eldanger25
Hall of Fame
To me, there are certain instances in Open Era history where a slam semifinal matchup was really the "de facto" final. I limit this to semifinal encounters rather than earlier because making it out of one's quarter of the draw is a triumph in and of itself, and shouldn't really be devalued to that degree.
My feeling is that for a de facto final to exist, you need (1) both semifinalists to have had substantial, recent success at the event (and possibly on tour generally); (2) a clear gap at the event between the two semifinalists and the player who emerged from the other side of the draw in the finals; and (3) a clear gap in quality between the "de facto" final and the actual final.
The paradigmatic recent example of this is of course RG 2013 between Nadal and Djokovic: it has all the ingredients of the above - two men with great recent success at the event; a first-time GS finalist on the other side in David Ferrer; and a lopsided difference in quality between the two matches.
Here are a few other candidates, in my opinion:
2005 Australian Open, Safin d. Federer
This may be a bit more controversial, but I think it holds - Federer was the defending champ; Safin was a 2x finalist; this was a rematch of their title fight encounter the year prior; Hewitt had had little success at the event beforehand; and Safin beat up on Hewitt far more convincingly than he did Federer.
1984 United States Open, McEnroe d. Connors
Also a bit more controversial, but I think it makes it over the line - Connors and McEnroe had between them won the last 6 Open titles - Connors '78, '82-'83, McEnroe '79-'81 - as well as 7 of the last 8 and 8 of the last 10. In fact, one or the other had appeared in every Open final since 1974 before this matchup. And although Ivan Lendl had made the two prior Open finals, he had not won the event yet, and had just won his first GS event at RG a few months earlier as a result of Mac's implosion. Finally, the 5 set corker between Connors and Mac way overshadowed Mac's dominant straight setter over Lendl in the final.
(Lendl would of course have his revenge on both at the Open the following year)
Without disrespecting Lendl, I do think this was the de facto final that year, particularly given the history at the event Mac and Connors had, as well as how close that match was relative to the final.
1998 United States Open, Rafter d. Sampras
Here's another good example - Rafter was defending champ; Sampras had won the event four prior times; Scud awaited the winner in his first slam final; and the five setter b/w Pistol and Rafter ultimately overshadowed Rafter's 4 set win in the final, which included him winning 12 of the last 14 games.
In contrast, I'm not sure you can count, say, Agassi v. Sampras at the 2000 AO SF as a de facto final, simply because Kafelnikov, the defending champ, was awaiting the winner - that seems to negate any claim of de facto final right off the bat.
I'm also not sure you can count Federer v. Nadal at RG 2005 as a de facto final, simply because neither had proven himself yet at the event when they met (it was the first final weekend appearance for both men). In other words, you've gotta look backwards from the date of the matchup, not use the benefit of hindsight to say - better career later = de facto final at the time.
Similarly, the CV gap between the Novak-Roger 2011 Australian Open SF and the Novak-Murray final doesn't make up for the fact that neither match was particularly close (even though the semi included a few tight sets). I think you could make a similar argument for their 2012 Wimbledon SF encounter (though that one is closer).
Any matches spring to mind to anyone else?
EDIT: Just to make it clear, one other condition here to my question is that the winner of the so-called "de facto" final has to go on and win the event outright as well. Thought that was self-evident, but apparently it isn't.
My feeling is that for a de facto final to exist, you need (1) both semifinalists to have had substantial, recent success at the event (and possibly on tour generally); (2) a clear gap at the event between the two semifinalists and the player who emerged from the other side of the draw in the finals; and (3) a clear gap in quality between the "de facto" final and the actual final.
The paradigmatic recent example of this is of course RG 2013 between Nadal and Djokovic: it has all the ingredients of the above - two men with great recent success at the event; a first-time GS finalist on the other side in David Ferrer; and a lopsided difference in quality between the two matches.
Here are a few other candidates, in my opinion:
2005 Australian Open, Safin d. Federer
This may be a bit more controversial, but I think it holds - Federer was the defending champ; Safin was a 2x finalist; this was a rematch of their title fight encounter the year prior; Hewitt had had little success at the event beforehand; and Safin beat up on Hewitt far more convincingly than he did Federer.
1984 United States Open, McEnroe d. Connors
Also a bit more controversial, but I think it makes it over the line - Connors and McEnroe had between them won the last 6 Open titles - Connors '78, '82-'83, McEnroe '79-'81 - as well as 7 of the last 8 and 8 of the last 10. In fact, one or the other had appeared in every Open final since 1974 before this matchup. And although Ivan Lendl had made the two prior Open finals, he had not won the event yet, and had just won his first GS event at RG a few months earlier as a result of Mac's implosion. Finally, the 5 set corker between Connors and Mac way overshadowed Mac's dominant straight setter over Lendl in the final.
(Lendl would of course have his revenge on both at the Open the following year)
Without disrespecting Lendl, I do think this was the de facto final that year, particularly given the history at the event Mac and Connors had, as well as how close that match was relative to the final.
1998 United States Open, Rafter d. Sampras
Here's another good example - Rafter was defending champ; Sampras had won the event four prior times; Scud awaited the winner in his first slam final; and the five setter b/w Pistol and Rafter ultimately overshadowed Rafter's 4 set win in the final, which included him winning 12 of the last 14 games.
In contrast, I'm not sure you can count, say, Agassi v. Sampras at the 2000 AO SF as a de facto final, simply because Kafelnikov, the defending champ, was awaiting the winner - that seems to negate any claim of de facto final right off the bat.
I'm also not sure you can count Federer v. Nadal at RG 2005 as a de facto final, simply because neither had proven himself yet at the event when they met (it was the first final weekend appearance for both men). In other words, you've gotta look backwards from the date of the matchup, not use the benefit of hindsight to say - better career later = de facto final at the time.
Similarly, the CV gap between the Novak-Roger 2011 Australian Open SF and the Novak-Murray final doesn't make up for the fact that neither match was particularly close (even though the semi included a few tight sets). I think you could make a similar argument for their 2012 Wimbledon SF encounter (though that one is closer).
Any matches spring to mind to anyone else?
EDIT: Just to make it clear, one other condition here to my question is that the winner of the so-called "de facto" final has to go on and win the event outright as well. Thought that was self-evident, but apparently it isn't.
Last edited:
