Roger Federer vs. Andy Murray — Australian Open Men’s Final Recap

thanks for the review...Murray has to improve a lot to win against RF...but time is catching up with RF and soon the younger ones will take over...

When Federer is at his best and playing in a relaxed way the end result is not up to his opponent. Murray just had to play his role in an already written script.
Before the game in the end of the semi-final against Tsonga Federer showed clearly that this trophy was his and Murray was there just because he couldn't play in an empty arena.
And in the end on the final Federer clearly stated that Murray would eventually win a Slam....... when the tima comes, and this is still Federer's time, and it will be for awhile still.
Great site, keep up the good work

Will,
Thank you for your analyses.
I think if the number of "winners" and "unforced errors" were shown, it could give more complete picture .
My best regards

If his serve was 57% and that is skewed because of the third set, that means his third set percentage was exceptional if it boosted his match percentage to 57.

Yet he did not win the third set.

The main reason he lost was his strategy. It was the same one Brad Gilbert urged he employ - play the backhand crosscourt to play his strength to Federer's weakness.

Murray did exactly that, and that is why he lost. Because Federer has learned and improved from his encounters against Nadal who employs this exceptionally well.

In fact, Federer rallied very well, and actually opened up the court by his short wide angled backhand -- leaving Murray's court at the sidelines near the service box depth.

This allowed Federer's weaker side to be well protected since he always got to hit his backhand when he was set.

The right strategy to beat Federer is to attack his forehand, and Murray did that as well as he could in the third set. (Remember Delpo at the US Open?) Murray had most success when he could do this, because it got Federer leaving his backhand open, and then when Murray attacked it, it made it more difficult for Federer since he had to hit his backhands on the run.

Murray lost primarily because Federer was just too good, but he also lost because he used the wrong strategy

Will, thanks to your analysis I've come to understand why Federer - my favourite, obviously - can have hard times against players like Nadal and Del Potro, while he easily dismisses many others who hold their ground against those two.

I agree with Randy Burgess about being careful with causality. A player may lose because he got low numbers, or he may have low numbers because he's losing (because he's down). Yet, you answered these aspects very soundly, describing how Federer got back into a match like the one against Davydenko. That was a fine piece of analysis.

When Nadal was owning Federer, with the 2009 Australian as a peak moment, I had hopes for Federer getting back because of Nadal's physically demanding style. Federer has a much more muscle friendly style. He may lose against a Nadal at the edge of his powers, but part of the reason Fed's at 16 is the absence of injury.

I think Del Potro is also very slow burning and expect him to take over soon, with Nadal struggling to switch to a less demanding style. What do you think?

it was nice information

I watched the live Podcast. It was great would love to see that regulary. Please excuse my english, im from germandy :D

In reply to edwarddu
Look at the stats from the Nadal match and the Federer match. Murray served 59% in the Nadal match and 57% in the Federer match. When Roddick serves 70+%, he still loses against Fed, and he has a better serve than Murray. Nadal beats Fed by doing what he does more consistently and effectively -- play super defense and go to the Fed weakness, the high ball to the backhand. Without being able to hit the Nadal topspin, Murray doesn't have a prayer trying to beat Fed like Nadal. Murray has to play to his strengths and find Fed's weakness consistently or pray for a Fed meltdown to have a chance. Of course Murray can improve his second serve and work more of the points to try and find the Fed weakness; trying to be aggressive (which is set relatively early in aplayer's development) at this stage will lead to Murray dropping out of the top 50

Just like I predicted it; Fed in 3 sets. I think I am the closest in the set score. So
Will, when are you going to present me with the prize? I have been waiting for a long time now. Thanks. :-)

Just as it was a mistake to have written off Fed as washed up (I made the same mistake), I think it'll also be a mistake to write off Nadal as too injury-weakend to win any more slams. That guy has a heart of a champion and I wouldn't be suprised if he makes some conditioning or stroke changes and starts winning again.

I thought Murray served well enough and returned well as well. He wasn't delivering on applying constant pressure. Heard Martina repeatedly say that Murray needed to be more aggressive; not an easy thing to do consistently. If the only way Murray is going to win is by getting out of his comfort zone to pressure Federer or any body else, he is never going to win. This is like suggesting to Nadal that he should hit flat and consistently on hard court. He can manage that, if at all, only for a time.

um, i thought murray was serving TERRIBLE, and with a good first serve is taken in account in "applying constant pressure" like you said before. and Murray CAN play aggressive, i think he just had too much nerves and was always afraid of missing points. before the match, he implied he wanted to beat federer like Del Po did last year, but he let so many chances go and was expecting Roger to miss a few shots. I mean, come on, since when does Roger make enough unforced errors to lose a match.....

hey Will,

I love the work you guys do, except for one minor thing.. :) can you please stop guessing/predicting how one player will win in a match (4 tight sets, 5 tight sets etc.). Its a fool's game.. and I am sure you know that..

its one thing to predict who will win the match based on palyers' strengths/weakness but predicting the sets ? come on.. leave that to the whole gang of clueless sports columnists out there who are itching to make some lousy prediction like that and are happy to point to that over and over if that happens to come true (purely an accident)

Sam, these days I have an advertising on my TV (on Eurosport I think) for Poker (and you have to agree that poker is a lot about luck in comparison with tennis).
The advertisement says: If poker is just about luck why we are seeing on the last/final table so many familiar faces? :) The same in tennis...

that was a very good point, i'll copy paste this next time anybody says the Fed is just a lucky guy

Heh, maybe. You're right -- it is a bit of a fools' game... but it's still fun, even when I'm waaaay off =)

Very good job at Australian Open Will... It was hard for you, but you covered very well the whole tournament. We had very good 2 weeks following this and I can tell you that everyday in the morning I was here to check your comments/challenges for next day.
Keep going with the good job ;)
Coming back to the final I just wanted to mention that Federer is like good wine these days, better after each day that is passing by :)

it's good to hear that you will be doing these the next grand slams

Just one nit - the stats are interesting, but they are not causal - they are correlative. A good way to describe such stats (in this case) is "what it looks like to lose." A way to see that they are not causal is to imagine you are coaching Murray and you tell him, "Andy, you've got to get your first serve percentage up next time against Roger." He would look at you and say, "How?" That nails it right there.

I think this is why fans find Brad Gilbert et al so entertaining - they like the emphasis on psychological factors, which seem much more causal (whether or not they really are).

Personally I would enjoy fewer stats from you and more analysis of stroke exchanges, as you sometimes do in your other videos.

Hey Randy. Fair enough. Although I don't entirely agree w/your hypothetical. If Stefanki told Roddick to raise his first serve percentage, Roddick would hit with a little bit more topspin and aim for big (i.e. high-percentage) areas of the service box. You can definitely manipulate your stats by changing your technique / tactics.

Regarding exchanges, I'll certainly do more of those in the future, but I didn't think there was one exchange during the final that was exceptionally telling.

But again, there would be the question of *why* Stefanki would tell Roddick to raise his first serve percentage - it wouldn't be for the sake of getting the higher percentage (a purely statistical reason, obviously) but for a tactical purpose of some sort, e.g. "He's crushing your second serve, so you need to get more first serves in."

Regardless, I enjoy your commentary.

I think the tactical reasoning here is flawed: if he's crushing you on second serve, there is no point in turning the first serve into a second serve (by making it safer, with more spin). In that case, you need to make your second more like the first, benefiting of the double chances you get to hit the first right.

Hitting a higher percentage, with safer serves, is something you do when he's NOT crushing you on it. And if he's not crushing you on it, you'll go into a rally, where you may average him out on the higher number, so there the statistics come into play.

"Getting more serves in" is therefore not consistent with "applying pressure". On a good day, you serve big and always in, but "having a good day" is some sort of advice.

You're right here -- sometimes I could do a better job of connecting the dots.

To some point I agree with you when you talk about numbers but, if the trainer is looking to numbers after first set and see that I will definitively advice Murray to slow down the speed and get focus on service positioning... Maybe Murray wanted too much and finally he crapped out everything. To some moment is better to slow down, especially on service, and deliver much more consistent service rather than pushing for aces and getting uncovered in the second serve... so, numbers are usefull if you pay attention to that and react fast...

What you point out is exactly the kind of thing I would rather hear in an analysis than pure stats - whether it's Will doing the analysis or anyone else.

I.e. not, "His first serve percentage was low, so that's why he lost," but "His first serve percentage seemed to be low because he was nervous and trying too hard to crank his mph. He would have been better off not trying to serve so big so he could go for a higher percentage, especially given how crappy his second serve is."

Of course Will would be able to say something smarter & less obvious . . . but still along those lines.

thanks a lot for all of the videos
i watched everyone and the whole thing was absolutely awesome.
will you be doing one for the french open?? and the other grandslams this year because it would be great if you did. and how will we know if we have won the predictions or not? just wondering
and thanks for everything that you have done and i watched the live webcast and one thing that i can say about andy murray is the first 2 sets he wasn't aggressive like you said but the third set he was but when it came to the buisness end of the third set or break point or set point opportunities, murray didn't capitalise. he went all defensive when that happened.
thanks again

Of course, if Murray changed his first serve approach in order to have a higher percentage of first serves be in, he would likely be decreasing the quality of each first serve, perhaps to the point where it wouldn't even be an advantage. Is getting in 65% of a B serve in better than getting 55% of an A serve in?

Usually when you are doing the first serve the opponent is staying in much more defensive position rather than second serve. It means that even you serve a little bit slower he is not in the field to hit the ball from the best position so he has to move a little bit for that. Automatically because of this reason even you serve slower first time the effect is not so bad on your points as serving bad the second time when the opponent is prepared to counter-attack and he has a much more aggressive position on the court. That's why Murray, slowing a little bit down the first serve and pushing for much more accuracy, could have much more points and better percentage in the end.
This is a very important setup that you should do in your game. If you feel that first serve is not so reliable and you lose a lot on second maybe is better to slow a little bit the first serve and go for longer ball exchanges.

OK that explains a bit of my reply to randyburgess earlier on. But, how long will such an approach hold? After a few slow firsts, the opponent steps in, no?

I'm usually serving alternatively fast and slow for first one according to the position on court... Anyway, a good player will understand quite fast the trick so you cannot do it too many times but in Murray vs Federer case even a slower service from Murray will be fast enough not to counter-attack by Federer. Actually serving slow doesn't mean to serve bad because you can use different effects or kick serve or much more lateral but slower rather than centered and fast... So, anyway for sure Murray has all the required skills to change something in serving...