This victory for Murray should not have happened but it did and he deserved the win,because he took his chances!However,ever since this win people from the rival board and some here have seemed to take things a bit overboard!

Im a bit tired of reading Federer should be weary of Murray,Murray sends out warning to Federer,Murray is going to Federers next big challenge,Murray constantly improving and will give Federer a good run.Its a bit OTT and tired.

Murray beat Federer in Cincy.Murphys law then dictated and he didnt win the tournament.He also pushed a butt(crack) injured Nadal to 5.He didnt win the US Open either nor did he win The Aussie Open.He has defended his San Jose title,well done.But to insist that he is really going to challenge Federer based on 1 win,and his constant drubbing of Roddick,an improved ranking and pushing Nadal is a bit far fetched.He had not many points to defend last,his ranking could only go up.

Whilst Federer will be weary of the ever improving Young Murray he will know what he needs to do next time they square off on court and make no 2 neverminds,he will beat him and it just might be a bad beating.He will however be challenging Federer when he slows down.Murray is a great player and he has a great future ahead of him.I just wish the guys would stop being over hopefull too soon!

I still see Djoko as the real threat and maybe Gasquet when he sorts his stamina. Murray is an interesting player to follow. He seems to win many closes matches which is good for a youngster. The main reason in my view is that like Nadal (but in a very different style) he is a counter puncher which means he does not dictate the game but always brings the ball one more time. However, like Nadal, Murray will most likely always be at the mercy of Djoko or Gasquet on a good day. Any drop of form from the latter and Murray will capitalize on them. But the matches won't be much in Murray's hands as much as in Djoko and Gasquet.

Agreed pretty much with that!

I agree players like Murray and NAdal wil always be at the mercy of hardhitters like Gonzalez, Berdych, Djoko, Blake.
But Federer.. what's the last time Fed lost to a typical hardhitter? They are all great players but i don't think they're on the right track to beat Fed in the near future.
IMO Murray has better chances; more variety, better return and his smart coach will help.

I agree that you can't read too much into the win over Federer. The only time Fed has done well in Cincinnati was in '05, after skipping the Canada Masters. It's pretty clear that he doesn't try to wear himself out ahead of the US Open by going all out in both Masters events. I don't think he tanks matches, per se, but maybe doesn't fight as hard as he would otherwise. It still takes an excellent performance to beat him. Murray looks like he has a lot of talent, though, so I don't think it's just people getting carried away with the one win over Federer.

Hi Dark,the fact is though Murray beat Federer fair and square and outplayed him.Yes Federer was tired but so was Murray he went deep into Toronto the Week before that and the week before Toronto Murray made the final of Washington where i dont think Fed played that week anywhere.So i am afraid Dark the only one being OTT is yourself. :rolleyes:

Checkmate! roflmao

No. Wrong angle.

I don't think it is a question of Federer being tired as much as he simply being not keen to get more tired before the USO. Srishapan twice served for both sets the previous day and clearly already then it was obvious Fed wanted to leave Cincinnati for New York (I saw that match).

Yes Murray beat him fair and square as Fed had not tied hands, but it is difficult to gauge the degree of effort Fed put in that match. Only him knows for true....and the experts could see that he wanted to leave the place.

I think his easy win of the USO a couple of weeks later should answer that question to some extend.

Its getting to a point now when because Federer gets beaten so rarely that when somebody does beat him they do not get the credit they deserve.I just think the Federer fans do not like it when a rival comes along.

I agree it looks like that. But that is simply because he is a very good player, so when he loses, it is difficult not to find an excuse...unless he is beaten in a GS or a final of a TMS, I personally won't take it seriously.

:ok:

I'm not sure that anyone who was neither a Federer or Murray fan would have enjoyed the match. It was a ghastly spectacle from what I remember, two men running on wet sand refusing to hold serve! By contrast, I think Federer's losses to Nadal, Safin and Gasquet were hugely enjoyable as matches. This one wasn't.

Maybe, but I find it hard, in this particular case, not to take into account the fact that Federer rarely gets past the second round of Cincy. I don't think it's because he can't. I think it's for a similar reason to why he has lost the last couple years at Kooyong, ahead of the AO . . .

The only time he went far in Cincinnati is 2005, when he did not play Canada.

i think when a player is doing as well as Fed is at the mo, there's bound to be speculation and conjecture to fill the vacuum created by lack of a real challenger to Fed.
Murray's being shoe horned into that role-unrealistically i think.
What underlies this question is who's no 2? who's Feds rival?
Apart from Nadal on clay there isn't a real rival at the mo, time will tell if Murray can fit the bill.

Just like your name suggests,you would think Andy Murray is fantastic.In reality he is but in reality he isnt a rival to Federer let me assure you.People tend to hype young players up too much and such is the case with Murray.Make no 2 neverminds that when they step onto the court again you will see a different Federer!

Murray did win fair and square because he took his oppurtunities.Murray was playing everything he could last year to improve his fitness and ranking which he did.When he starts winning consistantly big titles like Federer then you can use his tiredness as an excuse just like we seem to use Federers.

You are my dear friend are blindly over the top with Murray whereas I call a spade a spade.Federer plyaed crap and deserved to get thumped by Murray,but people like you seem to think that after 1 win he has Federers number.Welcome to the real world,he doesnt!

If Murray is as good as the British press claim, then matches against Federer should be mouthwatering displays of touch and creativity so bring them on! The downside is that indigenous players hyped by the national press are usually not quite as God like as they'd have us believe (or as bad when they lose.)

I hope we see a Murray Federer matchup in Indian Wells or Miami ...

Agreed!

Now Murray is ranked higher, their next match-ups should be more interesting, as they're bound to be later in a tournament - so Federer will obviously be on top of his game! Also, Murray has improved, especially since teaming up with Brad Gilbert, so I will look forward to their next match - maybe that will tell us a bit more about how good (or not) Murray really is!

Bottom line... Murray beat Federer.....It's way too early to tell how good a player Murray will become. You can't judge any potential rivalry on one match, maybe Murray's game is tough for Federer to deal with, maybe not. We need to see them play each other more times to make a correct judgement.

I think its a bit rubbish to start making excuses for Federer because he lost. The man himself would just say Murray beat me fair and square now get on with the next match, which is pretty much what he did and he went on to win and win and win and hasn't lost since! But give Murray a bit of credit, other than him only Nadal beat Federer last year.

Murray is young and has great potential. More significant than his win over Federer for me are his wins over Roddick.

Sure, building Murray up too much after a win in a smaller tournament against Federer is a bit OTT, but making silly excuses for Federer just because he lost is also OTT in my opinion. Feds is too proud a man himself to care about excuses, plus he knows where the big matches are....and he wins those ones.

Dark that told me didnt it. :rolleyes:

Spot on Gav Murray was the better player on the day.The problem with Dark is he is happy to say other players failings but when it comes too his own Federer he hears nothing against him and if something else does he does not like it.Dark you are going to have to live with the fact that Federer will be troubled by Murray so get used to it.

Maybe. I'm not convinced of that, though. Despite how much you want to think Dark is just being biased, if you watched the Cincinnati match, it was not a particularly inspiring performance.

Gasquet hasn't proved to be that much trouble for Federer, despite many predictions that he would be, after that first victory. I think DN may be a little protective of Federer, but I also think MN may be a little protective of Murray. ;)

In any case Any just seems to be a very Wise person that he is ready to take one step at the time to reach the top, i.e please refer to the following interview and about his feeling concerning FED as a rival

Peter Bodo of Tennis World recently interviewed Andy Murray:

Q: Here you are at Nick Bolletteri's academy, with an American coach, Brad Gilbert. You're Scottish, but went to Spain to develop your game at an early age. Has this need to be itinerant made it tougher or easier for you?

A: I'm not sure. Going to Spain to train while I was young certainly was the best decision I ever made. Being from Scotland is a little different. If you come from Serbia, or some place where there's no funding, it can be very difficult. But it can be an advantage, too, because they have a lot more desire than some British players. In Scotland, you're always working with the British Federation (the LTA), because we're all part of Great Britain. So obviously there's a lot of pressure being from Britain because they want somebody to come along and win Wimbledon. We have the biggest following of press of any country, that can make it difficult. At same time, when I was younger I got funding that I wouldn't necessarily have had, being from somewhere else.

Q: In some ways, you seem to be a hybrid. You've said your best surface is clay, but your hard court results have been good. You had this multicultural experience developing your game, and it’s hard go pigeonhole you, style-wise.

A: I’ve been asked often when I thought I would be peaking, or should feel pressure to win big events. But I think next year and a half I'll still be working out how to use my game. I feel like I can serve and volley, come in to net, play from the baseline, play aggressive from the baseline, use a lot of slice... I feel I have a lot of different options. So I always said it would take me a while to find my game, and the right way to play, although it may take me a little longer to reach my peak.

Q: Your game is pretty creative, you move well, you have a lot of variety. Are these things that were coached into you, or are they hard-wired?

A: The movement thing is natural. But from a young age, played a lot of football, rugby, squash, golf. Some were hand-eye, some mainly footwork and various bits and pieces. So I look quite natural, moving. But it's not really taught. Something I've been good at.

Q: Did the players you watched growing up, or who were on your radar as a junior – did they influence your game?

A: I'm sure in some cases they do. But look at a lot of the guys in Britain now, the better ones, none of them play serve-and-volley like Tim [Henman] did, or Greg [Rusedski].

Some guys model their games on different players, but the best thing to do is find your own game. If I was going to try to play like an Agassi, I couldn't do it. I like to do a lot of running, he likes to dictate points. Everybody has a different game. I dig Agassi the most – he had the great personality, and he's like a perfect kind of athlete. A huge worldwide star. Agassi the press loved him, the fans loved him, the players loved him. You can't say that about too many. He was the guy I looked up to and enjoyed watching when I was younger.

Q: Agassi was part of a great generation (Pete Sampras, Jim Courier, et al.) and you may be too, with kids like Marcos Baghdatis, Novak Djokovic, Richard Gasquet, Tomas Berdych and others in the pipeline. What will it take to separate yourself from the pack?

A: Hard work, for one. Also, just to continue to improve. I've been working on my serve, been working on my fitness, been working on my serve-volley. You can't hit a stumbling block, you have to keep moving work on the bits and pieces. Some of them maybe aren't working as hard or adding variation to their games, which means people are going to work out ways to win against them.

Q: Do you think players in this generation have particular challenges that make it tougher for them to become imposing, dominant players?

A: One of the really hard things for this generation is that it's a much more physical game. The Borgs and McEnroes were in good shape, but it's a much quicker pace now. The guys are hitting the balls way harder. If you watch videos from then and now, you can see it. It's the one thing that stands out and makes it difficult to stay on top for so long. (Roger) Federer is doing a great job. He's not missing Grand Slams through injuries. You have to concentrate on not over-playing and not under-training, because if you're weak, you'll get tired, or hurt. One of hardest things now is striking that balance, Keeping your body in good shape.

Q: Is Roger Federer a role model or a rival for you young guys?

A: I want to look at him like, this is someone there, and I'm someone here, and I want to be there. I want to be there to compete with him. That's one of the great things about sport, especially tennis, where you have a ranking system. It raises the level of the tennis. Maybe if everybody works as hard and wants to be as good as him, they'll get there. I don't think tennis is struggling, or has no rivalries. It's just that when you have someone so dominant, on hard and grass? The guy is definitely something special. He's maybe not a rival, but someone who maybe in a couple of years I'll maybe be challenging.

Q: How big a win was it for you when you tagged Federer in Cincinnati, and was it sullied at all by the accusations that he "tanked"?

A: To question Federer tanking when he loses four matches a year is maybe a little disrespectful to him. I know he didn't play his best match that day, but I'm pretty sure he didn't tank. It didn't spoil it in my mind. Maybe the guy played 20 bad matches during the year and won them; it hard to win against him in any case.

Q: What have been your biggest, career-shaping matches thus far?

A: I've had a few. Obviously, Hewitt in the final of San Jose [in ‘06], the final of someone I looked up to, who dominated tennis for two years and has a great record in finals. That was big. Then Roddick – to win against the second best grass court player in the world, in straight-sets at Wimbledon; that was huge, too. And I'd say the Federer one. The three biggest ones. But the Fernando Gonzalez win at the U.S. Open was big too. I won in five sets, and was down two sets to one. People were questioning my fitness, saying I can't play five-setters, even though I won the same amount of those that I've lost. That was a great mental win for me.

Q: Critics as well as your fans sometimes question your consistency. Is that fair?

A: Starting around Nottingham, I think I was pretty consistent. But after San Jose [last year], I went through a hard time with my coach (Mark Petchey). I didn't play well at Indian Wells or Key Biscayne, and it didn't help that I hurt my back a little at the French Open. Anybody can tell you that traveling on your own, at 18, without a coach, is difficult, I was obviously going through a hard time. But consistency is a problem for young guys anyway, except for (Rafael) Nadal. If you check Federer's results, it was the same. It's normal. You have to learn why you're losing. It's not a bad thing at this stage. I'm not expecting to win a Grand Slam at this age. Whether I lose a few first rounds or not is not the important thing, as long as I'm improving. The losses and inconsistency will help me in the long run.

Q: What are your immediate developmental goals, what do you think you can do to move up?

A: If you look at the stats for the year (2006), I was one of the best returners, but I was losing my serve far too many times. I've been working on that. I've worked on my serve, and being more aggressive on my first ball. I've tried to add some serve-volley, to get some cheap points. Varying my serve. That's something that hopefully will move me from 17 in the world to 10 in the world. Then I'll need to look at other things. I want to avoid stumbling blocks, where I get stuck at a certain level. That means working on a whole lot of different things.

Q: People do talk about how you seem to run out of steam, and Scotland isn't exactly known as a place where people are nutrition or health and fitness conscious.

A: In 2006, I was 2-1 in five set matches, and hurt myself in the one I lost. Last year I was 1-3 in five setters. I played this whole year without significant injury. But I wasn't used to the number of matches, and the intensity and pressure that come with that. In 2005, where I got noticed at Wimbledon, I was playing Futures events just weeks before. Sure I was tired when I lost to (David) Nalbandian (round TK in 2005). But I don't think there were many matches this year when I came off more tired than my opponent, and that's something I've worked on, and I don't think it's going to b e a problem this year. It was maybe an issue two years ago, not now.

I do want to get stronger. I want to be able to serve at 140 m.p.h instead of 135, and I want to be able to get to more of the drop shots. I want to be able to do the long sprints. I've been working on it. So has every other player. But I have mental and technical things I want to work on.

Q: What is priority No. 1, mentally?

A: I want to get stronger. When I get into tough matches, I don't want to get angry. I think I play better when I'm more relaxed. A lot of times, my anger helps my opponents. I should be focusing more on upsetting them, not myself. But I am a perfectionist. I don't like it when I'm losing, I don't like it when I'm playing badly. I need to try to find more ways of winning matches when I'm struggling or playing badly. The Federers, Nadals, Agassis – always believe they can turn things around and win matches. That's something I feel I'm in good enough shape to do, even if I'm two sets to love down.

Q: People always raise the body language issue – they say that hangdog look is too negative, and works against you. Do you shut down in those situations?

A: If you look at me from the start of a match right through, I'm never like a Nadal, always bouncing around. Not even when I'm winning. I'm quite relaxed, I don't rush, I don't agree with the "body language" thing all the time because everybody looks different on the court. Federer just strolls around... Sampras always had his head down. Everybody is different, there isn't a right way to be.

Q: Everyone puts so much emphasis on power today. How does it fit into your equation?

A: Well – power is important, I think I can serve as well as most guys. I don't know, everybody’s different. Some say Nadal is the most powerful guy, but he'll hit 125, 130 m.p.h serves. But he can run all day. The most important thing is knowing how to use your game. When to use power, when to change the pace and take it away. When to use slice, when to come into net. Power isn't the most important thing in tennis today; if it was, Federer wouldn't be the best in the world. He doesn't serve the biggest and he doesn't always hit that hard.

Q There are three aspects of coaching: technical, strategic, and mental/emotional. Which of those do you need the most work in?

Technical is the least I need. I think emotional is most important thing for me, I do get quite fired up, I jump around when I win big points and I do get angry when I lose points. That's probably the most important thing.

Q: John McEnroe singled you out as a player of great potential early in your career. Do you have a relationship with him?

A: I speak to him a lot when I see him. I've spoken him quite a bit about tennis in general, as well as my game. I think the way I am on court, he quite likes that. He likes the personality I show on the court, even though I think away from the court I'm a bit more relaxed than he is.

Q: We've seen the British press raise you up and then topple you. They can be quite tough. Does any of that really make a difference to you, or affect you?

A: Not anymore. At the start, I did struggle a bit, going from a complete unknown to very well-known. But it's quite hard going from Future events with five people watching you to thousands, and the press conferences and all that, answer hard questions after matches. But I've gotten to know quite a few of those guys, and I understand what they have to do for their jobs. But as far as listening, I listen to what McEnroe says, or what (Ivan) Lendl or Borg or (Goran) Ivanisevic says. At the end of the day, I'll listen to what Borg says, because he's been one of the greatest players. I try to have fun with it, it isn't as hard anymore.

Q: We all know what winning at Wimbledon would mean to the public in the UK. You're not supposed to think about that, but isn't there someplace in your heart of hearts where you see how huge that would be?

A: Of course. It would be one of the great sporting occasions in Britain in the last 50 or 100 years. But it wouldn't be as important to me as winning the U.S, Open. It's my favorite tournament. It's a great atmosphere, I have really good memories from the juniors, New York is one of my favorite cities. I love the atmosphere there, I love the night matches, which you don't have at Wimbledon, you know? It's a completely different atmosphere but it suits my character a bit more. I understand that Wimbledon is huge. No question I'd love to win Wimbledon as well, but if I had top pick one to win tomorrow, I'd pick the U.S. Open. It's my favorite tournament.

Q: Okay, imagine yourself walking down the street in each of three cities – New York, London, Glasgow. Characterize each experience.

A: In New York, you'd hear a lot of loud voices, but constant positive vibes. Quite tough to explain, but everybody there so upbeat, all the time. You're out six o'clock in the morning, and everybody is talking, everybody is polite. You wake up at six in London, or in Glasgow, and everyone's sleeping, the weather is cold. . . I'm liking London more than before, but it's too busy. I do like the tubes (subway) in London.

I don't get recognized in London that much, but in Glasgow it's completely different. I went to one boxing match and I stood up to do an interview beside the ring and the whole crowd started singing, "There's Only One Andy Murray. . ." Everybody in Scotland is proud of what I've achieved and they'll come up and tell me. That's why I like being Scottish. They're so supportive. That's the big difference between Glasgow and London.

The Scots have a lot of passion. They stand up for what they believe and tell you what they think and believe. Some people might hate you for it, but I'd rather people tell me what they really think, honestly. That's the thing I like about it.

Q: What's your favorite sport?

A: Boxing. That Maywether-Gatti fight was re-broadcast the other night on ESPN. I saw it again. The first time, it was on, live, around Wimbledon time. I remember I got up like at three in the morning to watch it. I've gone to like five fights in Scotland. I'm friends with a boxer in Scotland, Alexander [Arthur]. He came to watch me at Wimbledon this year. I love boxing. Maywether – I love watching him, even though a lot of people don't like him. They think he's boring, and fights too defensively. But the object of boxing is to hit your opponent, and not get hit. And he hits his opponents five, six times more than they hit. He's not a knockout artist, but he's the best boxer to watch.

SIDEBAR:
In some ways, Brad Gilbert took a risk when he undertook to coach Andy Murray last July. After all, Gilbert had established his reputation as an enabler of Andre Agassi's renaissance and orchestrator of Andy Roddick's dazzling run to the No. 1 ranking. He's a distinctly "American" personality, but he decided to leave the ESPN commentary booth and light out with a 19-year old Scot who speaks with a brogue, had yet to make a Grand Slam quarterfinal, and wouldn't recognize Al Davis (flamboyant owner of Gilbert's beloved Oakland Raiders) if he bumped into him in a Betty Hill haggis bar.

So what did Gilbert see in Murray, to make him take the plunge? "For his age," Gilbert says, "Andy has a very advanced tennis brain. He's really good at working things out. You think of Roger Federer as the master of that; he's like the ultimate Rubik's cube, flipping and flipping until he works things out. And Murray has that ability too.

"He's also a very gifted athlete. He may not look fast, but he's very fast. He has great balance, and he sees the ball early. That's just a God-given talent. But what surprised me the most is how good his hands are. He has really 'soft' hands, especially for a young guy. He could be a great volleyer, so he has the potential to come in to net a lot more.

"Andy has a great mentality, too. Like Andre, he's tough on himself. When you're complacent, you can get to a certain level and stay there. But when you're hard on yourself, you can push it, and go further. Combine that with a game that travels well, and you've got a guy who can overcome a lot of the trouble other guys have playing well on all surfaces. This is a guy who can play closer to his best on all surfaces than most of the others."

Add Murray's innate competitiveness, and you can see why Gilbert can live with the fact that Murray wouldn't know Jack Tatum from Tatum O'Neil.

"Andy wants to win at everything he does, including video games," says Gilbert. "In Madrid earlier this year, I was like, 'Dude, you've got a match to play and you've been on that computer for three hours, let's go.' But he just looked me and said, 'Not yet, wait, I've got to win this game.’"

In any case, in my view, yes it seems reasonable to wait at least one year more in order to see really a rivalry between Andy and FED...But who knows might be already this year before the USO...Wait and see :rolleyes:

You tell him MN! roflmao

I see DN's point, but you gotta give Murray credit for actually being able to win that match. Most players have lost mentally to Fed before they go on court. He must have done summat right cos Fed doesn't just throw matches in cos he feels rough one day you know. Why cant; people just accept that Murray beat the world Number one and it was a damned great result that supposedly better players than Murray can only dream of?

Good post :)

It was a great result, no question. Fed was majorly off though, i dont think Murray can ever 'out-play' Fed.........

No one can really outplay Federer when he's on form. It still takes balls to beat him though. :)

Of course, not questioning that :)

You are actually missing the point totally!!!!!I have no problem with him beating Federer.I have a problem with people drawing conclusions from 1 win and then making ludacris statements like the ones quoted in my original post.Maybe you should learn to comprehend better as opposed to selective comprehension!

The players that challenge Federer the better for the enjoyment of the sport!

What also gets me is people talking about Cincinnati being a small tournament :rolleyes:

It was a pretty darn big win if you ask me...it's a Masters Tournament for crying out loud.

Federer wants to win every match he plays, he's incredibly fit and we know he hates to lose...it was a great win for Murray; regardless of Federer being off. It doesn't mean that Murray is on his way to becoming the new world number one, no. But what it does mean is that Murray beat Federer...good for Murray :ok:

I haven't actually seen people on here claiming seriously that Murray's win over Fed means that he's necessarily going to be able to become a rival in the very near future.

So once more it seems to be that you're just making creating a phantom opponent to argue against, which you seem to do routinely.

Both Fed and Andy after the match gave quite realistic comments. Yes, Federer was tired, and you have to take that into account.

But, as Andy said "How many guys beat him, even on a bad day?". So it showed IMO that Andy's got something many people don't have. And I think he will do well, and he could well be one of the greater threats to Federer in the near future. (Which doesn't mean he'll be a *great* threat, mind.)

Federer also said "I would have preferred to have won it", when someone asks whether maybe he didn't mind losing.

So, overall, let's not play up this win. But let's not play it down either, which seems to have been the intention of the original post.