B can beat player C, and player C can beat player A.

It's all about matchups. Nadal is the perfect constellation of what is the worst possible matchup for Fed (lefty with a ton of spin).

If head to head decided who the better player was, then we'd see Murray as better than Federer. That obviously isn't true. At least not yet.

Congratulations to Andy for an OVERWHELMING victory over federer. Roger forgot to check his to-do list this time. I hope we can see more results like this in the future. Lets see more finals with Nadal, Murray and Djokovic. I like this new era of tennis!!!!

Being number 1 and winning 3 major titles in a row shows that NADAL is the best at the present time. The federer years are coming to an end. Lets face it, Nadal, Murray and Djokovic have taken over.

Being number 1 and winning 3 major titles in a row shows that NADAL is the best at the present time. The federer years are coming to an end. Lets face it, Nadal, Murray and Djokovic have taken over.

that's it? as much coverage as we get to review the final of a Masters event? A half-hearted look at a shot Federer did to encapsulate a brilliantly fought match - it was tactical and full of guile from them both - and a Masters final.

I rest my case that I've been making the last 2 days about what tennis.com has become...this sort of final is my dream final with 2 of my favourite players, and I absolutely love their rivalry.

But I would bet my house that if Federer had won, there would be 3 articles gushing about him especially Bodo.

Tennis.com is not about tennis - its about celebrity.

I feel insulted as a general tennis fan by this site these days.

New blog about Us tennis and its future. http://ustennis.wordpress.com/ Check me out also looking for an affiliation!

@ espnalanaldo: No, I do not envy you. I feel sad for you. And let me assure you, it is an honest sadness, not fake, condescending sadness.

I can't help but wonder, how empty does your existence have to be if you feel it necessary to validate it by intentionally starting and then "winning" arguments with strangers on the internet? Do you honestly consider this a worthwhile use of your time? Do you consider it mature behaviour? Do you think it impresses people? Are you *happy* with it?

I mean, if it truly does make you happy, fine! More power to you. We are all free to use our spare time and this forum the way we want to. As for me, I come here to relax and chat with fellow tennis fans, not to fight with people.

You seem intelligent and you write well. I just think it is sad that you don't use these talents in a more productive manner.

I am a huge fan of tennis in general and particlarly Rog and Rafa.

As it stands now, I would say Roger is clearly the best ever and despite not being at the peak of his powers (he is 29 folks which is up there in tennis age). When he was at his best he was virtually unbeatable on grass, hard court, or clay save Nadal.

Rafa has had an unbeliavable year but still has not had a year (for me at least) as dominant as Rogers three years when he lost only 15 matches total over all three years.

The 14-7 H2H does not make Nadal a better player per se, it does make him the better clay player (and greateest clay player of all time for sure, no?).

The folks that keep using the H2H as a way to say Rafa is greatest all time and better then fed are not seeing the bg picture.

H2H roger leads rafa on hard court and on grass. clay (which is ost of there meetings) rafa holds a big edge.

Hypothetically: If Fed where not to have made all those masters clay finals and FO final in 06, 07, 08 but lost in the semis at all these events and hence never played Nadal (and lost) on clay all these times and now holds a winning H2H are we even having the conversation?? Give me a break, when fed was in his peak he was a monster. are we really saying if he was a worse clay court player (and did not meet nadal in finals) that we would upgrade his career and GOAT considerration?

I am a huge rafa fan but he is not (currently) the GOAT. that is clear as day to roger despite there H2H. It is not rogers fault that he is number 2 on clay and rafa for years was not even close to number 2 on hard court.

just my humble opinion. I love them both :)

ps.. I am rooting for murray to win majors and with fed playing at 98% of where he was and rafa not nearly as dominaint on hard courts i think murray will win at least 2 hard court slams.

There is something about these blogs that is beyond my understanding: must every article wind up being a battlefield for the Nadal/Federer discussion? Every article?

Both tours are in what we might term "pre-transition" phases. The changing of the guard as a process might have begun, but is long from complete - which, to me, keeps things interesting.

What's not interesting is the 2-dimensional Hatfield vs. McCoys feuding - and even those legendary families finally settled their differences this week, after 100+ years.

Fed's currently got the GS record, Nadal might top him eventually, and we've got Novak and Muzza solidly in the mix. JMDP will hopefully return to his 2009 form. :))

Agassi didn't win a Slam until his fourth final, and eventually retired a legend. Would Andy Murray turn down Agassi's career? Novak won a slam on his second try; that his future holds more GS titles seems clear, even if he frequently comes up against Nadal.

ATHLETIC LIFE IS ALWAYS TEMPORARY, SO ENJOY ALL THE PLAYERS AND THEIR UNIQUE TALENTS. FED. IS AT THE TWIILIGHT OF HIS CAREER AND NADAL IS JUST BEGINNING. THEY ARE ALL TIME GREAT PLAYERS WITH THEIR SPECUAL TALENTS. GIVE NADAL FEW MORE YEARS AND HE MAY SURPASS FED? WE PRAY FOR HIS KNEE HEALTH AND WE WILL ENJOY MANY MORE YEARS OF A YOUNG TALENT WHO IS ALWAYS IN SEARCH OF EXCELLENCE, IMPROVEMENT AND SOOO VERY HUMBLE.

When I read Roger's (untypical) gracious remarks about Andy, I was ready to give him credit for maturing. Then, alas, I read the artticle with Fed saying a bad line call probably cost him the match !?? Talk about Deja Vu!. A blog comment stated: " Fed the greatest? Absolutely.
The GOAT of bad losers! "

Andy played amazing today when Roger had break points. Andy is capable of beating anyone when he plays at this level. For some reason, he has not been consistent enough to do it at a GS yet. I thought Roger actually played very well today it's just that today Murray was too good. Unforced errors stat can be misleading. Sometimes they are a result of a player trying to do too much because the other player is hitting so well. Like Fed said, Murray made the target very small.

Another bad loss of the crying old champ ???

HAHAHA !!!

@Larry in the Silicon
you are right about Espanaldo, can't the Moderators do anything? Big-ups to all Murray fans, I hope he does win a Slam - the Greatest Player to never win one begins to compare with Colin Montgomerie's Golf record! A choker?

Rafa, Roger, Novak and Andy are the best in the world right now, and any one of them is good enough to beat any of the others on any given day. Why be so resistent to this concept? :) GS's and Masters events do not always involve the top four playing each other. They involve one of the top four playing someone else at rank 5 or below. So the top four remain top four as long as they keep beating rank 5 and below. Isn't this why we love to see what happens at the end-of-year Barclay's final, where all the best play the best? Even then, who knows what it all means...Davydenko was the best of the best last year. Hmm....