All of these players have accomplished something that Federer has not...

[Raz11]

Underdog is subjective tbh. The bookies had Nadal as the favorite last year so there was some substance to that claim.Djokovic had a poor lead up compared to Nadal and it was on grass which was the Djokovic's worst surface. I thought he was the underdog but I guess everyone has a different opinion.

Originally Posted by Raz11

Underdog is subjective tbh. The bookies had Nadal as the favorite last year so there was some substance to that claim.Djokovic had a poor lead up compared to Nadal and it was on grass which was the Djokovic's worst surface. I thought he was the underdog but I guess everyone has a different opinion.

I didn't. He had beaten him enough times in 2011. I mean. He straight setted him on clay twice.

[Raz11]

Originally Posted by celoft

I didn't. He had beaten him enough times in 2011. I mean. He straight setted him on clay twice.

True but they hadn't played on Grass nor a grand slam final at that point. Considering it was the defending Champion who had beaten Federer there before against Djokovic who made his first final ever, I thought Djokovic was the underdog. The H2H was important but this was their first grand slam match. I still think Djokovic was the underdog but everyone has their own opinion.

[RoddickAce]

Win a slam as the #3 player in the world? hmm but Djoker has done it

[travlerajm]

I'd like to reset this discusssion on an interesting thought:

There are two types of underdog victories in slam finals for the greats:
Type 1: beginning of career when on the rise.
Type 2: end of career when the player is supposed to be washed up.

Guys like Sampras, Chang, Courier, Agassi, Rafter, and Nadal managed to pull off victories of Type 1. These are not as difficult in my opinion - there is really not that much pressure.

Very few people can pull off victories of Type 2. To win when everyone thinks you are washed up require you to overcome the mental hurdle of knowing that you no longer have superior skills to the guy across the net. I think the only reason Sampras was able to pull of the US 2002 was because he got the good fortune of playing Agassi in the final. He was able to knock off young guns in the Q and SF, but asking to do it on Sunday the day after playing the semi's is too much (as he found out in '00 and '01).

Similarly, Federer was able to pull off two slam victories in 2009 only because he was lucky to draw Roddick and Soderling in the finals, guys he owned. Had Nadal been healthy, he'd have been toast. And the same thing happened for Fed in AO 2010 (drawing Murray).

All 16 of Fed's slam victories came against finals opponents who were clearly overmatched skills-wise or mentally.

The questions is, do you think that Federer's career feels hollow because he has never been able to summon the mental strength to win when he is not supposed to win? And would his career be viewed differently if he can pull off one last slam by either beatinga dominant #1 Djokovic (or exorcising his demons vs. Nadal) in the final?

Originally Posted by celoft

I didn't. He had beaten him enough times in 2011. I mean. He straight setted him on clay twice.

Grass is Nadal's second best surface, and Djokovic's worst. The gap in abilities of Djokovic between clay (where he is excellent, just not at RG) and grass (where up until last year he is really quite mediocre) are probably even more than Nadal from clay to grass. For Djokovic the blah grass courter to have beaten Nadal in the Wimbledon final was an even bigger stamp of total ownage at the time then beating him on clay. Not to mention he had just failed miserably on the clay at RG, losing to a nearly 30 year old Federer in the semis.

As others have noted the bookies all had Nadal as the favorite for last years Wimbledon, both going in, and pre final. Thus Djokovic did win as the underdog.

[sureshs]

Played with a head greater than 90 sq in?

Never mind - didn't see the full list

[autumn_leaf]

Originally Posted by travlerajm

I'd like to reset this discusssion on an interesting thought:

There are two types of underdog victories in slam finals for the greats:
Type 1: beginning of career when on the rise.
Type 2: end of career when the player is supposed to be washed up.

Guys like Sampras, Chang, Courier, Agassi, Rafter, and Nadal managed to pull off victories of Type 1. These are not as difficult in my opinion - there is really not that much pressure.

Very few people can pull off victories of Type 2. To win when everyone thinks you are washed up require you to overcome the mental hurdle of knowing that you no longer have superior skills to the guy across the net. I think the only reason Sampras was able to pull of the US 2002 was because he got the good fortune of playing Agassi in the final. He was able to knock off young guns in the Q and SF, but asking to do it on Sunday the day after playing the semi's is too much (as he found out in '00 and '01).

Similarly, Federer was able to pull off two slam victories in 2009 only because he was lucky to draw Roddick and Soderling in the finals, guys he owned. Had Nadal been healthy, he'd have been toast. And the same thing happened for Fed in AO 2010 (drawing Murray).

All 16 of Fed's slam victories came against finals opponents who were clearly overmatched skills-wise or mentally.

The questions is, do you think that Federer's career feels hollow because he has never been able to summon the mental strength to win when he is not supposed to win? And would his career be viewed differently if he can pull off one last slam by either beatinga dominant #1 Djokovic (or exorcising his demons vs. Nadal) in the final?

should djoker be on the list because he won his first AO against fed. Though that was the year claimed he had mono.

I don't think Fed's career was hollow. A great point is made about the head to head count with fed vs nadal. Federer gets to finals often and almost never has had any injuries. You can't say that about other players. People often say "if nadal was 100%, or if nadal had made it to the final" well then he should have made it to the final and should have taken better care of himself then. It's not federer's job to make sure his opponents make it to the final is it?

[travlerajm]

Originally Posted by autumn_leaf

should djoker be on the list because he won his first AO against fed. Though that was the year claimed he had mono.

But in AO 2008 Djokovic played Fed in Semi's. In final, he got to play as a heavy favorite against a low-ranked Tsonga.

The only slam final where Nadal is not the underdog against Djoker is at the RG final. Anywhere else, Nadal is the underdog these days if he plays Djoker.

Wimbledon is where Nadal has lost the most slam finals. He has a negative record of 2-3.

[Sentinel]

Been able to credit their opponents after a loss. ??

[CDNguy87]

Very interesting. I'd never thought about that before.

I remember the media would talk about how Tiger Woods had never won a golf major when trailing before the final round, which is pretty much the equivalent of this. I really don't think you could say it takes anything away from Federer's career....that's essentially punishing him for being so dominant and well-regarded in his prime. If he wasn't nearly as good, he may have been viewed as the underdog in more slam finals and thus been more likely to accomplish the feat. That's a pretty perverse result.

How many slam finals has Federer been the underdog in anyway? It's just the 4 FO finals against Rafa, correct? Definitely not really fair to hold those too much against him (I'm assuming he was favoured in AO 2009).

Interesting related question: if Federer had converted match point against Djoker in either of the last 2 USOs, would he have been favoured against Rafa in the final? I doubt for 2010 since that was prime Rafa, but last year Rafa was considerably weaker and Fed gave him a good run at the FO. I think the odds would have been close.

And Djoker's win at Wimbledon last year should definitely count as an underdog victory...we need to have some objective measure of the term "underdog" and "favourite" or else it becomes pretty pointless. If the bookies all have one player as a favourite, that should be the determinant.

[Mike Sams]

Originally Posted by Sentinel

Been able to credit their opponents after a loss. ??

Win!

[roundiesee]

I don't think Roger's 16 slams should be discredited because he was the favourite in almost all of them (actually I thought he was a slight underdog against an accomplished grasscourt player in his first slam final against Mark Philippoussis), but the OP does have a point. Just like Tiger, he should one day win a big one when the odds are stacked against him. I think he can if he puts his mind to it, just that he often gets discouraged when the going gets tough.

[drakulie]

win after being two sets to none down.

[FEDERERNADAL13]

Originally Posted by drakulie

win after being two sets to none down.

Falla at Wimby 10

[flyinghippos101]

Dancevic: Qualifier Grand Slam

[autumn_leaf]

Originally Posted by travlerajm

But in AO 2008 Djokovic played Fed in Semi's. In final, he got to play as a heavy favorite against a low-ranked Tsonga.

Sorry, totally forgot it was the semi-final. Don't think I watched the finals that year.

Still don't really think it matters though. I mean. Think about how many people on this thread that even guessed the answer. I don't think a come from behind victory is on many peoples' mind.

[Sid_Vicious]

Originally Posted by FEDERERNADAL13

Falla at Wimby 10

And...


Wessels USO '00
Sargsian RG '01
Nadal Miami '05
Berdych AO '09
Haas FO '09

[roysid]

It's very debatable record.
A better record would be whether he beat No.1 in grand slam (don't think Fed has done it ever). Or whether he saved match point in a grand slam match and went on to win the tournament (Sampras, Becker, Gaudio etc. have done it).