Best loss of Roger Federer

roysid

Hall of Fame
In strange scenario, sometimes a loss may turn out to be good.

One such loss in 2015 FO quarterfinal loss to Stan Wawrinka. Not that Federer lost purposefully, but he was pretty relaxed in the match even after being 2 sets down. He already had sights on Wimbledon.
And that loss turned to be golden, because Wawrinka prevented Djokovic by playing a cracker of a match. Prevented the grand slam of 2015 by Djokovic.

Other honorable mentions:
2010 US Open semifinal loss : Avoided a beatdown by Nadal in the final.

20111 US Open semi loss : Prevents another beatdown by Nadal. But Djoker got another slam added.



The loss that should have been taken:
US Open semi against Wawrinka : if only he had lost, there's a much better chance that Wawrinka smacked Djokovic in finals, like he did in 2016 and also in 2019 USO
 

wang07

Semi-Pro
I don't agree on Nadal being the clear favorite at 2011 USO, it would have been a 50-50 match at least, 2010 Nadal was a LOT better and Fed showed some decent level during his 2011 run, but then again, we really have no idea what the matchup would even look like there because it never happened. You're right about the other 2 matches.
 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
I don't agree on Nadal being the clear favorite at 2011 USO, it would have been a 50-50 match at least, 2010 Nadal was a LOT better and Fed showed some decent level during his 2011 run, but then again, we really have no idea what the matchup would even look like there because it never happened. You're right about the other 2 matches.
2011 was right in the middle of a stretch where the matchup was most heavily slanted in favour of Nadal.

Yes, it's entirely possible that Fed might have won in that final but how Federer fared against Djokovic in 2011 in the SF is very different to how Federer would have fared against Nadal. Nadal had Fed's number just about everywhere and had a tendency to just wake up and see red the moment he saw Federer on the other side of the net--very different story to how it is now.

People look to the WTF 2011 as some sort of indicator that Federer could've won, but criticism of that particular USO was just how slow and high bouncing that court was--closer to Miami that same year, which Nadal won convincingly. If memory serves me right, the loss was treated as almost a tactical loss at the time because it seemed like Federer would have been unable to beat Nadal in the final when factoring in the matchup and the five setter against Djokovic.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
2011 was right in the middle of a stretch where the matchup was most heavily slanted in favour of Nadal.

Yes, it's entirely possible that Fed might have won in that final but how Federer fared against Djokovic in 2011 in the SF is very different to how Federer would have fared against Nadal. Nadal had Fed's number just about everywhere and had a tendency to just wake up and see red the moment he saw Federer on the other side of the net--very different story to how it is now.

People look to the WTF 2011 as some sort of indicator that Federer could've won, but criticism of that particular USO was just how slow and high bouncing that court was--closer to Miami that same year, which Nadal won convincingly. If memory serves me right, the loss was treated as almost a tactical loss at the time because it seemed like Federer would have been unable to beat Nadal in the final when factoring in the matchup and the five setter against Djokovic.
IW 12 - fed beat Nadal easily.
Fed utterly sucked in Miami 11 semi - played far better on clay vs Nadal same year : Madrid and RG.
No, USO 11 was not a tactical loss at all. Some people may have considered that for USO 10, not for USO 11 though.
criticism of USO 11 was slowness compared to previous editions, not high bounce per se.
But fed was able to hit through Djoko fairly well, so could that against Nadal as well.
 

Nole_King

Professional
In strange scenario, sometimes a loss may turn out to be good.

One such loss in 2015 FO quarterfinal loss to Stan Wawrinka. Not that Federer lost purposefully, but he was pretty relaxed in the match even after being 2 sets down. He already had sights on Wimbledon.
And that loss turned to be golden, because Wawrinka prevented Djokovic by playing a cracker of a match. Prevented the grand slam of 2015 by Djokovic.

Other honorable mentions:
2010 US Open semifinal loss : Avoided a beatdown by Nadal in the final.

20111 US Open semi loss : Prevents another beatdown by Nadal. But Djoker got another slam added.



The loss that should have been taken:
US Open semi against Wawrinka : if only he had lost, there's a much better chance that Wawrinka smacked Djokovic in finals, like he did in 2016 and also in 2019 USO
Thats hell of longevity for the Big 3.
 

pj80

Hall of Fame
In strange scenario, sometimes a loss may turn out to be good.

One such loss in 2015 FO quarterfinal loss to Stan Wawrinka. Not that Federer lost purposefully, but he was pretty relaxed in the match even after being 2 sets down. He already had sights on Wimbledon.
And that loss turned to be golden, because Wawrinka prevented Djokovic by playing a cracker of a match. Prevented the grand slam of 2015 by Djokovic.

Other honorable mentions:
2010 US Open semifinal loss : Avoided a beatdown by Nadal in the final.

20111 US Open semi loss : Prevents another beatdown by Nadal. But Djoker got another slam added.



The loss that should have been taken:
US Open semi against Wawrinka : if only he had lost, there's a much better chance that Wawrinka smacked Djokovic in finals, like he did in 2016 and also in 2019 USO
you really feel threatened by Djokovic
 

ForehandRF

Hall of Fame
In strange scenario, sometimes a loss may turn out to be good.

One such loss in 2015 FO quarterfinal loss to Stan Wawrinka. Not that Federer lost purposefully, but he was pretty relaxed in the match even after being 2 sets down. He already had sights on Wimbledon.
And that loss turned to be golden, because Wawrinka prevented Djokovic by playing a cracker of a match. Prevented the grand slam of 2015 by Djokovic.

Other honorable mentions:
2010 US Open semifinal loss : Avoided a beatdown by Nadal in the final.

20111 US Open semi loss : Prevents another beatdown by Nadal. But Djoker got another slam added.



The loss that should have been taken:
US Open semi against Wawrinka : if only he had lost, there's a much better chance that Wawrinka smacked Djokovic in finals, like he did in 2016 and also in 2019 USO
Beatdown to Nadal at the USO 2011 ? Disagree.The same Nadal that didn't stood a chance against Djokovic in the final.Meanwhile, Federer almost won the SF against a better Djokovic so, in fact, an eventual Fedal final would have been at least 50-50, if not Fed the favorite, taking into account the form of both.
Lastly, you are talking about a beatdown that year at the USO even when their RG match was a tight 4 setter.
 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
IW 12 - fed beat Nadal easily.
Fed utterly sucked in Miami 11 semi - played far better on clay vs Nadal same year : Madrid and RG.
I could easily say Nadal sucked in IW 2012 as well, and played far better at the AO that same year, beating him in 4 sets and hitting more winners.

At any rate a tournament played in one season by a player is often not a great indicator of how that same player would have fared in a different one--even if the distance in time between Miami 2011, USO 2011, and IW 2012 are not too drastic.
No, USO 11 was not a tactical loss at all. Some people may have considered that for USO 10, not for USO 11 though.
criticism of USO 11 was slowness compared to previous editions, not high bounce per se.
But fed was able to hit through Djoko fairly well, so could that against Nadal as well.
And as we established at the time slowness heavily advantages Nadal because he can do more with the ball from a defensive position.

Difference between Nadal and Djokovic (even in 2011) was what they could do at the end of their range. 2011 Nadal still had those ridiculous passing shots he doesn't have now.

The point that people seem to be making is that because Federer > Djokovic in this hypothetical scenario, and Djokovic > Nadal in the actual USO 2011 final, then Federer must be > Nadal.

That's not how it works though.
 

pj80

Hall of Fame
In strange scenario, sometimes a loss may turn out to be good.

One such loss in 2015 FO quarterfinal loss to Stan Wawrinka. Not that Federer lost purposefully, but he was pretty relaxed in the match even after being 2 sets down. He already had sights on Wimbledon.
And that loss turned to be golden, because Wawrinka prevented Djokovic by playing a cracker of a match. Prevented the grand slam of 2015 by Djokovic.

Other honorable mentions:
2010 US Open semifinal loss : Avoided a beatdown by Nadal in the final.

20111 US Open semi loss : Prevents another beatdown by Nadal. But Djoker got another slam added.



The loss that should have been taken:
US Open semi against Wawrinka : if only he had lost, there's a much better chance that Wawrinka smacked Djokovic in finals, like he did in 2016 and also in 2019 USO
what about his loss to Robredo round before meeting Rafa at the US Open...surely a suspicious loss
 

beard

Hall of Fame
In strange scenario, sometimes a loss may turn out to be good.

One such loss in 2015 FO quarterfinal loss to Stan Wawrinka. Not that Federer lost purposefully, but he was pretty relaxed in the match even after being 2 sets down. He already had sights on Wimbledon.
And that loss turned to be golden, because Wawrinka prevented Djokovic by playing a cracker of a match. Prevented the grand slam of 2015 by Djokovic.

Other honorable mentions:
2010 US Open semifinal loss : Avoided a beatdown by Nadal in the final.

20111 US Open semi loss : Prevents another beatdown by Nadal. But Djoker got another slam added.



The loss that should have been taken:
US Open semi against Wawrinka : if only he had lost, there's a much better chance that Wawrinka smacked Djokovic in finals, like he did in 2016 and also in 2019 USO
In short... I hate Djokovic...



You should hide...




He's coming for all of your fav's records... ;)
 

roysid

Hall of Fame
2011 was right in the middle of a stretch where the matchup was most heavily slanted in favour of Nadal.

Yes, it's entirely possible that Fed might have won in that final but how Federer fared against Djokovic in 2011 in the SF is very different to how Federer would have fared against Nadal. Nadal had Fed's number just about everywhere and had a tendency to just wake up and see red the moment he saw Federer on the other side of the net--very different story to how it is now.

People look to the WTF 2011 as some sort of indicator that Federer could've won, but criticism of that particular USO was just how slow and high bouncing that court was--closer to Miami that same year, which Nadal won convincingly. If memory serves me right, the loss was treated as almost a tactical loss at the time because it seemed like Federer would have been unable to beat Nadal in the final when factoring in the matchup and the five setter against Djokovic.
Thank you my sensible friend. For explaining why matchups are important and why in 2011 USO Federer wont have much chance against Nadal
 

roysid

Hall of Fame
In short... I hate Djokovic...



You should hide...




He's coming for all of your fav's records... ;)
Oh no. I love Roger but I dont hate Djokovic. Though he gave me a lot of pain in that 2019 final.

I actually admire him, not support mainly for his mental toughness

He also took the mantle of Rogers main opponent after W19.

Believe it or not, I used to support Djoker all the time before that. All the matches against Rafa and even the RG final against Wawrinka that time in 2015.
 

maratha_warrior

Hall of Fame
Some Fed fans are amazing .
If a rival is injured in a match and whether he is bleeding or whether he retires from the match , that rival was perfectly fit and fine.

But when fed loses a slam and if he suddenly says he was unfit even after 10 years after that match , then fed fans decide that the win doesn't count and the rival won against a bed-ridden injured player . Rational and unbiased . :-D
 
Last edited:

roysid

Hall of Fame
I could easily say Nadal sucked in IW 2012 as well, and played far better at the AO that same year, beating him in 4 sets and hitting more winners.

At any rate a tournament played in one season by a player is often not a great indicator of how that same player would have fared in a different one--even if the distance in time between Miami 2011, USO 2011, and IW 2012 are not too drastic.

And as we established at the time slowness heavily advantages Nadal because he can do more with the ball from a defensive position.

Difference between Nadal and Djokovic (even in 2011) was what they could do at the end of their range. 2011 Nadal still had those ridiculous passing shots he doesn't have now.

The point that people seem to be making is that because Federer > Djokovic in this hypothetical scenario, and Djokovic > Nadal in the actual USO 2011 final, then Federer must be > Nadal.

That's not how it works though.
Exactly. At top players scenario, matchup are the most important thing when they play each other. Federer struggled more against Nadal than others because of his wicked lefty forehand.
While Djokovic, Murray while they had great dbl handed backhand couldn't trouble Fed so much.

Similarly wawrinka looked lost against Roger but against Djokovic he was a demolisher.

Hence Wawrinka would have better chance against Djoker in 2015 final.
 

gjm127

Semi-Pro
In strange scenario, sometimes a loss may turn out to be good.

One such loss in 2015 FO quarterfinal loss to Stan Wawrinka. Not that Federer lost purposefully, but he was pretty relaxed in the match even after being 2 sets down. He already had sights on Wimbledon.
And that loss turned to be golden, because Wawrinka prevented Djokovic by playing a cracker of a match. Prevented the grand slam of 2015 by Djokovic.

Other honorable mentions:
2010 US Open semifinal loss : Avoided a beatdown by Nadal in the final.

20111 US Open semi loss : Prevents another beatdown by Nadal. But Djoker got another slam added.



The loss that should have been taken:
US Open semi against Wawrinka : if only he had lost, there's a much better chance that Wawrinka smacked Djokovic in finals, like he did in 2016 and also in 2019 USO
2011 Fed would have beaten Nadal in the Final
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
I could easily say Nadal sucked in IW 2012 as well, and played far better at the AO that same year, beating him in 4 sets and hitting more winners.

At any rate a tournament played in one season by a player is often not a great indicator of how that same player would have fared in a different one--even if the distance in time between Miami 2011, USO 2011, and IW 2012 are not too drastic.
Nadal played so so in IW 12. He did play better at the AO. which was clearly slower than USO 11.
You are the one who brought in Miami as something remotely close to what happened at the USO - not really valid. Also very few, if any, talk about WTF 11 as some sort of great indicator as to what would happen at the USO.

Federer had competitive 4-setters vs Nadal at RG 11 and AO 12. He'd do clearly better on a surface better for him (USO) and with Nadal playing worse than at RG 11 (later stages atleast) and AO 12.

And as we established at the time slowness heavily advantages Nadal because he can do more with the ball from a defensive position.

Difference between Nadal and Djokovic (even in 2011) was what they could do at the end of their range. 2011 Nadal still had those ridiculous passing shots he doesn't have now.

The point that people seem to be making is that because Federer > Djokovic in this hypothetical scenario, and Djokovic > Nadal in the actual USO 2011 final, then Federer must be > Nadal.

That's not how it works though.
and Nadal's serving wasn't that great in USO 11 before the final. Was absolutely mediocre in the final. Something which fed would take advantage of.
the slowness of USO in comparision to previous years also advantages Djokovic wrt to Fed - yet he had to save MPs at his absolute peak vs fed.

its not about the transitive property.
Djokovic was down 2 sets to love and had to save MPs in the 5th vs fed
Djokvoic took 3 sets comfortably vs Nadal and Nadal had to scramble like hell to win the 1 set he did.
The difference in how fed and nadal played Djokovic at that USO was significant enough to compensate for the matchup effect b/w Fed&nadal IMO.

If there was little difference in how they played Djokovic, I'd give Nadal the edge due to matchup effect at that time.
 
Last edited:

mike danny

Bionic Poster
In strange scenario, sometimes a loss may turn out to be good.

One such loss in 2015 FO quarterfinal loss to Stan Wawrinka. Not that Federer lost purposefully, but he was pretty relaxed in the match even after being 2 sets down. He already had sights on Wimbledon.
And that loss turned to be golden, because Wawrinka prevented Djokovic by playing a cracker of a match. Prevented the grand slam of 2015 by Djokovic.

Other honorable mentions:
2010 US Open semifinal loss : Avoided a beatdown by Nadal in the final.

20111 US Open semi loss : Prevents another beatdown by Nadal. But Djoker got another slam added.



The loss that should have been taken:
US Open semi against Wawrinka : if only he had lost, there's a much better chance that Wawrinka smacked Djokovic in finals, like he did in 2016 and also in 2019 USO
Nah, 2011 USO would not have been a beatdown. Rafa was poor in the final for his standards.
 

King No1e

G.O.A.T.
eh, disagree with 2011 USO. he'd have been slight favorite vs Nadal in the final.
No way. That was the height of Nadal's mental and tactical dominance over Fed. Fed may steal the 1st set and make life hard for Nadal, but over BO5, in Nadal's prime, there's only one clear favorite.
USO17 would have been a different story, though.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I could easily say Nadal sucked in IW 2012 as well, and played far better at the AO that same year, beating him in 4 sets and hitting more winners.

At any rate a tournament played in one season by a player is often not a great indicator of how that same player would have fared in a different one--even if the distance in time between Miami 2011, USO 2011, and IW 2012 are not too drastic.

And as we established at the time slowness heavily advantages Nadal because he can do more with the ball from a defensive position.

Difference between Nadal and Djokovic (even in 2011) was what they could do at the end of their range. 2011 Nadal still had those ridiculous passing shots he doesn't have now.

The point that people seem to be making is that because Federer > Djokovic in this hypothetical scenario, and Djokovic > Nadal in the actual USO 2011 final, then Federer must be > Nadal.

That's not how it works though.
AO and USO are extremely different slams. Look at Fedovic AO 2011 vs USO 2011. The 2012 AO edition was much much slower than the 2011 USO edition as well.

I disagree with the notion that Nadal was owning Fed everywhere. Barely won the Wimb match 9-7 in the 5th and didn't play at the USO.

Fact is, even accounting for the different match-ups, Nadal was way too poor in the final to deliver a beatdown against Fed. His serve was pretty bad too. And got breadsticked by an injured Djokovic too.

Whatever the outcome would have been, beatdown wasn't going to be one of them. And FYI, Nadal played MUCH better at the 2012 AO as a whole than at 2011 USO, including the final, so this is another reason why his semi with Fed there has no influence on a potential USO match with a Nadal in worse form.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Some Fed fans are amazing .
If a rival is injured in a match and whether he is bleeding or whether he retires from the match , that rival was perfectly fit and fine.

But when fed loses a slam and if he suddenly says he was unfit even after 10 years after that match , then fed fans decide that the win doesn't count and the rival won against a bed-ridden injured player . Rational and unbiased . :-D
What are you talking about?
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
No way. That was the height of Nadal's mental and tactical dominance over Fed. Fed may steal the 1st set and make life hard for Nadal, but over BO5, in Nadal's prime, there's only one clear favorite.
USO17 would have been a different story, though.
already addressed

1. Djokovic was down 2 sets to love and had to save MPs in the 5th vs fed
Djokvoic took 3 sets comfortably vs Nadal and Nadal had to scramble like hell to win the 1 set he did.
The difference in how fed and nadal played Djokovic at that USO was significant enough to compensate for the matchup effect b/w Fed&nadal IMO.

If there was little difference in how they played Djokovic, I'd give Nadal the edge due to matchup effect at that time.

2. Federer had competitive 4-setters vs Nadal at RG 11 and AO 12. He'd do clearly better on a surface better for him (USO) and with Nadal playing worse than at RG 11 (later stages atleast) and AO 12.
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
as far as actual level of play goes:

1. Safin AO 05
2. Nadal Rome 06

Nothing else comes close.
I agree that nothing else comes close to these 2 matches.

I'm trying to think of what match would be in third place for his best level but lost anyway. For me, it would be 2006 Dubai where he lost to Rafa or 2007 Canadian Open where he lost 6-7 in the third to young Djoker.
 

King No1e

G.O.A.T.
already addressed

1. Djokovic was down 2 sets to love and had to save MPs in the 5th vs fed
Djokvoic took 3 sets comfortably vs Nadal and Nadal had to scramble like hell to win the 1 set he did.
The difference in how fed and nadal played Djokovic at that USO was significant enough to compensate for the matchup effect b/w Fed&nadal IMO.

If there was little difference in how they played Djokovic, I'd give Nadal the edge due to matchup effect at that time.

2. Federer had competitive 4-setters vs Nadal at RG 11 and AO 12. He'd do clearly better on a surface better for him (USO) and with Nadal playing worse than at RG 11 (later stages atleast) and AO 12.
I don't doubt it would've been a close match, but that's exactly where ~2011 Nadal had all the confidence in the world. Knowing Prime Nadal, he would've upped his game a few levels if he was in serious trouble. In fact, my guess would be that it plays out like AO12 semi
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
I don't doubt it would've been a close match, but that's exactly where ~2011 Nadal had all the confidence in the world. Knowing Prime Nadal, he would've upped his game a few levels if he was in serious trouble. In fact, my guess would be that it plays out like AO12 semi
he struggled like hell to 1 one set vs Djokovic while upping his level. Collapsed in the 4th set.

As far as comparision b/w USO 11 and AO 12 is concerned, USO 11 was clearly faster and better suited to fed and Nadal was playing better at AO 12 than USO 11.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I don't doubt it would've been a close match, but that's exactly where ~2011 Nadal had all the confidence in the world. Knowing Prime Nadal, he would've upped his game a few levels if he was in serious trouble. In fact, my guess would be that it plays out like AO12 semi
Don't think it would be like AO 2012 because Nadal was crazy good there, while not even close to this level at USO 2011.
 

Enceladus

Legend
eh, disagree with 2011 USO. he'd have been slight favorite vs Nadal in the final.
You're forgetting the mental complex Roger had against Bull at the time. It doesn't matter that Fed was in better form than Rafa at USO 2011, it would not be able to beat he in a hypothetical finale because of its psyche.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
You're forgetting the mental complex Roger had against Bull at the time. It doesn't matter that Fed was in better form than Rafa at USO 2011, it would not be able to beat he in a hypothetical finale because of its psyche.
See ->

already addressed

1. Djokovic was down 2 sets to love and had to save MPs in the 5th vs fed
Djokvoic took 3 sets comfortably vs Nadal and Nadal had to scramble like hell to win the 1 set he did.
The difference in how fed and nadal played Djokovic at that USO was significant enough to compensate for the matchup effect b/w Fed&nadal IMO.

If there was little difference in how they played Djokovic, I'd give Nadal the edge due to matchup effect at that time.

2. Federer had competitive 4-setters vs Nadal at RG 11 and AO 12. He'd do clearly better on a surface better for him (USO) and with Nadal playing worse than at RG 11 (later stages atleast) and AO 12.
 

Enceladus

Legend
what about his loss to Robredo round before meeting Rafa at the US Open...surely a suspicious loss
IMO, Roger deliberately lost this match because he suspected that he had no chance against Rafa, which was in strong form in this time, while Fed had a game crisis. Fed simply didn't want Rafa to beat him in all four grandslams.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
IMO, Roger deliberately lost this match because he suspected that he had no chance against Rafa, which was in strong form in this time, while Fed had a game crisis. Fed simply didn't want Rafa to beat him in all four grandslams.
Which year? 2010 or 2011?

2010 - yes, I agree.

2011, no, disagree there.
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
40-15. If not for that he would have been burdened with the legacy of being the undisputed GOAT of tennis.
he would always carry the equally heavy burden of having won over 50 percent of his slams during the Weakest Era in history. Now he only carries one burden, thankfully.
 

ForehandRF

Hall of Fame
he would always carry the equally heavy burden of having won over 50 percent of his slams during the Weakest Era in history. Now he only carries one burden, thankfully.
You can't get enough with this weak era obsession.You have no credibility whatsoever because your agenda is clear as daylight, you Novak fanatic and Federer hater.Always preaching the same thing day in day out, like a computer that has blue screen error on the same thing every day.
 
Top