The oft-discussed 2011 FO Semi-Final

[Logic]

Some people argue that Federer harmed his (relative) legacy by beating Djokovic in the 2011 FO semi-final. In doing so, and then losing to Nadal in the final, he ended up giving his main rival for the Open Era Major record an additional title.
Had Djokovic won that meeting, he may well have beaten Nadal, costing him not only a major, but perhaps multiple majors as a result of the psychological edge he would have gained.

However, I would like to posit that, even if Djokovic were to have won that match and the final, it would have actually damaged Federer's (relative) legacy even more. First of all, Federer would have one fewer Major final to his name, but more importantly, it would have led to Djokovic most likely winning the Calendar Year Grand Slam. As Federer himself was not able to do this, to have someone else achieve the CYGS while Federer was still active would have been a massive blow.

So, in summary what would have been worse for Federer's (relative) legacy: Nadal's FO 2011 win, or Djokovic's hypothetical 2011 CYGS?

Notes:

1. Please do not turn this thread into an argument about whether or not Djokovic would have beaten Nadal in the final. For the purposes of the thread, I am assuming, hypothetically, that Djokovic would have won, in order to set up the question.

2. I have used the term "relative legacy" to mean legacy relative to other players. I.e. One can only affect one's own legacy (e.g. by winning Majors), but other players can affect your "relative legacy", like your status in the history of the sport (e.g. by winning more Majors than you).

Edit: Just to clarify, for the purpose of the question, assume Djokovic hypothetically wins the CYGS if wins the FO semi-final. Whether or not he actually does so is another discussion.

 

[mike danny]

Actually for me it improved Fed's legacy a bit. He showed that he could handle the seemingly unbeatable Djokovic in his best year, while Nadal couldn't. For me that's a plus.

And it proved everybody that Federer could indeed handle elite competition even at an advanced age.

This victory is one of the greatest of his career, so it actually added to his legacy. It also shows how good he really used to be on clay.

 

[Fed Kennedy]

Federer saved humanity by thwarting djokers monster bid for the cygs.

 

[tennisaddict]

Federer single handedly saved Laver's calendar slam record.

I think this match was responsible for Nadal's renaissance. Elevated Nadal from Agassi / McEnroe / Connors level to Borg/Sampras level.

 

[Federer20042006]

If Federer had lost that match, I think he beats Djokovic at the US Open instead.

Novak would've felt big time pressure the longer that streak continued. It was a lot easier for him to swing away down 2 match points on Federer's serve with things the way they were.

 

[Chico]

That match was decided by two points in two playoffs. It was much much closer than most make it out to be now.

 

[Logic]

If Federer had lost that match, I think he beats Djokovic at the US Open instead.

Novak would've felt big time pressure the longer that streak continued. It was a lot easier for him to swing away down 2 match points on Federer's serve with things the way they were.

See my edit.

You make a reasonable point, but assuming Djokovic would have won the CYGS that year, what do you think was the better outcome for Federer's relative legacy?

 

[mike danny]

If Federer had lost that match, I think he beats Djokovic at the US Open instead.

Novak would've felt big time pressure the longer that streak continued. It was a lot easier for him to swing away down 2 match points on Federer's serve with things the way they were.

It is a matter of perception. For example i prefer Federer's victory over Djokovic at the FO than at the USO in 2011 because it allowed Federer to achieve the Novak slam (beating Djokovic in all 4 GS,which is quite an achievement)

 

[Chanwan]

That match was decided by two points in two playoffs. It was much much closer than most make it out to be now.

It sure was. And Djoko would probably have won a fifth.
Yet, I believe Fed would have won their US match, had Djoko won the FO one.
The pressure on Djoko would have been insane and Fed's motivation would have been sky high

 

[mike danny]

It sure was. And Djoko would probably have won a fifth.
Yet, I believe Fed would have won their US match, had Djoko won the FO one.
The pressure on Djoko would have been insane and Fed's motivation would have been sky high

It depends whether he would have wanted to face Nadal in the only slam they haven't played

 

[Chanwan]

See my edit.

You make a reasonable point, but assuming Djokovic would have won the CYGS that year, what do you think was the better outcome for Federer's relative legacy?

It all depends.
Assuming the likes of Monfed are right, when they say Rafa would have been something like 'forever crushed' by losing RO to Djoko, it would have been better for Fed's overall legacy cause it that case, Rafa would still be stuck around 9-10 slams and finish with no more than 12 and Fed himself may have added another (he does seem to peak, when Rafa goes out early these years) and won a few more matches vs. Rafa the last couple of years due to Rafa's mental decline.

But if all those slams goes to Djoko and he ends up with 15 or so including a CYGS and besting both Fed and Rafa down into the dust, he may end up being as big a threat to Fed's 'Goat'-claim or whatever we wanna call it as Rafa is perceived to be today.

All in all - it's a hard what-if to answer.
If the end result is 3 slams fewer to Rafa in the end, a couple of extra to Djoko (including the CYGS) and perhaps one more to Fed, then I say yes, it did affect him negatively.
But I'm with Mike in the sense that it was a great win, another FO final gave him 5 finals or more at all slams and in that sense, the win also added to Fed's legacy as being the only real challenger to Djoko those 9 months (Murray being the 2nd closest)

 

[Chanwan]

It depends whether he would have wanted to face Nadal in the only slam they haven't played

I think he would have to prevent Djoko from the CYGS.
And I honestly believe that final would have been 50-50 as it stands or max. 55-45 to Nadal (and perhaps Fed would even have been the favorite). 2010, sure - Nadal is a 70 % favorite or something like that. But 2011? Nadal already wasn't playing great that tournament and imagine what state he would have been in, had he lost at RG as well - that would have tipped the scale towards Fed imo (and Nadal may not even have reached the final or played the tournament had he lost at RG). He did beat him 6-3, 6-0 two months later in London

 

[monfed]

There are two sides to this, both scenarios are damaging to Fed's own legacy and here's why -

1) Fed preserved the pristineness/rarity of the CYGS by derailing Nole's freak train from hell. IF Nole had done the CYGS it would've made Nole's CYGS even more impressive than Laver's because it would've been on 3 distinct surfaces but the latter point isn't as important as reducing the rarity of the CYGS.

At this point, Laver is Fed's competition in the GOAT debate and Laver's biggest selling point is his CYGS. So if Nole with about 5 slams did the CYGS, then Fed haters can't hold on to the belief that CYGS= GOAT because it would prove that the CYGS is not the be all n end all since a guy with 5 slams and a CYGS just cannot be GOAT can he? That's just illogical.

2) As another poster said before me and I tend to agree with him that Nole would've lost that USO SF v/s Fed due to the added pressure of achieving the CYGS and because of Nadal's devastating RG loss to Nole, Fed may have met someone else in that final and actually won the USO thus incrementing his own slam record.

I'm of the firm belief that this was Fed's single biggest career mistake and it may cost him his slam record. I hope not but Nadal's only 4 shy, all he needs is to keep racking up RGs, it's a pathetic way to achieve it but yea whatever.

It's ironic that Fed continues to hunt for slams to keep his slam record from Ralph's reach which is much harder than simply unleashing the Nole 2.0 beast on the bull and permanently ending his clay reign. A golden opportunity went a begging. He would've killed 2 birds with one stone - Ending Ralph's clay reign AND ending the mystic/rarity of the CYGS thus reducing the prestige of Laver's crowning achievement. Jesus Christ what a colossal error.

 

[jm1980]

It is a matter of perception. For example i prefer Federer's victory over Djokovic at the FO than at the USO in 2011 because it allowed Federer to achieve the Novak slam (beating Djokovic in all 4 GS,which is quite an achievement)

But the Novak slam wasn't complete until 2012

 

[monfed]

Federer single handedly saved Laver's calendar slam record.

I think this match was responsible for Nadal's renaissance. Elevated Nadal from Agassi / McEnroe / Connors level to Borg/Sampras level.

Excellent point, agree on both counts. Interestingly, he would've been stuck on single digits in the slam count. Great observation, tennisaddict.

 

[monfed]

Actually for me it improved Fed's legacy a bit. He showed that he could handle the seemingly unbeatable Djokovic in his best year, while Nadal couldn't. For me that's a plus.

And it proved everybody that Federer could indeed handle elite competition even at an advanced age.

This victory is one of the greatest of his career, so it actually added to his legacy. It also shows how good he really used to be on clay.

Ummm unfortunately I can't agree with this statement though I can see the logic behind it. The pros of losing of that match far outdo the cons, seriously it's not even close. If Nadal breaks Fed's slam record or even equals it , Fed breaking Nole's streak isn't gonna somehow catapult him to the top so it's a minor thing.

 

[monfed]

It all depends.
Assuming the likes of Monfed are right, when they say Rafa would have been something like 'forever crushed' by losing RO to Djoko, it would have been better for Fed's overall legacy cause it that case, Rafa would still be stuck around 9-10 slams and finish with no more than 12 and Fed himself may have added another (he does seem to peak, when Rafa goes out early these years) and won a few more matches vs. Rafa the last couple of years due to Rafa's mental decline.

But if all those slams goes to Djoko and he ends up with 15 or so including a CYGS and besting both Fed and Rafa down into the dust, he may end up being as big a threat to Fed's 'Goat'-claim or whatever we wanna call it as Rafa is perceived to be today.

All in all - it's a hard what-if to answer.
If the end result is 3 slams fewer to Rafa in the end, a couple of extra to Djoko (including the CYGS) and perhaps one more to Fed, then I say yes, it did affect him negatively.
But I'm with Mike in the sense that it was a great win, another FO final gave him 5 finals or more at all slams and in that sense, the win also added to Fed's legacy as being the only real challenger to Djoko those 9 months (Murray being the 2nd closest)

I think Fed fans are relatively ok with Nole breaking Fed's slam record because Nole more or less plays positive tennis, is a good #1 and has a decent personality but most importantly plays clean and respects the game.
Nadal holding the slam record would be absolutely disastrous for tennis and no self respecting tennis fan would ever want that. Nadal plays anti-tennis, a little bit of him was bearable but he's overstayed his welcome, the ogre needs to leave. His fans are an unruly bunch, screaming "Vamos Ralph" while Fed's serving to save a BP. WTF? Just an uncivilized lot who don't even understand tennis for the most part and anything even remotely critical of Nadal is unbearable to them.

Most importantly, a guy who wins from his opponent's errors should not be it's figurehead. That's a terrible representation of the sport. Positive tennis should always win, a little bit of anti-tennis is bearable albeit unpleasant but Ralph's moonballing success has crossed all limits. His anti-tennis is working on all slams because of slowed down surfaces which is destructive to tennis as a sport. He has already ruined the game imo and won't quit till tennis is in ashes.

 

[radtennisfan]

Meh it gave Fed the record for making the final of each gran slam at least 5 times. To me, that's a ridiculous accomplishment.

 

[Sentinel]

I think Fed fans are relatively ok with Nole breaking Fed's slam record because Nole more or less plays positive tennis, is a good #1 and has a decent personality but most importantly plays clean and respects the game.
Nadal holding the slam record would be absolutely disastrous for tennis and no self respecting tennis fan would ever want that. Nadal plays anti-tennis, a little bit of him was bearable but he's overstayed his welcome, the ogre needs to leave. His fans are an unruly bunch, screaming "Vamos Ralph" while Fed's serving to save a BP. WTF? Just an uncivilized lot who don't even understand tennis for the most part and anything even remotely critical of Nadal is unbearable to them.

Most importantly, a guy who wins from his opponent's errors should not be it's figurehead. That's a terrible representation of the sport. Positive tennis should always win, a little bit of anti-tennis is bearable albeit unpleasant but Ralph's moonballing success has crossed all limits. His anti-tennis is working on all slams because of slowed down surfaces which is destructive to tennis as a sport. He has already ruined the game imo and won't quit till tennis is in ashes.

(insert gif of Orson Welles clapping).

otoh, if my good friend FOD reads this, I hope he doesn't smash his keyboard in despair (since he can't reply).

 

[Magnus]

Some people argue that Federer harmed his (relative) legacy by beating Djokovic in the 2011 FO semi-final. In doing so, and then losing to Nadal in the final, he ended up giving his main rival for the Open Era Major record an additional title.
Had Djokovic won that meeting, he may well have beaten Nadal, costing him not only a major, but perhaps multiple majors as a result of the psychological edge he would have gained.

However, I would like to posit that, even if Djokovic were to have won that match and the final, it would have actually damaged Federer's (relative) legacy even more. First of all, Federer would have one fewer Major final to his name, but more importantly, it would have led to Djokovic most likely winning the Calendar Year Grand Slam. As Federer himself was not able to do this, to have someone else achieve the CYGS while Federer was still active would have been a massive blow.

So, in summary what would have been worse for Federer's (relative) legacy: Nadal's FO 2011 win, or Djokovic's hypothetical 2011 CYGS?

Notes:

1. Please do not turn this thread into an argument about whether or not Djokovic would have beaten Nadal in the final. For the purposes of the thread, I am assuming, hypothetically, that Djokovic would have won, in order to set up the question.

2. I have used the term "relative legacy" to mean legacy relative to other players. I.e. One can only affect one's own legacy (e.g. by winning Majors), but other players can affect your "relative legacy", like your status in the history of the sport (e.g. by winning more Majors than you).

Edit: Just to clarify, for the purpose of the question, assume Djokovic hypothetically wins the CYGS if wins the FO semi-final. Whether or not he actually does so is another discussion.

Imo this is a pointless discussion. These people play to win, I'm pretty sure they don't enter a match thinking of long term legacy results, they just want to defeat the other guy. Fed lost the final, but he was the true hero of FO 2011 because he managed to beat an unbeatable Djokovic playing the best tennis of his life. Fed ended his winning streak in a glorious way.

 

[Chanwan]

I think Fed fans are relatively ok with Nole breaking Fed's slam record because Nole more or less plays positive tennis, is a good #1 and has a decent personality but most importantly plays clean and respects the game.
Nadal holding the slam record would be absolutely disastrous for tennis and no self respecting tennis fan would ever want that. Nadal plays anti-tennis, a little bit of him was bearable but he's overstayed his welcome, the ogre needs to leave. His fans are an unruly bunch, screaming "Vamos Ralph" while Fed's serving to save a BP. WTF? Just an uncivilized lot who don't even understand tennis for the most part and anything even remotely critical of Nadal is unbearable to them.

Most importantly, a guy who wins from his opponent's errors should not be it's figurehead. That's a terrible representation of the sport. Positive tennis should always win, a little bit of anti-tennis is bearable albeit unpleasant but Ralph's moonballing success has crossed all limits. His anti-tennis is working on all slams because of slowed down surfaces which is destructive to tennis as a sport. He has already ruined the game imo and won't quit till tennis is in ashes.

I wouldn't go as far, but if I had to pick a player I wanted to beat Fed's mark, it def. wouldn't be Rafa. And Nole would be a pretty good pick on the other hand.

 

[OTMPut]

You guys are discounting a little too much the scenario, where Fed loses to Nole and Rafa beats Nole in an epic final.
That is really the worst case from multiple perspectives and for that reason I am happy Fed stopped Nole.

 

[mike danny]

You guys are discounting a little too much the scenario, where Fed loses to Nole and Rafa beats Nole in an epic final.
That is really the worst case from multiple perspectives and for that reason I am happy Fed stopped Nole.

While I may agree, remeber what happened at W a month later. Despite Nadal being considered the superior grass courter to Novak, he still lost pretty much convincingly. I mean the match was not even close and he lost to a guy whose worst surface is grass.

Also at RG the truth is Nadal barely beat Fed. 3 of those 4 sets could have very well gone either way. It was Fed' mental block vs Rafa that prevented him from winning IMO.

If Fed,who is the best match-up for Rafa, managed to give the spaniard such a hard time in the RG final 2011, imagine what Djokovic, who is a worse match-up and at that time was in his head, would have done to him.

 

[dominikk1985]

Federer single handedly saved Laver's calendar slam record.

I think this match was responsible for Nadal's renaissance. Elevated Nadal from Agassi / McEnroe / Connors level to Borg/Sampras level.

actually laver won the calender slam twice.

 

[mike danny]

actually laver won the calender slam twice.

But only once in the Open Era

 

[sbengte]

However, I would like to posit that, even if Djokovic were to have won that match and the final, it would have actually damaged Federer's (relative) legacy even more. First of all, Federer would have one fewer Major final to his name, but more importantly, it would have led to Djokovic most likely winning the Calendar Year Grand Slam.

You never know. Djoker would have been under immense pressure at the USO if he had won RG and Wimby and may have lost the USO. Even if he did the CYGS, I don't think Fed's legacy would be affected by that. CYGS is one of the things he couldn't do but overall career achievements wise, he would still be superior to Djoker.

 

[sbengte]

If Fed,who is the best match-up for Rafa, managed to give the spaniard such a hard time in the RG final 2011, imagine what Djokovic, who is a worse match-up and at that time was in his head, would have done to him.

This. Nadal hadn't taken a set off him on clay that year.

 

[sbengte]

There are two sides to this, both scenarios are damaging to Fed's own legacy and here's why -

1) Fed preserved the pristineness/rarity of the CYGS by derailing Nole's freak train from hell. IF Nole had done the CYGS it would've made Nole's CYGS even more impressive than Laver's because it would've been on 3 distinct surfaces but the latter point isn't as important as reducing the rarity of the CYGS.

At this point, Laver is Fed's competition in the GOAT debate and Laver's biggest selling point is his CYGS. So if Nole with about 5 slams did the CYGS, then Fed haters can't hold on to the belief that CYGS= GOAT because it would prove that the CYGS is not the be all n end all since a guy with 5 slams and a CYGS just cannot be GOAT can he? That's just illogical.

2) As another poster said before me and I tend to agree with him that Nole would've lost that USO SF v/s Fed due to the added pressure of achieving the CYGS and because of Nadal's devastating RG loss to Nole, Fed may have met someone else in that final and actually won the USO thus incrementing his own slam record.

I'm of the firm belief that this was Fed's single biggest career mistake and it may cost him his slam record. I hope not but Nadal's only 4 shy, all he needs is to keep racking up RGs, it's a pathetic way to achieve it but yea whatever.

It's ironic that Fed continues to hunt for slams to keep his slam record from Ralph's reach which is much harder than simply unleashing the Nole 2.0 beast on the bull and permanently ending his clay reign. A golden opportunity went a begging. He would've killed 2 birds with one stone - Ending Ralph's clay reign AND ending the mystic/rarity of the CYGS thus reducing the prestige of Laver's crowning achievement. Jesus Christ what a colossal error.

Got to agree with all of it.