Andy Murray's Wimbledon Chances Are Stronger Than They Have Ever Been
Clive Brunskill/Getty Images
Both Murray and Federer have been two sides of the same coin in some ways throughout 2013 so far. Where one has been up, the other has likely been down.
Federer, the older, more experienced campaigner of the two, has had a tepid, uninspiring, un-Big-Four-like 2013—the Swiss' first title of the year came just last week at Halle where his sternest tests were Tommy Haas and Mikhail Youzhny (Federer's win-loss record against those two stands at 26-3).
Andy Murray on the other hand—although classically thought of as the No. 4 of the Big Four—has performed like anything but the No. 4. The Scottish star has won three titles (including a Masters 1000 event and Queens in London) this year and was a finalist at the year's first major, the Australian Open.
The dynamics between the two—finalists at Wimbledon and the subsequent Olympics at the same venue last year—makes this season an interesting topic of conversation heading into Wimbledon.
At the Australian Open, Murray came out on top in a semifinal between the two—defeating Federer for the first time in a Grand Slam tournament on the way to a clash with Novak Djokovic.
At the French Open, where Murray was absent due to injury and would never have been favorite anyway over Djokovic or Rafael Nadal (so he had nothing to lose), Federer's submissive loss to Tsonga—not for the first time in a Grand Slam event—didn't change the balance.
Using the coin analogy, once again, Murray's position relative to Federer is better.
The question now is: What will happen at Wimbledon between the two? The trend is clear. It is also supported by their head to head. Murray leads Federer 11-8, but both guys are level at one each for matches played on grass.
The results so far in 2013 speak, but what is the message? Djokovic and Nadal have distinguished themselves from the pack and, in more ways than one, Andy Murray is doing so, too.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?