Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by travlerajm, Feb 11, 2012.
Been able to credit their opponents after a loss. ??
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.
:lol: :lol: Win!
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.
win after being two sets to none down.
Falla at Wimby 10
Dancevic: Qualifier Grand Slam
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.
Wessels USO '00
Sargsian RG '01
Nadal Miami '05
Berdych AO '09
Haas FO '09
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).
-Djokovic was clearly underdog in the Wimbledon final. Because he was playing two time defending champion.
- On similar lines, Nadal was underdog in 2008 wimbledon final despite owning Federer in 2008.
Come to think of it, Fed has defeated players in slam where he was clearly the underdog by playing exceptionally well. Not in finals, though.
- 2001 Wimbledon vs Pete Sampras
- 2003 Wimbledon vs Andy Roddick (ok not so underdog)
- 2011 French Open vs Novak Djokovic
Ha ha!! End of thread.
no one else in history surrendered 2 slam matches from 2 match points up. not once but twice to djokovic. last year, federer lost to an injured djokovic after getting the first two sets gifted to him.
fed's the only one who lost us open matches back to back years from 2 match points up while
ranked in the top 2 or 3.
fed's the only one in history to lose wimbledon and us open matches from 2 sets up while
ranked in the top 3.
fed's the only former top 2 or 3 player who lost a 2 set lead in davis cup, wimbledon, us open & masters cup.
Separate names with a comma.