Meaningfull defeats of federer's career

[daddy]

To me the defeats in federer career which are worth mentioninng :

AO 20008
S Djokovic, Novak (SRB) 3 5-7 3-6 6-7(5)

RG 2007
F Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 2 3-6 6-4 3-6 4-6

RG 2006
F Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 2 6-1 1-6 4-6 6-7(4)

Masters Rome 2006
F Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 2 7-6 6-7(5) 4-6 6-2 6-7(5)

Masters Monte Carlo 2006
F Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 2 2-6 7-6(2) 3-6 6-7(5)

EOY Master Series 2005
F Nalbandian, David (ARG) 12 7-6(4) 7-6(11) 2-6 1-6 6-7(3)

RG 2005
S Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 5 3-6 6-4 4-6 3-6

AO 2005
S Safin, Marat (RUS) 4 7-5 4-6 7-5 6-7(6) 7-9

Athens Olympics
R32 Berdych, Tomas (CZE) 79 6-4 5-7 5-7

USO 2003
R16 Nalbandian, David (ARG) 13 6-3 6-7(1) 4-6 3-6

Wimbledon 2002
R128 Ancic, Mario (CRO) 154 3-6 6-7(2) 3-6

Wimbledon 2001
Q Henman, Tim (GBR) 11 5-7 6-7(6) 6-2 6-7(6)

Now from bottom up, the defeat to Henman right after the big victory over Sampras, teamed up with the first round exit from wimby 2002 from Ancic, when he was kind of expected to take it to the next level, these two may have considerably slowed him down in his surge tot the top and first GS win.

Afre taking 03 Wimby, loss to Nalband was not a good one I am sure , and Olympics is always special, he lost there to Berdych although a clear favourite in the match.

In 2005 there are two defeats I would like to point out - one at RG to the upcoming king of clay Rafa, and of course surpsrise defeat ( sort of ) at the EOY Masters to Nalband in finals.

In 2006 I pointed out two close matches with nadal on claycourt master series tournaments, which really gave psychological edge to nadal in RG final, maybe the reason for his yet another loss to Rafa in FO final. I feel that year was his best shot at RG. This is why these Master series defeats are here, and someother early round exits are not mentioned, I think they were a real build up to hiss loss in finals at RG that year.

Obviously later in his career, losses in masters tournaments were not such a big deal, even if its canas or nalbandian or djokovic. The only real loss came once again at elusive RG 07 final. Aussie open is fresh in our memories so I will not write abut this.

Few other meaningfull defeats for him, probably when he failed to take home the Hopmun Cup with Mirka after doing it with Hingis and of course his home tournament Basel which eluded him for so long, yet he was close year in and year out.

I hope these stats, a bit different from "whom did federer beat to zero in more than three mathces or who has positive stats against federer" stats have its value and show imo which defeats of his career are the worst for him personally. Feel free to argue anything said, add something you feel I have missed and so on, thanks.

 

[MEAC_ALLAMERICAN]

I think another defeat worth mentioning is the only time Roddick had beaten Roger, which was in Canada. I think Roger was poised to become #1 during that tournament. It didn't matter nevertheless but it's worth mention, IMHO.

 

[daddy]

I think another defeat worth mentioning is the only time Roddick had beaten Roger, which was in Canada. I think Roger was poised to become #1 during that tournament.

? I missed it, sorry. Elaborate on it if you want, give us a stats and story to go along with it if you have time.

 

[MEAC_ALLAMERICAN]

? I missed it, sorry. Elaborate on it if you want, give us a stats and story to go along with it if you have time.

After taking 03 Wimby, loss to Nalband was not a good one I am sure , and Olympics is always special, he lost there to Berdych although a clear favourite in the match.

After taking his first grand slam title at Wimbledon, later in the summer was poised to become world #1 in both TMS Montreal and Cincinnati. Both loses to Nalbandian in Cincy and New York stopped him from getting to number one sooner.

TMS Montreal

SF [7] Andy Roddick 4-6, 6-3, 6-7(3)

TMS Cincinnati
2nd Round [14] Nalbandian 6-7(4), 6-7(5)

 

[daddy]

^^^ Basically once Arod for himself, and two times Nalbandian in TMS and USO prevented federer from being nr1 at the end of 2003, got to agree this was very meaningfull.

Even his win in semis in EOY Masters did not help him gain the 1st place in rankings back then, this one is the one I am talking about :

EOY Masters
S Roddick, Andy (USA) 1 7-6(2) 6-2

 

[bleno567]

what about the davis cup match where hewitt beat fed after being two sets down.

 

[Tempest344]

just about any defeat since 2004 would be important for Fed seeing as how he almost never loses
*almost*

ps How about those two against Canas last year?

 

[daddy]

just about any defeat since 2004 would be important for Fed seeing as how he almost never loses
*almost*

ps How about those two against Canas last year?

But as I pointed out some of those - to Canas twice, Nalbandian twice, Murray, Gasquet, Djokovic in Montreal and so on, those are not relevant. Although in big tournaments those are not what bother him a whole lot, so he lost in lets say hamburg to Nadal, ok, expected. So he lost 2nd round to Canas last year, ok move on. Those which i mentioned have a clear edge over these.

 

[MEAC_ALLAMERICAN]

what about the davis cup match where hewitt beat fed after being two sets down.

Mentally, I thought it would have been a tough pill to swallow for Roger, but I guess that was the worst thing Hewitt could have done. The last 11 meetings has gone in favor of the Swiss chesse. :?

 

[leon505]

This is a funny topic. I guess when your the worlds number one tennis player, every defeat since you obtain this position can be considered meaningful, especially if you've DOMINATED (thats right, he has, you cannot argue this) mens tennis for the last 3 yrs.

For me, I think his most recent loss to djokovic was the most eye opening, because it showed roger that the rest of the field is not so far off anymore.

 

[daddy]

^^^ But you are due to lose here and there. Some of those are not that bad, I mean cmon I dont have to spell this out to everyone here. Its not the same if you lose in 2nd round to canas or in finals of RG to Nadal. We all know which one leaves a scar.

Got it ?

 

[Tempyst]

RG 2007 does not deserve to be on that list. Federer had the worst possible plan to play Nadal.

 

[noeledmonds]

Surely Federer's 2004 FO loss to Kuerten should be there. Federer could have completed The Grand Slam that year had he beaten Kuerten and gone on to win the tournament. This would have been a definate posibility as Gaudio won this year.

 

[daddy]

Ok I see difference in thinking regarding RG. Well 2004 is certanly one of the things I missed, but I am not sure if Fed was capabla of taking a RG at the time. I know he was good but would he won if he got past Kuerten,remember Guga had his problems back then yet beat fed. Coria dominated clay to certain extent then, I am not sure Fed had what it took to win a RG then, I am not sure that after his brakethru 03 GS win he was thinking about a slam at the time.



As to 2007, he played awfully but thats why this is such an important loss, imo.

 

[David L]

Ok I see difference in thinking regarding RG. Well 2004 is certanly one of the things I missed, but I am not sure if Fed was capabla of taking a RG at the time. I know he was good but would he won if he got past Kuerten,remember Guga had his problems back then yet beat fed. Coria dominated clay to certain extent then, I am not sure Fed had what it took to win a RG then, I am not sure that after his brakethru 03 GS win he was thinking about a slam at the time.



As to 2007, he played awfully but thats why this is such an important loss, imo.

Yes, the possibilities were less certain in 2004 at that time, but he won Hamburg prior to Roland Garros that year, beating Gaudio, Moya and Coria on his way. So he would have known he could do well at the French. And besides, players take one match at a time. When you're in a tournament, you focus on winning your next match, not about whether the Grandslam is possible that year or not, that's something you might think about towards the end of the year or after the season.

 

[David L]

Yes, the possibilities were less certain in 2004 at that time, but he won Hamburg prior to Roland Garros that year, beating Gaudio, Moya and Coria on his way. So he would have known he could do well at the French. And besides, players take one match at a time. When you're in a tournament, you focus on winning your next match, not about whether the Grandslam is possible that year or not, that's something you might think about towards the end of the year or after the season.

Also, Federer had beaten Kuerten in their two previous meetings, one of which was on clay in 2002.

 

[daddy]

Yes, the possibilities were less certain in 2004 at that time, but he won Hamburg prior to Roland Garros that year, beating Gaudio, Moya and Coria on his way. So he would have known he could do well at the French. And besides, players take one match at a time. When you're in a tournament, you focus on winning your next match, not about whether the Grandslam is possible that year or not, that's something you might think about towards the end of the year or after the season.

Ok then we caount that one in as one of the most imprrtant losses of his career. And we count the year of 2004 os one big chance missed for Federer to clinch the RG along with 2006, when he really took it to nadal in all finals except the RG final.