Topic: Djokovic and Murray move away from the pack

[sid]

For the first time in a while, 2012 saw the Grand Slams shared out amongst four different players. From 2004 to 2010, they were almost entirely dominated by just two – Roger Federer and Rafa Nadal, before Novak Djokovic came through in 2011. 2012 felt like a crossroads.

Where does the sport go now? It looks as if tennis will be ruled by two men again – but this time it’s Djokovic and Andy Murray. It is that duo who have etched their name on the last three major tournaments (Murray winning the Olympic Games and the US Open, Djokovic triumphing in Melbourne). It’s those two who have stolen a march on the other two, benefiting from Nadal’s injury and beating Federer in crunch clashes.

Djokovic and Murray are the first generation of players who have played their whole life in the ‘new’ court conditions. All surfaces have slowed in the last decade, and the courts have been homogenised somewhat. And perhaps it’s no coincidence that these two players have similar profiles: remarkable court coverage, high efficiency on their service returns, and excellent conversion of points when they've got the first ball back into play. Their risk-taking is measured, and as such they play most matches with precious few unforced errors.

It’s all about preparation – their intense winter camps allow them to match any opponent. Adversaries who try to shorten the points are met with counter-punches, but they are also almost impossible to outlast and wear down.

Their pre-eminence poses a question for the ‘purer’ ball-strikers, the more attacking competitors – do they still have a chance to flourish in an era where Djokovic and Murray seem primed for the conditions?

Federer produced some of his very best tennis at the Australian Open. He was fast, explosive, his forehand effective, his serve marvellous. However, he had to bow to Murray. Nole and Andy are like improved versions of Lleyton Hewitt at his peak.

Like him they counter opponents and cover the court perfectly, but they serve better and return exceptionally well. Murray put 75% of Federer’s first serves back in play in the Australian Open semi-final, giving Federer far fewer free points than he ever used to get in the past. And Murray fired 21 aces down in comparison to Federer’s five. In rallies, Djokovic and Murray are more powerful than Hewitt ever was, and have a more powerful weapon with their forehands.

How to respond? Attacking players need to give a bit more thought to their aggressive approach. The tactics of Federer – and also someone like Jo-Wilfried Tsonga – are too predictable in the face of blocking players of this calibre. It seems essential to me to make some tweaks – the first of which is to exploit the second serve. Murray’s second serve is often considerably slower, and Federer, too systematic with his chopped return, did not take full advantage. The same applies when Murray blocked the ball back into play – Federer didn’t exert early control, and slowly Murray worked his way back into points.

But if Federer and Tsonga were to accept the challenge Murray and Djokovic present and make these changes, I am convinced they have a future against the leading duo.

And where is Nadal in all of this? Pronouncements before he completes his return from injury are dangerous – his absence raises a lot of questions about his long-term future. His knees have suffered, and his physical intensity on the court has always been his strongest asset. Perhaps he has been paying the price for all the demands he has put on his body.

But if his troubles are truly behind him, I could see him rediscovering his game in the second half of the year and shaking things up once more.

..

[Litotes]

A little premature to talk about "Moving away from the pack" when Murray is still quite a long way off 2nd place in the rankings. If he really want to demonstrate he's among the two best let him show improvement on clay first. Last year he wasn't even big-4 on clay, getting outscored not merely by Nadal, Djokovic and Federer, but also Ferrer, Simon, Almagro and Berdych . If he can improve significantly this year 2nd place will surely follow.

[sid]

It was not Andy Murray who said that.Federer in the last 11 slams has won just one,so what was said was not premature.Fact of life all things change

[Emma]

A little premature to talk about "Moving away from the pack" when Murray is still quite a long way off 2nd place in the rankings. If he really want to demonstrate he's among the two best let him show improvement on clay first. Last year he wasn't even big-4 on clay, getting outscored not merely by Nadal, Djokovic and Federer, but also Ferrer, Simon, Almagro and Berdych . If he can improve significantly this year 2nd place will surely follow.

Andy has made 3 consecutive GS finals so far - 2 on hard courts and 1 on grass. He won USO and also the Olympics - another major tournament. He beat Nole twice and Federer once to win those titles. Whereas Federer won Wimbledon, lost in the qtr final at the USO and then lost to Murray at the AO semi. You do the math. Yes, Andy’s still quite a bit behind Federer in terms of ranking points but Murray was only gunning for a Slam last year, so he ditched a lot of tournaments by exiting early. So it’s not a fair comparison to begin with even when you don’t take the results into account.

[Litotes]

It was not Andy Murray who said that.Federer in the last 11 slams has won just one,so what was said was not premature.Fact of life all things change

Yeah, well, of the last 11 slams Murray has also won just one. That's not really an argument in his favour. Try looking at who's won more of the last 11 masters for a tiebreak given that slam wins are equal....I know, slam Fs are better than SFs, still a slam SF and a masters W is better than a slam F and a masters early exit.

I know Murray didn't say this, he is realistic enough not to talk like that.

What do you hope for on clay this season? Given he was only barely top-10 on the surface last year, does top-3 sound too optimistic to you? Or not?

[Litotes]

Andy has made 3 consecutive GS finals so far - 2 on hard courts and 1 on grass. He won USO and also the Olympics - another major tournament. He beat Nole twice and Federer once to win those titles. Whereas Federer won Wimbledon, lost in the qtr final at the USO and then lost to Murray at the AO semi. You do the math. Yes, Andy’s still quite a bit behind Federer in terms of ranking points but Murray was only gunning for a Slam last year, so he ditched a lot of tournaments by exiting early. So it’s not a fair comparison to begin with even when you don’t take the results into account.

Murray was only gunning for a slam. Federer, winning three masters, was then probably not, wouldn't you say? Do you think Fed's chances of reaching more major finals would have been greater if he just tanked those masters? If not, then why didn't Murray do better in them? Because Fed has more stamina?

[monstertruck]

For the first time in a while, 2012 saw the Grand Slams shared out amongst four different players. From 2004 to 2010, they were almost entirely dominated by just two – Roger Federer and Rafa Nadal, before Novak Djokovic came through in 2011. 2012 felt like a crossroads.

Where does the sport go now? It looks as if tennis will be ruled by two men again – but this time it’s Djokovic and Andy Murray. It is that duo who have etched their name on the last three major tournaments (Murray winning the Olympic Games and the US Open, Djokovic triumphing in Melbourne). It’s those two who have stolen a march on the other two, benefiting from Nadal’s injury and beating Federer in crunch clashes.

Djokovic and Murray are the first generation of players who have played their whole life in the ‘new’ court conditions. All surfaces have slowed in the last decade, and the courts have been homogenised somewhat. And perhaps it’s no coincidence that these two players have similar profiles: remarkable court coverage, high efficiency on their service returns, and excellent conversion of points when they've got the first ball back into play. Their risk-taking is measured, and as such they play most matches with precious few unforced errors.

It’s all about preparation – their intense winter camps allow them to match any opponent. Adversaries who try to shorten the points are met with counter-punches, but they are also almost impossible to outlast and wear down.

Their pre-eminence poses a question for the ‘purer’ ball-strikers, the more attacking competitors – do they still have a chance to flourish in an era where Djokovic and Murray seem primed for the conditions?

Federer produced some of his very best tennis at the Australian Open. He was fast, explosive, his forehand effective, his serve marvellous. However, he had to bow to Murray. Nole and Andy are like improved versions of Lleyton Hewitt at his peak.

Like him they counter opponents and cover the court perfectly, but they serve better and return exceptionally well. Murray put 75% of Federer’s first serves back in play in the Australian Open semi-final, giving Federer far fewer free points than he ever used to get in the past. And Murray fired 21 aces down in comparison to Federer’s five. In rallies, Djokovic and Murray are more powerful than Hewitt ever was, and have a more powerful weapon with their forehands.

How to respond? Attacking players need to give a bit more thought to their aggressive approach. The tactics of Federer – and also someone like Jo-Wilfried Tsonga – are too predictable in the face of blocking players of this calibre. It seems essential to me to make some tweaks – the first of which is to exploit the second serve. Murray’s second serve is often considerably slower, and Federer, too systematic with his chopped return, did not take full advantage. The same applies when Murray blocked the ball back into play – Federer didn’t exert early control, and slowly Murray worked his way back into points.

But if Federer and Tsonga were to accept the challenge Murray and Djokovic present and make these changes, I am convinced they have a future against the leading duo.

And where is Nadal in all of this? Pronouncements before he completes his return from injury are dangerous – his absence raises a lot of questions about his long-term future. His knees have suffered, and his physical intensity on the court has always been his strongest asset. Perhaps he has been paying the price for all the demands he has put on his body.

But if his troubles are truly behind him, I could see him rediscovering his game in the second half of the year and shaking things up once more.

..

Did you write this Sid???
If so, nicely done!

[mav140]

Well, to be honest, I do have to disagree with Emma here.. Those are just lame excuses... How can you say that a 24 year old (at the time) was tanking Masters and minor tournaments? We are not talking of some 30 year old veteran that has to just worry to say in his feet for GS... This is just BS... He was just aiming at GS so he was tanking and losing early at Masters???? I don't believe this and I don't think anybody would believe this crap.. He is just 24 years old, he has improved his resilience his stamina... So NO, I don't believe this tanking stuff nor do I believe he was just aiming to win a GS and forgot about everything else....


As for moving away from the pack? Well, I am still not sure about this.. We have been talking about the Top 4 for over 2 years now... Everytime we talked about GSs, we talked about Top FOUR, Nadal, Djokovic, Federer and Murray, and Murray hadn't even won a Grand Slam yet, HE JUST WON ONE!! And now all of a sudden both of them are moving away from the pack?? Djokovic is on top of the pack because of the way he is playing.. He is the player to beat, he is the rightful world number 1. If you want to talk about something of this sort, you would have to say that Djokovic is moving away from the pack, and I would believe that... But Murray just won one slam and all of a sudden he is ALSO moving away from the top 4 pack? Nadal has been absent for over 7 months, give him time to recover and see if that's right... Fed is playing a "good" tennis and has won Wimbledon last year, several masters, got to the Olympics final and all of a sudden he is out of the pack??


Let's take the last 2 years (9 slams, sid was talking about 11, let's make it 9):


Djokovic
USO W F
RG SF F
W W SF
AO W W W


Murray
USO SF W
RG SF QF
W SF F
AO F SF F


Federer
USO SF QF
RG F SF
W QF W
AO SF SF SF


Nadal
USO F A
RG W W
W F 2nd R
AO QF F A


By this stats, Nadal continues to be superior to Murray and it is only because he has been absent that he didn't score anything on the last 2 GSs... Murray has a bit better record on the last GSs than Federer, but not so much as to say he has moven away from the pack. We are talking about a tremendous talent here. Murray is a great tennis player, but you guys are putting too much pressure on the dude! You want him to be even more than he is RIGHT NOW, and I am not saying he is going to be better. He is demonstrating he can handle the pressure now, but I think you are calling on Murray a bit sooner than expected. He will get there, but right now he is still on the same pack, and when Nadal comes back (and in the shape he does) we can talk about this again. But NO, Djokovic is the one who is moving away from the pack, followed by Murray and Federer, whether Murray and Federer can catch up to Nole? Well that is the question... Will Murray pick up his game and turn it up a notch to be in the same league as Djokovic 2.0? We haven't seen that yet, and Does Federer have a last young man breath to at least continue to battle this top young dogs? I don't think so, but I hope I am proven wrong.


Fact of the matter is that Murray is on its way, but there are a lot of factors to consider here and if and when Murray will get there, I will be the first to acknolwedge that, but for now, no, he is with the top 4 or top 3 with Djokovic ahead by some yards now..

[Gawdblessya]

For the first time in a while, 2012 saw the Grand Slams shared out amongst four different players. From 2004 to 2010, they were almost entirely dominated by just two – Roger Federer and Rafa Nadal, before Novak Djokovic came through in 2011. 2012 felt like a crossroads.

Where does the sport go now? It looks as if tennis will be ruled by two men again – but this time it’s Djokovic and Andy Murray. It is that duo who have etched their name on the last three major tournaments (Murray winning the Olympic Games and the US Open, Djokovic triumphing in Melbourne). It’s those two who have stolen a march on the other two, benefiting from Nadal’s injury and beating Federer in crunch clashes.

Djokovic and Murray are the first generation of players who have played their whole life in the ‘new’ court conditions. All surfaces have slowed in the last decade, and the courts have been homogenised somewhat. And perhaps it’s no coincidence that these two players have similar profiles: remarkable court coverage, high efficiency on their service returns, and excellent conversion of points when they've got the first ball back into play. Their risk-taking is measured, and as such they play most matches with precious few unforced errors.

It’s all about preparation – their intense winter camps allow them to match any opponent. Adversaries who try to shorten the points are met with counter-punches, but they are also almost impossible to outlast and wear down.

Their pre-eminence poses a question for the ‘purer’ ball-strikers, the more attacking competitors – do they still have a chance to flourish in an era where Djokovic and Murray seem primed for the conditions?

Federer produced some of his very best tennis at the Australian Open. He was fast, explosive, his forehand effective, his serve marvellous. However, he had to bow to Murray. Nole and Andy are like improved versions of Lleyton Hewitt at his peak.

Like him they counter opponents and cover the court perfectly, but they serve better and return exceptionally well. Murray put 75% of Federer’s first serves back in play in the Australian Open semi-final, giving Federer far fewer free points than he ever used to get in the past. And Murray fired 21 aces down in comparison to Federer’s five. In rallies, Djokovic and Murray are more powerful than Hewitt ever was, and have a more powerful weapon with their forehands.

How to respond? Attacking players need to give a bit more thought to their aggressive approach. The tactics of Federer – and also someone like Jo-Wilfried Tsonga – are too predictable in the face of blocking players of this calibre. It seems essential to me to make some tweaks – the first of which is to exploit the second serve. Murray’s second serve is often considerably slower, and Federer, too systematic with his chopped return, did not take full advantage. The same applies when Murray blocked the ball back into play – Federer didn’t exert early control, and slowly Murray worked his way back into points.

But if Federer and Tsonga were to accept the challenge Murray and Djokovic present and make these changes, I am convinced they have a future against the leading duo.

And where is Nadal in all of this? Pronouncements before he completes his return from injury are dangerous – his absence raises a lot of questions about his long-term future. His knees have suffered, and his physical intensity on the court has always been his strongest asset. Perhaps he has been paying the price for all the demands he has put on his body.

But if his troubles are truly behind him, I could see him rediscovering his game in the second half of the year and shaking things up once more.

..

Interesting article, Sid, thanks.  A good analysis of several pertinent factors and how the future looks. Basically, confirming Babblelot's point about how the attacking game looks likely to be on the wane, and with it, shorter, more interesting matches. The aim, it seems, is get the ball into play rather than to finish point off.

I read this article on yahoo, here's a link:

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/patrick-mouratoglou/djokovic-murray-move-away-pack-165711108.html

[Emma]

Andy has made 3 consecutive GS finals so far - 2 on hard courts and 1 on grass. He won USO and also the Olympics - another major tournament. He beat Nole twice and Federer once to win those titles. Whereas Federer won Wimbledon, lost in the qtr final at the USO and then lost to Murray at the AO semi. You do the math. Yes, Andy’s still quite a bit behind Federer in terms of ranking points but Murray was only gunning for a Slam last year, so he ditched a lot of tournaments by exiting early. So it’s not a fair comparison to begin with even when you don’t take the results into account.

Murray was only gunning for a slam. Federer, winning three masters, was then probably not, wouldn't you say? Do you think Fed's chances of reaching more major finals would have been greater if he just tanked those masters? If not, then why didn't Murray do better in them? Because Fed has more stamina?

Federer and Murray are never in the same boat. They never were. They are first of all 6 years apart. Second, Federer has achieved everything he needed to achieve by now whereas Andy was still looking for his first Slam just last year around this time. So their priorities have always been different. What Federer could afford last year, Murray simply couldn’t. Whatever Federer wins at this point is a bonus but it’s not for Andy. If he had another Masters, then this would have been just another Masters for him. And he’s won enough of them. So when you have to win a Slam so that you can shut your critics up but especially you have to prove it to yourself and time is running out, it’s a whole different quest and a much bigger one when you consider the pressure. Federer had the luxury to go for everything but for Andy, the stakes were much higher. It was do or die situation. Now or never. When you have this specific goal, everything else becomes irrelevant and they did. He also wanted to win the Olympics. He saw an opportunity having this event in his home country and he capitalized it. That was just the added pressure but that was on his list - to win a Major and the Olympics. He’s a player who’s in a very difficult position because of the political frictions Scottish and English people have between them and it’s never easy.  So he doesn’t get undivided attention from his country people unlike Nole or Nadal or Federer, but he’s doing a remarkable job so far. He loves his country best of all despite all the odds. The comparison is never fair or valid.

[sid]

For the first time in a while, 2012 saw the Grand Slams shared out amongst four different players. From 2004 to 2010, they were almost entirely dominated by just two – Roger Federer and Rafa Nadal, before Novak Djokovic came through in 2011. 2012 felt like a crossroads.

Where does the sport go now? It looks as if tennis will be ruled by two men again – but this time it’s Djokovic and Andy Murray. It is that duo who have etched their name on the last three major tournaments (Murray winning the Olympic Games and the US Open, Djokovic triumphing in Melbourne). It’s those two who have stolen a march on the other two, benefiting from Nadal’s injury and beating Federer in crunch clashes.

Djokovic and Murray are the first generation of players who have played their whole life in the ‘new’ court conditions. All surfaces have slowed in the last decade, and the courts have been homogenised somewhat. And perhaps it’s no coincidence that these two players have similar profiles: remarkable court coverage, high efficiency on their service returns, and excellent conversion of points when they've got the first ball back into play. Their risk-taking is measured, and as such they play most matches with precious few unforced errors.

It’s all about preparation – their intense winter camps allow them to match any opponent. Adversaries who try to shorten the points are met with counter-punches, but they are also almost impossible to outlast and wear down.

Their pre-eminence poses a question for the ‘purer’ ball-strikers, the more attacking competitors – do they still have a chance to flourish in an era where Djokovic and Murray seem primed for the conditions?

Federer produced some of his very best tennis at the Australian Open. He was fast, explosive, his forehand effective, his serve marvellous. However, he had to bow to Murray. Nole and Andy are like improved versions of Lleyton Hewitt at his peak.

Like him they counter opponents and cover the court perfectly, but they serve better and return exceptionally well. Murray put 75% of Federer’s first serves back in play in the Australian Open semi-final, giving Federer far fewer free points than he ever used to get in the past. And Murray fired 21 aces down in comparison to Federer’s five. In rallies, Djokovic and Murray are more powerful than Hewitt ever was, and have a more powerful weapon with their forehands.

How to respond? Attacking players need to give a bit more thought to their aggressive approach. The tactics of Federer – and also someone like Jo-Wilfried Tsonga – are too predictable in the face of blocking players of this calibre. It seems essential to me to make some tweaks – the first of which is to exploit the second serve. Murray’s second serve is often considerably slower, and Federer, too systematic with his chopped return, did not take full advantage. The same applies when Murray blocked the ball back into play – Federer didn’t exert early control, and slowly Murray worked his way back into points.

But if Federer and Tsonga were to accept the challenge Murray and Djokovic present and make these changes, I am convinced they have a future against the leading duo.

And where is Nadal in all of this? Pronouncements before he completes his return from injury are dangerous – his absence raises a lot of questions about his long-term future. His knees have suffered, and his physical intensity on the court has always been his strongest asset. Perhaps he has been paying the price for all the demands he has put on his body.

But if his troubles are truly behind him, I could see him rediscovering his game in the second half of the year and shaking things up once more.

..

Did you write this Sid???
If so, nicely done!

Lol,no i wish i did  it was nicely done

[Alex]

As  far as I know Djokovic and Federer are leading the pack. When Murray reaches #2 and dethrones Fed , wins a few more slams we'll talk. Also, watch out for Nadal he is not dead btw. Healthy Nadal can do some serious damage and he is a serious threat to  Mandy.

I'm talking about NOW, not what is going to be. Nobody knows that.

[sid]

As  far as I know Djokovic and Federer are leading the pack. When Murray reaches #2 and dethrones Fed , wins a few more slams we'll talk. Also, watch out for Nadal he is not dead btw. Healthy Nadal can do some serious damage and he is a serious threat to  Mandy.

I'm talking about NOW, not what is going to be. Nobody knows that.

Clam down

[sid]

As  far as I know Djokovic and Federer are leading the pack. When Murray reaches #2 and dethrones Fed , wins a few more slams we'll talk. Also, watch out for Nadal he is not dead btw. Healthy Nadal can do some serious damage and he is a serious threat to  Mandy.

I'm talking about NOW, not what is going to be. Nobody knows that.

Alex i don't agree one bit ATM on about that bullsh*t mate sorry.Murray has the march over Federer ATM.Federer made less finals in 2012 no gold,we are not talking a few years back were are on about now.

[mav140]

As  far as I know Djokovic and Federer are leading the pack. When Murray reaches #2 and dethrones Fed , wins a few more slams we'll talk. Also, watch out for Nadal he is not dead btw. Healthy Nadal can do some serious damage and he is a serious threat to  Mandy.

I'm talking about NOW, not what is going to be. Nobody knows that.

Alex i don't agree one bit ATM on about that bullsh*t mate sorry.Murray has the march over Federer ATM.Federer made less finals in 2012 no gold,we are not talking a few years back were are on about now.

Same story different players.. Remember when all Nadal fans back in 2007 said Nadal was the righteous number one even if Federer was winning 2 or 3 slams a year just because he had a favorable H2H for Nadal and that Fed is/was Nadal's b**ch? The same thing is going on here. I mean, I see Murray having a good last year and I see him starting strong this 2013 and from the beginning of times Murray has been a major threat to  Federer (no surprise he has a better H2H), still Murray was nowhere to be seen last year except for Wimbledon, USO and Olympics.. No Master's titles (not one), just one minor title (Brisbane) and then USO and the Olympics. If you want to be a top dog on tour, you have to be consistent in every tournament you enter. And please don't give this BS about tanking to get out early of EVERY tournament he entered because he was TARGETING a GS. Bottom line, if he wants to be the righteous #2 he has to step it up and win GS, masters and even minor tournaments, all the others from the "big 4" are doing it, so how can he be acknowledge as the #2 if he isn't doing that? and losing points on the way?

I right now see that there is a big 4.. I said it before.. there is no Djokovic and Murray getting ahead of the pack, there is just Djokovic moving slightly ahead of the pack.. As simple as that!!!! Murray is on its way to be a multiple slam winner, he is on its way to be #2 in the world, he is on it's way to even challenge Djokovic for slams on Djokovic's favorite surfaces. But in reality, that is not the case at least not RIGHT NOW.. He is on it's way, and he will definitely get there unless a new up an comer starts challenging the top 4 now.. To say that Djokovic and Murray are getting ahead of the pack should mean Djokovic and Murray have won (sumable between the two) all GSs or even most in a year time and I would go ahead and say that 2 years time. And RIGHT NOW, we have 4 GS different winners, Nadal, Federer, Murray and Djokovic.. So how is that moving ahead of the pack??? That just doesn't make sense. There is NO BIG 2 THEN ANOTHER BIG 2 AND THEN THE REST OF THE FIELD, there is a BIG 4 and one of them slightly ahead of them all (Djokovic)... that's the way I see it and that is the way I think most of the tennis fans sees it.

Let's get passionate about these kind of topics... I love discussing this in an orderly fashioned and with respect for one another ok?

[Litotes]

As  far as I know Djokovic and Federer are leading the pack. When Murray reaches #2 and dethrones Fed , wins a few more slams we'll talk. Also, watch out for Nadal he is not dead btw. Healthy Nadal can do some serious damage and he is a serious threat to  Mandy.

I'm talking about NOW, not what is going to be. Nobody knows that.

Alex i don't agree one bit ATM on about that bullsh*t mate sorry.Murray has the march over Federer ATM.Federer made less finals in 2012 no gold,we are not talking a few years back were are on about now.

Same story different players.. Remember when all Nadal fans back in 2007 said Nadal was the righteous number one even if Federer was winning 2 or 3 slams a year just because he had a favorable H2H for Nadal and that Fed is/was Nadal's b**ch? The same thing is going on here. I mean, I see Murray having a good last year and I see him starting strong this 2013 and from the beginning of times Murray has been a major threat to  Federer (no surprise he has a better H2H), still Murray was nowhere to be seen last year except for Wimbledon, USO and Olympics.. No Master's titles (not one), just one minor title (Brisbane) and then USO and the Olympics. If you want to be a top dog on tour, you have to be consistent in every tournament you enter. And please don't give this BS about tanking to get out early of EVERY tournament he entered because he was TARGETING a GS. Bottom line, if he wants to be the righteous #2 he has to step it up and win GS, masters and even minor tournaments, all the others from the "big 4" are doing it, so how can he be acknowledge as the #2 if he isn't doing that? and losing points on the way?

I right now see that there is a big 4.. I said it before.. there is no Djokovic and Murray getting ahead of the pack, there is just Djokovic moving slightly ahead of the pack.. As simple as that!!!! Murray is on its way to be a multiple slam winner, he is on its way to be #2 in the world, he is on it's way to even challenge Djokovic for slams on Djokovic's favorite surfaces. But in reality, that is not the case at least not RIGHT NOW.. He is on it's way, and he will definitely get there unless a new up an comer starts challenging the top 4 now.. To say that Djokovic and Murray are getting ahead of the pack should mean Djokovic and Murray have won (sumable between the two) all GSs or even most in a year time and I would go ahead and say that 2 years time. And RIGHT NOW, we have 4 GS different winners, Nadal, Federer, Murray and Djokovic.. So how is that moving ahead of the pack??? That just doesn't make sense. There is NO BIG 2 THEN ANOTHER BIG 2 AND THEN THE REST OF THE FIELD, there is a BIG 4 and one of them slightly ahead of them all (Djokovic)... that's the way I see it and that is the way I think most of the tennis fans sees it.

Let's get passionate about these kind of topics... I love discussing this in an orderly fashioned and with respect for one another ok?

The "favourable H2H" is not an explanation if he look at the 12 months that determine the ranking. Fed - Murray is tied 3-3, and what's more they're tied 1-1 in majors, Fed is 1-0 in ATP1500s and ATP500s, Murray 1-0 in ATP1000s and 750s, in addition they're 1-1 on grass and 2-2 on HC. You can't get much more equal than that.

I agree very much with your last sentence. Passionate discussions are good - one should remember, though, that this is not a court of law. Discussions are not won by discrediting your opponent, but by providing good arguments for your point of view. I feel you are doing a good job here, and I'd like to credit you on that. 

[mav140]

As  far as I know Djokovic and Federer are leading the pack. When Murray reaches #2 and dethrones Fed , wins a few more slams we'll talk. Also, watch out for Nadal he is not dead btw. Healthy Nadal can do some serious damage and he is a serious threat to  Mandy.

I'm talking about NOW, not what is going to be. Nobody knows that.

Alex i don't agree one bit ATM on about that bullsh*t mate sorry.Murray has the march over Federer ATM.Federer made less finals in 2012 no gold,we are not talking a few years back were are on about now.

Same story different players.. Remember when all Nadal fans back in 2007 said Nadal was the righteous number one even if Federer was winning 2 or 3 slams a year just because he had a favorable H2H for Nadal and that Fed is/was Nadal's b**ch? The same thing is going on here. I mean, I see Murray having a good last year and I see him starting strong this 2013 and from the beginning of times Murray has been a major threat to  Federer (no surprise he has a better H2H), still Murray was nowhere to be seen last year except for Wimbledon, USO and Olympics.. No Master's titles (not one), just one minor title (Brisbane) and then USO and the Olympics. If you want to be a top dog on tour, you have to be consistent in every tournament you enter. And please don't give this BS about tanking to get out early of EVERY tournament he entered because he was TARGETING a GS. Bottom line, if he wants to be the righteous #2 he has to step it up and win GS, masters and even minor tournaments, all the others from the "big 4" are doing it, so how can he be acknowledge as the #2 if he isn't doing that? and losing points on the way?

I right now see that there is a big 4.. I said it before.. there is no Djokovic and Murray getting ahead of the pack, there is just Djokovic moving slightly ahead of the pack.. As simple as that!!!! Murray is on its way to be a multiple slam winner, he is on its way to be #2 in the world, he is on it's way to even challenge Djokovic for slams on Djokovic's favorite surfaces. But in reality, that is not the case at least not RIGHT NOW.. He is on it's way, and he will definitely get there unless a new up an comer starts challenging the top 4 now.. To say that Djokovic and Murray are getting ahead of the pack should mean Djokovic and Murray have won (sumable between the two) all GSs or even most in a year time and I would go ahead and say that 2 years time. And RIGHT NOW, we have 4 GS different winners, Nadal, Federer, Murray and Djokovic.. So how is that moving ahead of the pack??? That just doesn't make sense. There is NO BIG 2 THEN ANOTHER BIG 2 AND THEN THE REST OF THE FIELD, there is a BIG 4 and one of them slightly ahead of them all (Djokovic)... that's the way I see it and that is the way I think most of the tennis fans sees it.

Let's get passionate about these kind of topics... I love discussing this in an orderly fashioned and with respect for one another ok?

The "favourable H2H" is not an explanation if he look at the 12 months that determine the ranking. Fed - Murray is tied 3-3, and what's more they're tied 1-1 in majors, Fed is 1-0 in ATP1500s and ATP500s, Murray 1-0 in ATP1000s and 750s, in addition they're 1-1 on grass and 2-2 on HC. You can't get much more equal than that.

I agree very much with your last sentence. Passionate discussions are good - one should remember, though, that this is not a court of law. Discussions are not won by discrediting your opponent, but by providing good arguments for your point of view. I feel you are doing a good job here, and I'd like to credit you on that. 

I'm glad you brought the stats here into play....

It is true that they are tied if we bring the H2H from one year ago, and that helps my case into saying nobody is moving ahead of the pack... Djokovic proved to be in great form, he couldn't defend his amazing 2011 year.. I mean, Djokovic was out of his mind that year.. I have to credit him for everything he did that year..  Now, on 2012 it was practically impossible to redo everything he did in 2011, but even though 2012 was a great year for Djokovic and he proved he is the man to beat atm. Far from the UTTER DOMINATION proven in 2011, Djokovic just proved he is a consistent player with massive game and talent and that even though he is the player to beat others have turned their game up a notch and proved they are still fighting to get in the game, obviously I am talking about the other 3.

Now, we have seen Murray playing the Olympics and giving Federer a lesson in the final, he played pretty aggressive tennis there and then at the SF in AO he outplayed Federer as well, but to take just these two matches like regular basis is no indication of everything said in this article. I mean, FAR from Murray having Federer's number we can see that he gave a master class at the Olympics final, but then lost to Federer at the Tour Finals, again, Murray played incredible tennis against Federer at AO Semifinals and still Federer take that match to 5 sets. I do have to credit Federer for hangin around that match, he was outplayed by Murray and still got him into a 5 setter. Come tomorrow, if they play Wimbledon final or USO final, I would think Murray will be the SLIGHT favorite (not RG though), and still I wouldn't bet the farm at Wimbledon or USO that Murray would win those matches.. would you? I mean, right now its any players game. A 9-11 H2H is not conclusive and especially if we take the last year which is tied.

How is that moving ahead from the pack? Can someone explain me?

[Emma]

As  far as I know Djokovic and Federer are leading the pack. When Murray reaches #2 and dethrones Fed , wins a few more slams we'll talk. Also, watch out for Nadal he is not dead btw. Healthy Nadal can do some serious damage and he is a serious threat to  Mandy.

I'm talking about NOW, not what is going to be. Nobody knows that.

Alex i don't agree one bit ATM on about that bullsh*t mate sorry.Murray has the march over Federer ATM.Federer made less finals in 2012 no gold,we are not talking a few years back were are on about now.

Same story different players.. Remember when all Nadal fans back in 2007 said Nadal was the righteous number one even if Federer was winning 2 or 3 slams a year just because he had a favorable H2H for Nadal and that Fed is/was Nadal's b**ch? The same thing is going on here. I mean, I see Murray having a good last year and I see him starting strong this 2013 and from the beginning of times Murray has been a major threat to  Federer (no surprise he has a better H2H), still Murray was nowhere to be seen last year except for Wimbledon, USO and Olympics.. No Master's titles (not one), just one minor title (Brisbane) and then USO and the Olympics. If you want to be a top dog on tour, you have to be consistent in every tournament you enter. And please don't give this BS about tanking to get out early of EVERY tournament he entered because he was TARGETING a GS. Bottom line, if he wants to be the righteous #2 he has to step it up and win GS, masters and even minor tournaments, all the others from the "big 4" are doing it, so how can he be acknowledge as the #2 if he isn't doing that? and losing points on the way?

I right now see that there is a big 4.. I said it before.. there is no Djokovic and Murray getting ahead of the pack, there is just Djokovic moving slightly ahead of the pack.. As simple as that!!!! Murray is on its way to be a multiple slam winner, he is on its way to be #2 in the world, he is on it's way to even challenge Djokovic for slams on Djokovic's favorite surfaces. But in reality, that is not the case at least not RIGHT NOW.. He is on it's way, and he will definitely get there unless a new up an comer starts challenging the top 4 now.. To say that Djokovic and Murray are getting ahead of the pack should mean Djokovic and Murray have won (sumable between the two) all GSs or even most in a year time and I would go ahead and say that 2 years time. And RIGHT NOW, we have 4 GS different winners, Nadal, Federer, Murray and Djokovic.. So how is that moving ahead of the pack??? That just doesn't make sense. There is NO BIG 2 THEN ANOTHER BIG 2 AND THEN THE REST OF THE FIELD, there is a BIG 4 and one of them slightly ahead of them all (Djokovic)... that's the way I see it and that is the way I think most of the tennis fans sees it.

Let's get passionate about these kind of topics... I love discussing this in an orderly fashioned and with respect for one another ok?

The "favourable H2H" is not an explanation if he look at the 12 months that determine the ranking. Fed - Murray is tied 3-3, and what's more they're tied 1-1 in majors, Fed is 1-0 in ATP1500s and ATP500s, Murray 1-0 in ATP1000s and 750s, in addition they're 1-1 on grass and 2-2 on HC. You can't get much more equal than that.
I agree very much with your last sentence. Passionate discussions are good - one should remember, though, that this is not a court of law. Discussions are not won by discrediting your opponent, but by providing good arguments for your point of view. I feel you are doing a good job here, and I'd like to credit you on that. 

But I believe it matters the most at GS or major tournament level. Andy is 2-1 vs Federer (Olympics and AO vs Wimbledon) and 2-2 vs Djokovic (Olympics, USO vs AO, 2013 AO). I took only the past 12/13 months into account because that’s the most solid base. Who won many GSs before doesn’t kick in at this point. Most recent performance is the most accurate foundation.

[Litotes]

But I believe it matters the most at GS or major tournament level. Andy is 2-1 vs Federer (Olympics and AO vs Wimbledon) and 2-2 vs Djokovic (Olympics, USO vs AO, 2013 AO). I took only the past 12/13 months into account because that’s the most solid base. Who won many GSs before doesn’t kick in at this point. Most recent performance is the most accurate foundation.

WTC is a bigger tournament that the Olympics, so 1-1 if you include only majors or 2-2 if you include the second biggest tournaments. Still equal.

[Emma]

But I believe it matters the most at GS or major tournament level. Andy is 2-1 vs Federer (Olympics and AO vs Wimbledon) and 2-2 vs Djokovic (Olympics, USO vs AO, 2013 AO). I took only the past 12/13 months into account because that’s the most solid base. Who won many GSs before doesn’t kick in at this point. Most recent performance is the most accurate foundation.

WTC is a bigger tournament that the Olympics, so 1-1 if you include only majors or 2-2 if you include the second biggest tournaments. Still equal.

WTF is big but not bigger than the Olympics and shouldn't be.