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

T

travlerajm

Talk Tennis Guru
Nadal, Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Chang, Becker, Safin, Johannson, Gomez, Rafter, Stich, Costa, Cash, Wilander, Gaudio...

It's a missing element of Federer's career resume. What is it?
 
T

travlerajm

Talk Tennis Guru
A hint: Djokovic has not done it yet either, but Federer might beat him to it...

Edit: I have to go back an check, not sure about djok...
Edit again: Yes, Djok has not done it yet
 
Last edited:
M

Magnus

Legend
travlerajm said:
Nadal, Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Chang, Becker, Safin, Johannson, Gomez, Rafter, Stich, Costa, Cash, Wilander, Gaudio...

It's a missing element of Federer's career resume. What is it?
Click to expand...

Mental strength and fighting spirit?

Oh wait you also wrote Safin...

I'll keep thinking :)
 
Andres

Andres

G.O.A.T.
I was thinking winning on his first Slam final, but Federer did it too. So, so far, have no idea.
 
norbac

norbac

Legend
Beating a number one player in a Slam?

Actually Novak did it at Wimbledon last year and Australian 08.....
 
T

travlerajm

Talk Tennis Guru
I started this thread because I realized that Federer's career would be viewed much more favorably if he can find a way to dig out a slam final against someone who's favored to beat him.
 
R

Raz11

Professional
I thought Djokovic was the underdog last year at Wimbledon.

So far Federer has been the underdog at the french against Nadal and that is understandable.
 
Last edited:
C

celoft

Guest
Raz11 said:
I thought Djokovic was the underdog last year at Wimbledon.
Click to expand...


Djoker has never won a slam final as an underdog. He was the favorite in the Wimbledon final because of the H2H in 2011 with Nadal.
 
R

Raz11

Professional
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.
 
C

celoft

Guest
Raz11 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Raz11

Professional
celoft said:
I didn't. He had beaten him enough times in 2011. I mean. He straight setted him on clay twice.:shock:
Click to expand...

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.
 
T

travlerajm

Talk Tennis Guru
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?
 
Last edited:
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
celoft said:
I didn't. He had beaten him enough times in 2011. I mean. He straight setted him on clay twice.:shock:
Click to expand...

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.
 
autumn_leaf

autumn_leaf

Hall of Fame
travlerajm said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
C

celoft

Guest
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
All of these players have accomplished something that Nadal has not
Replies
28
Views
3K
mandy01
mandy01
drwood
US Open - only #1 players win (unlike any other major)
Replies
26
Views
3K
timnz
T
Otacon
Grand Slam tallies by decade in the Open Era
Replies
14
Views
523
thrust
T
T
1988-1992: Strongest 5-Year Era in ATP History
2
Replies
58
Views
1K
T007
T
JennyS
Number of different players who have won each Slam during the Open era
Replies
5
Views
1K
T10s747
T10s747
Top