De Facto Finals - Slam SF matchups that were the "true" title fight

[eldanger25]

(also posted at GPPD)

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?

 

[BTURNER]

Some women. Obviously the two set semi in '88 RG between Graf and Sabatini.

 

[krosero]

McEnroe-Lendl, 1983 Wimbledon

 

[eldanger25]

McEnroe-Lendl, 1983 Wimbledon

Interesting - not sure I agree, at least considering that Lendl hadn't done much at Wimbledon at the time (pretty sure he'd skipped it the prior year to go golfing), and it was a straight sets affair like the final.

If measuring the players' Wimbledon careers in total, then probably, yes. But I think out of respect for championship bouts generally, part of the inquiry involves the circumstances at the time of the match.

 

[CEvertFan]

Evert d. Navratilova 1980 Wimbledon semis is another good ladies example.

Martina was the two time defending champion (having won it in 78 and 79) and Evert was already a two time champ and had reached her 9th straight semi (going back to 1972) and furthermore went on to her 4th final in five years after beating Martina.

 

[Xavier G]

McEnroe-Connors US Open semi final 1979. With Borg out, I thought this match up of Jimmy, defending champion and finalist for the last five years against the new star McEnroe who had yet to win a Grand Slam, but was already Grand Prix Masters and WCT champ, would decide the winner of the event. McEnroe made his breakthrough here.

 

[Gizo]

^ Yeah that's a good shout. As talented as the other semi-finalists Vitas and Tanner were, I wouldn't back either of them to beat either Mac or Connors in a US Open final on hard courts. To be honest the way Mac was playing, I strongly doubt Borg would have been able to stop him in that form in a hypothetical final either. Mac had outclassed him in the Dallas final earlier that year, in a more one sided match than the 4 set score line suggested, and probably would dished out the same treatment at Flushing Meadows as well. He was young, hungry, fast and fearless at that event. Borg had let his rambling and whining coach Bergelin psyche him out.

A more controversial choice is the Gomez-Muster 1990 RG semi-final, but they were clearly the 2 best players in the world on clay that year. Muster would most likely have beaten Agassi as well.

While Agassi was the bookies' and pundits' favourite to beat Gomez in the final, he shouldn't have been and that was probably because people were blinded by all his Cannon and Nike commercials. Gomez had brushed aside Muster in the semi-finals, and Muster was a far tougher clay court opponent in 1990 than Agassi. Muster would spank Agassi in their Davis Cup match on clay in Vienna that year. Agassi did beat Courier and Chang en-route to the final, but Courier did nothing of note in 1990 and didn't reach a single tournament final all year, and Chang was struggling to handle the pressure of being a grand slam champion and big shot. Gomez was in great form on clay that year with titles at Barcelona and Madrid and a narrow semi-final loss to Muster in the Rome semis, and was buoyed by the fact that his ultimate nemesis Lendl wasn't in the draw. Muster won Rome and was also a finalist at Monte-Carlo that year.

 

[Gizo]

In the women's game a glaring fairly recent example was the Henin-Venus 2007 US Open semi.

That draw was ridiculously top heavy, with 5 out of the best 6 players in the world at the time, Henin, Venus, Serena, Jankovic and Ivanovic in the top half, and the defending champion Sharapova with seemingly a free pass to the final from the bottom half. Of course she was upset by Radwanska in the 3rd round.

Everyone knew that the winner of the Henin-Venus semi would destroy the winner of the Kuznetsova-Chakvetadze semi in the final. That was only intensified after the 'heavyweight' semi was such a high quality match, while the all Russian semi was a terrible, error-strewn contest which both players deserved to lose.

 

[abmk]

AO 11 SF definitely ...murray was in considerably poorer form than federer was ...

wim 12, no way ...murray won set 1 and federer somehow stole the 2nd set from him .... that'd be an absolute insult to murray given how well he was playing there

 

[krosero]

Interesting - not sure I agree, at least considering that Lendl hadn't done much at Wimbledon at the time (pretty sure he'd skipped it the prior year to go golfing), and it was a straight sets affair like the final.

If measuring the players' Wimbledon careers in total, then probably, yes. But I think out of respect for championship bouts generally, part of the inquiry involves the circumstances at the time of the match.

Probably the Nadal-Djokovic meeting at RG last year is the best example of something like this, and I wouldn't say Mac-Lendl was such a clear example. But at the time one paper reported that their semifinal was thought to be "the key to the title" now that top-seeded Connors was out of the picture: http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...YE0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=AegFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1907,5379482

The gap in CV's was quite large. Curren and Lewis had each won just 2 titles, and Lewis was ranked 91.

The Mac-Lendl match was the first semifinal of the day, but I tell you what, if it had been the second and they already knew that Chris Lewis was to be the opponent, then I would say this was an example of a de facto final almost as stark as Nadal-Djokovic. Curren was a genuine threat to anyone on grass (though unpredictable), but nobody picked Lewis to threaten McEnroe at all in their final. And it would have taken a brave soul for anyone to pick Lewis over Lendl.

You're right about Lendl's poor history at Wimbledon, but on his way to the semis that year he was playing extraordinarily well. He swept Pat Cash in straights in R16, then straight-setted Tanner without dropping serve. Curren was making all the headlines with his aces and his streak of service holds, but Lendl was almost as hard to break. And he was SV'ing behind all his serves, successfully.

I always assumed that Lendl didn't become a good grasscourter until he started working with Roche in '85, but for whatever reason (maybe he was in the zone) he had that terrific run in '83.

Even McEnroe said after the quarters that Lendl seemed to have adapted to grass -- which is something, considering these two basically hated each other and generally conceded no respect to the other unless it was genuine.

McEnroe ended up breaking Lendl just twice in their semi; I think it's unfair to group that match together with the final as straight-set affairs. McEnroe toyed with Lewis, but had a relatively narrow win over Lendl (even having to save a set point in the first set).

Moose Malloy did some stats for that match and others in that Wimbledon: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=173138

 

[krosero]

Possibly another would be Laver-Roche at '69 AO.

 

[Vensai]

What about the 1989 Wimbledon semifinal between Ivan Lendl and Boris Becker? Had Lendl pulled through, he would have had a good chance against Edberg, who Becker ended up dominating in the final.

 

[eldanger25]

Probably the Nadal-Djokovic meeting at RG last year is the best example of something like this, and I wouldn't say Mac-Lendl was such a clear example. But at the time one paper reported that their semifinal was thought to be "the key to the title" now that top-seeded Connors was out of the picture: http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...YE0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=AegFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1907,5379482

The gap in CV's was quite large. Curren and Lewis had each won just 2 titles, and Lewis was ranked 91.

The Mac-Lendl match was the first semifinal of the day, but I tell you what, if it had been the second and they already knew that Chris Lewis was to be the opponent, then I would say this was an example of a de facto final almost as stark as Nadal-Djokovic. Curren was a genuine threat to anyone on grass (though unpredictable), but nobody picked Lewis to threaten McEnroe at all in their final. And it would have taken a brave soul for anyone to pick Lewis over Lendl.

You're right about Lendl's poor history at Wimbledon, but on his way to the semis that year he was playing extraordinarily well. He swept Pat Cash in straights in R16, then straight-setted Tanner without dropping serve. Curren was making all the headlines with his aces and his streak of service holds, but Lendl was almost as hard to break. And he was SV'ing behind all his serves, successfully.

I always assumed that Lendl didn't become a good grasscourter until he started working with Roche in '85, but for whatever reason (maybe he was in the zone) he had that terrific run in '83.

Even McEnroe said after the quarters that Lendl seemed to have adapted to grass -- which is something, considering these two basically hated each other and generally conceded no respect to the other unless it was genuine.

McEnroe ended up breaking Lendl just twice in their semi; I think it's unfair to group that match together with the final as straight-set affairs. McEnroe toyed with Lewis, but had a relatively narrow win over Lendl (even having to save a set point in the first set).

Moose Malloy did some stats for that match and others in that Wimbledon: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=173138

Reasonable points for sure. I hesitate to include that match, as well as matches like Connors-Mac 1979 at the Open, because I generally do consider the championship match sacrosanct, and want to endeavor (at least in my mind) to keep this "de facto" final concept a somewhat exotic creature. So for me, there generally needs to be a real track record for both players at prior editions of the event.

Good stuff about Lendl's level of play, though - very interesting. Any thoughts on why he struggled in his three grass court major finals - particularly the Wilander AO final?

 

[krosero]

Reasonable points for sure. I hesitate to include that match, as well as matches like Connors-Mac 1979 at the Open, because I generally do consider the championship match sacrosanct, and want to endeavor (at least in my mind) to keep this "de facto" final concept a somewhat exotic creature. So for me, there generally needs to be a real track record for both players at prior editions of the event.

Good stuff about Lendl's level of play, though - very interesting. Any thoughts on why he struggled in his three grass court major finals - particularly the Wilander AO final?

Complex subject, Lendl on grass. At least in the Becker and Cash finals he "showed up" mentally (even if his performances could still be criticized in some ways). But in that Wilander final at the AO he sort of flopped around without a plan. Wilander stayed back enough that Lendl tried rallying with him from the baseline, which was ultimately a very bad decision; Wilander beat him from the baseline and then ultimately beat him to the net.

At least at Wimbledon, six months earlier, Lendl was committed to coming in behind both serves. And Chris Lewis' style was to attack (he had no hope in rallying against Lendl), so there were going to be no baseline rallies; he would've attacked. But Lewis was very much a second or third-tier player all around and I'm sure he would've been plastered by Lendl.

Might seem strange to hear someone suggesting that Lendl could've won Wimbledon in '83; but I'm not actually going that far. He would've needed another level altogether to beat McEnroe. I'm just saying that Lewis was not in the same class as Lendl or McEnroe. (Lendl lost an awful lot of finals early in his career but he only ever lost to alltime greats; there was not a single "bad loss" in there.) The Mac-Lewis final that did occur was one of the great mismatches of the OE.

 

[Gizo]

I agree that Lendl was in excellent form at Wimbledon in 1983, and he even played well during his semi-final loss to Mac. However unfortunately for him Mac was in almost superhuman form that day. That ranks as one of my favourite and one of the best quality straight sets matches that I've ever seen.

I think one factor that would have been in Lendl's favour in 1983 had he somehow got past Mac, was that he wasn't 'obsessed' with winning Wimbledon yet, compared to how he become so later in the 80s. In 1983 his biggest career goal and main obsession was to win the US Open, which was clearly the tournament that was most important to him. By 1986 onwards after he had finally gotten the US Open monkey off his back the previous year, winning Wimbledon then became his main goal.

So that healthier outlook could have helped him in a hypothetical 1983 Wimbledon final. Also it's true that Lendl was only losing slam finals to greats in those days. Every single one of Lendl's conquerors during his 11 final defeats had already reached a slam final before. Apart from Cash at Wimbledon in 1987, who had held a match point against him in their 1984 USO semi and had beaten him in their Aussie Open semi earlier that year, all of his conquerors had already won slam titles before. So he never lost to 'novices' in those finals.

Lewis had done brilliantly to reach that final but I agree that an in-form Lendl would have been too strong for him, and Lewis would probably have felt more nervous that Lendl. Lewis's semi-final victim Curren who had beaten Connors in the 4th round would have been a bigger threat though. Lendl won 9 out of their 11 matches, but Curren did beat him at the 1984 Aussie Open en-route to the final (their only match in a major) and also beat a peak Lendl in 1986 in Canada. Had he also reached the final and came out firing, Lendl could have been in real trouble. But then again he probably would have been incredibly nervous as well, like he was when he actually did play in the Wimbledon final 2 years later.

 

[krosero]

I agree that Lendl was in excellent form at Wimbledon in 1983, and he even played well during his semi-final loss to Mac. However unfortunately for him Mac was in almost superhuman form that day. That ranks as one of my favourite and one of the best quality straight sets matches that I've ever seen.

I think one factor that would have been in Lendl's favour in 1983 had he somehow got past Mac, was that he wasn't 'obsessed' with winning Wimbledon yet, compared to how he become so later in the 80s. In 1983 his biggest career goal and main obsession was to win the US Open, which was clearly the tournament that was most important to him. By 1986 onwards after he had finally gotten the US Open monkey off his back the previous year, winning Wimbledon then became his main goal.

So that healthier outlook could have helped him in a hypothetical 1983 Wimbledon final. Also it's true that Lendl was only losing slam finals to greats in those days. Every single one of Lendl's conquerors during his 11 final defeats had already reached a slam final before. Apart from Cash at Wimbledon in 1987, who had held a match point against him in their 1984 USO semi and had beaten him in their Aussie Open semi earlier that year, all of his conquerors had already won slam titles before. So he never lost to 'novices' in those finals.

Lewis had done brilliantly to reach that final but I agree that an in-form Lendl would have been too strong for him, and Lewis would probably have felt more nervous that Lendl. Lewis's semi-final victim Curren who had beaten Connors in the 4th round would have been a bigger threat though. Lendl won 9 out of their 11 matches, but Curren did beat him at the 1984 Aussie Open en-route to the final (their only match in a major) and also beat a peak Lendl in 1986 in Canada. Had he also reached the final and came out firing, Lendl could have been in real trouble. But then again he probably would have been incredibly nervous as well, like he was when he actually did play in the Wimbledon final 2 years later.

Curren was definitely the big threat in the other semi; at his best he could take out anyone on grass. And his win over Lendl at the '84 AO changes the picture of the '83 W semis a bit; that makes the Mac-Lendl meeting less of a de facto final perhaps than it was viewed at the time.

The big question about Curren (somewhat like Safin) is which Curren would show up. In '85 Bud Collins recalled the Curren-Lewis semifinal and said that it was a choke by Curren.

So what Curren would have done against Lendl in '83 is a big question mark. On the one hand, he beat someone (Connors) who was a greater grasscourter than Lendl. At the other extreme, when it got tight he could not put away Lewis, who was not only a lesser player than Lendl but lesser than Curren as well. So it's a big question, in the end -- though I'd give Lendl the edge based on greater experience.

And good point you made about Lendl's lack of obsession with Wimbledon at that time. In '83 he really was just playing in the flow there.

 

[welcome2petrkordaland]

more recent ones (some arguable) that come to mind from my limited perspective:


1. already mentioned but '05 Aussie Safin def. Fed
2. '05 French Nadal def. Fed
3. '08 Aussie Djokovic def. Fed (no way Tsonga was gonna win)
4. '09 French Fed. def. Del Potro in 5 sets (given Rafa's ousting)
5. '13 French .... 'Nuff said

this makes me think of the category of "great" if not "epic" gs semis that may not have been definitively quasi title matches...

1. '12 Aussie Djokovic def. Murray in 5
2. '09 Aussie Nadal def. Verdasco in 5
3. '10 Us Open Djokovic def. Fed in 5
4. '11 Us Open Djokovic def. Fed. in 5

 

[Gizo]

I was going to nominate the Bruguera-Courier semi-final at RG in 1994, but that is probably doing a huge disservice to Berasategui, who had blazed his way through to the final without dropping a set, wreaking absolute havoc with his monster Hawaiian grip forehand. His semi-final demolition of Larsson was especially great to watch.

Courier was bidding to reach his 4th consecutive RG final having ended Sampras's bid to hold all 4 slams simultaneously in the previous round. In a re-match of the 1993 final, there were clear signs that Courier wasn't the same player that he was from 1991-1993. He was now less confident and more passive with his forehand, and was less able to bully opponents from the baseline with it any more.

In the final Berasategui looked tired even though the match was only about 2 hours 10 minutes, and after pulling out the 3rd set was pretty much spent in the 4th set. He couldn't hold on to a lead in the 2nd set, and was making a lot of forehand errors. Bruguera had improved his fitness noticeably since the 1993 final when he collapsed due to dehydration in the locker room afterwards. He was playing through the pain of a shoulder injury I believe. That was the first all Spanish grand slam/RG final. Since then there have been 3 more in 1998, 2002 and 2013.

A Courier-Berasategui final would have been interesting though.

 

[jaggy]

That Curren-Lewis semi you would have taken Curren almost any day on grass in best of 5.

 

[Gizo]

The Lewis-Curren semi was a pretty epic. Lewis was trailing 0-3 15-30 in the final set, but came back to win it 8-6, saving 3 break points when serving for the match.

I think that on the previous day, due to previous rain delays, Curren had to play both his doubles quarter-final and semi-final matches with Steve Denton on the same day. They won their QF 9-7 in the 5th set, before losing their SF in 4 sets to the Gullikson brothers.

So had Curren reached the singles final, he probably would have been physically drained, in addition to being very nervous mentally (like he was against Becker in the 1985 final). That is another reason to believe that he would have lost a hypothetical final against either Mac or Lendl, and wouldn't have been able to produce his fearsome A game.

He had ended Connors's 22 match winning streak on grass in the 4th round. Connors had won Queen's and Wimbledon in 1982 and Queen's again in 1983, beating McEnroe in the final of all 3 of those events. Everyone was expecting a 4th consecutive Connors-Mac final in a London grass court event, before Curren intervened and had his say.

 

[krosero]

Was Nadal-Federer at '05 RG the de facto final? I thought Puerta ended up giving Nadal a tougher match than Federer had.

 

[Vensai]

Was Nadal-Federer at '05 RG the de facto final? I thought Puerta ended up giving Nadal a tougher match than Federer had.

It's not an obvious choice. How does Federer match up against Puerta?

 

[Gizo]

In the 2005 RG final, Puerta had 3 set points on his serve when 5-4 up in the 4th set to take it into a 5th set, although Nadal saved them all. I agree that this was definitely a tougher match for Nadal than his semi-final against Federer who kept shanking forehand after forehand. It was a very entertaining match of cat and mouse which combined powerful groundstrokes and deft dropshots and lobs from both players, with the crowd repeatedly giving them both standing ovations. Puerta fought so hard and adopted some intelligent tactics to put Nadal on the ropes at times. Even the 3rd set was actually more competitive than the scoreline suggested with some good play from Puerta.

Puerta had come through gruelling 5 set matches against Canas and Davydenko (he was 2 sets to 1 down in both matches) to reach that final. Nadal had beaten him pretty easily earlier that year in their Acapulco SF.

Of course at the end of that year he was banned for failing a drugs test for the 2nd time in his career, and had to give up all prize money and ranking points earned after that RG final run.

 

[Gizo]

As far as the 2000 AO goes, it's true that Kafelnikov was the defending champion and couldn't be written off.

Still had Sampras got past Agassi (he was 2 points away from a 4 set victory) then I find it hard to imagine him losing to Kafelnikov in a grand slam final on hard courts. He owned Kafelnikov with a 11-2 h2h record, and both of Kafelnikov's victories came on clay in 1996. He publicly thanked Sampras for skipping the 1999 AO in his speech after winning it. Plus there was also a huge seeding massacre that year with only 3 seeds reaching the quarters and Kafelnikov the only one to reach the semis. Plus the AO courts in 2000 had been sped up pretty noticeably to help the Aussie players (many people commented on that at the time) which would have further helped out Sampras in a hypothetical final.

Of course the Agassi-Kafelnikov final was a competitive, entertaining match with some great cross court BH to BH rallies in particular. Agassi only led their h2h 5-4 going into that match, but had won their last 3 matches in 1999 pretty comfortably (including at the US Open). And he was the clear best player in the world having reached his 4th straight slam final and being the reigning RG and US Open champion. So I would have been pretty surprised had he not won that final.

 

[Moose Malloy]

The Lewis-Curren semi was a pretty epic. Lewis was trailing 0-3 15-30 in the final set, but came back to win it 8-6, saving 3 break points when serving for the match.

I did some stats on that match.

Lewis d Curren 67(3),64,76(4),67(3),86

Lewis made 56 clean winners(including 9 aces) & 7 unforced errors
Served at 69%
was 4 of 8 on break points

Curren made 89 clean winners(including 15 aces) & 18 unforced errors
Served at 54%
was 2 of 15 on break points

I think Lewis' oversize graphite racquet was a bit of a factor in this match(Curren was still using wood)
Lewis was able to return many huge serves by Curren by just hacking at returns, not sure if that would have worked with wood.
Also the call that gave Lewis the break in the fifth for a 7-6 lead looked to me like a candidate for worst overrule ever.

 

[DMan]

Evert d. Navratilova 1980 Wimbledon semis is another good ladies example.

Martina was the two time defending champion (having won it in 78 and 79) and Evert was already a two time champ and had reached her 9th straight semi (going back to 1972) and furthermore went on to her 4th final in five years after beating Martina.

Perhaps, since they did play in the previous two finals. But somehow I think Evonne Goolagong might get a chuckle reading about the "de fact" final!

The 1983 French women's SF between Evert and Jaeger is a consideration. Jaeger handily beat Chris in the SF the year before. The winner of the Evert-Jaeger semi would be a heavy favorite against Mima Jausovec (unseeded even though was former champ.)

 

[Dan L]

(also posted at GPPD)

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?

Like, no one played tennis before 1968.

 

[kiki]

1980 Masters sf between Borg and Connors.

1975 USO sf between Orantes and Vilas although almost nobody would have predicted it then.

 

[eldanger25]

Like, no one played tennis before 1968.

The discussion was self-consciously limited to the Open Era. If you had pre-1968 thoughts on the topic, I would absolutely enjoy hearing them. I say this with no sarcasm, passive-aggression, or trickery - please do share your thoughts.

 

[Gizo]

I guess Venus-Davenport at Wimbledon in 2001 is another possible choice.

The other semi was between Henin and Capriati. While Henin owned Davenport from their titanic 2003 Aussie Open tussle onwards, I don't think she would have been able to beat her 18 months prior to that in a hypothetical Wimbledon final, as she still struggled to handle Lindsay's powerful, clean hitting on faster surfaces in 2001-2002.

Capriati never beat Venus in 4 attempts losing 3 times to her in 2001, including failing to convert 8 championship points in the Miami final and receiving a beat-down in their US Open semi. If she couldn't beat Venus on hard courts, then she would have no chance of beating her on grass. And I doubt she could beat a far more natural grass court player in Lindsay in a hypothetical final either. Lindsay was in great form winning Eastbourne and storming her way through to the semis without dropping a set, while Capriati would have lost in the quarters if Serena hadn't choked.

 

[EvonneFedererBorgster]

Evert d. Navratilova 1980 Wimbledon semis is another good ladies example.

Martina was the two time defending champion (having won it in 78 and 79) and Evert was already a two time champ and had reached her 9th straight semi (going back to 1972) and furthermore went on to her 4th final in five years after beating Martina.

This one doesn’t make much sense given the de facto winner lost in straight sets in the final. And she only won 7 games and fell behind 6-1, 3-0 before the rain delay. Also, the other semifinal was between world #1 (rightly seeded #2) Tracy Austin and #4 Evonne, a previous winner and perennial threat on grass. At that point Tracy had just become the youngest #1 in the open era and was viewed as a future Wimbledon champion, pre-injury/ailments. Many thought 1980 was her year. This is one of those wonderful occasions when all four top seeds make the semifinals and there’s equal excitement on both brackets. It’s nothing like, say, the following year’s semifinals where Pam Shriver spoiled the party and it was obvious that Evert had an easy pass into the finals. Or say the 1981 US Open debacle seeding Andrea #2 and we get the match of the year in one semifinal and the bore of the year in the other.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Agassi - Rafter AO 2001
Safin - Federer AO 2005
Federer - Nadal RG 2005
Djokovic - Nadal RG 2013
Djokovic - Nadal RG 2021
Djokovic - Nadal Wimbledon 2018
Nadal - del Potro USO 2017

 

[JasonZ]

Agassi - Rafter AO 2001
Safin - Federer AO 2005
Federer - Nadal RG 2005
Djokovic - Nadal RG 2013
Djokovic - Nadal RG 2021
Djokovic - Nadal Wimbledon 2018
Nadal - del Potro USO 2017

thats huge disrespect to kevin fistpump anderson

 

[NAS]

Agassi - Rafter AO 2001
Safin - Federer AO 2005
Federer - Nadal RG 2005
Djokovic - Nadal RG 2013
Djokovic - Nadal RG 2021
Djokovic - Nadal Wimbledon 2018
Nadal - del Potro USO 2017

Clement actually defeated Rafter just 2 month before, so I don't think AO 2001 is that much straight forward.

 

[jrepac]

This one doesn’t make much sense given the de facto winner lost in straight sets in the final. And she only won 7 games and fell behind 6-1, 3-0 before the rain delay. Also, the other semifinal was between world #1 (rightly seeded #2) Tracy Austin and #4 Evonne, a previous winner and perennial threat on grass. At that point Tracy had just become the youngest #1 in the open era and was viewed as a future Wimbledon champion, pre-injury/ailments. Many thought 1980 was her year. This is one of those wonderful occasions when all four top seeds make the semifinals and there’s equal excitement on both brackets. It’s nothing like, say, the following year’s semifinals where Pam Shriver spoiled the party and it was obvious that Evert had an easy pass into the finals. Or say the 1981 US Open debacle seeding Andrea #2 and we get the match of the year in one semifinal and the bore of the year in the other.

Yeah, I was thinking same. Chris LOST in the final.

 

[martinezownsclay]

Evert d. Navratilova 1980 Wimbledon semis is another good ladies example.

Martina was the two time defending champion (having won it in 78 and 79) and Evert was already a two time champ and had reached her 9th straight semi (going back to 1972) and furthermore went on to her 4th final in five years after beating Martina.

Really?!? Austin, who would reach #1 in the world later that summer, was playing former Champion and many time finalist Goolagong in the other semi. And as it turned out Goolagong won and wound up easily beating Evert in an upset in the final. And considering how badly out of shape Martina was at the time, and what a horrible match up Tracy was for Chris, it is possible already knowing Evonne beat Chris, that 3 or even 4 of the hypothetical 4 different finals would have the winner of the Goolagong-Austin semi final winning.

 

[martinezownsclay]

I guess Venus-Davenport at Wimbledon in 2001 is another possible choice.

The other semi was between Henin and Capriati. While Henin owned Davenport from their titanic 2003 Aussie Open tussle onwards, I don't think she would have been able to beat her 18 months prior to that in a hypothetical Wimbledon final, as she still struggled to handle Lindsay's powerful, clean hitting on faster surfaces in 2001-2002.

Capriati never beat Venus in 4 attempts losing 3 times to her in 2001, including failing to convert 8 championship points in the Miami final and receiving a beat-down in their US Open semi. If she couldn't beat Venus on hard courts, then she would have no chance of beating her on grass. And I doubt she could beat a far more natural grass court player in Lindsay in a hypothetical final either. Lindsay was in great form winning Eastbourne and storming her way through to the semis without dropping a set, while Capriati would have lost in the quarters if Serena hadn't choked.

Yeah Venus is 100% beating Capriati
We already know Venus beat Henin, and despite it going 3 sets the match was not remotedly close (Henin won 1 game in the 2 sets she lost, and it never for a moment felt like she might win even when she won the 2nd set)
Davenport is 100% beating Henin at that point in time on grass IMO
The only one with a very slight chance of a different result is Davenport, but even there Davenport is something like 10-3 vs Capriati, and on grass which is Capriati's worst surface and one of Lindsay's best I see almost no chance for Capriati.

I would say Venus vs Davenport was the real final that year for sure, even if Capriati had won as expected.

 

[NedStark]

Hewitt vs Henman - Wimbledon 2002 SF:
1) Nalbandian was utter crap in the final
2) Henman actually beat Nalbandian here at Wimbledon one year later

Sampras vs Becker - Wimbledon 1993 SF: even though Becker lost to Pete in straight IRL, he was 6-0 against Courier and had too many tools and weapons - especially the serve (the biggest difference between Becker and anyone Courier faced before the final) - in his arsenal to beat someone like Courier in a Wimbledon final. Becker would have also employed a similar return strategy to Edberg rather than Pete - aggressive return-approach - against Courier (which actually worked well in the SF for Stefan - the key problem was that Edberg could not defend his serve), so he would have broken Courier instead of going to tiebreaks.

 

[martinezownsclay]

Graf vs Martinez 1995 French Open

Sanchez was in so so form, and Martinez was on fire that clay season. I have no doubt she beats Sanchez if she gets by Graf. And yes I know Sanchez has a large winning head to head with Martinez, and beat her at Wimbledon weeks later. Graf was likewise always going to win that final given Sanchez's form, despite the fluke of Sanchez sneaking out a set in the final. The final set was a bagel.

Sampras vs Agassi 2000 Australian Open

No doubt both beat Kafelnikov. Agassi already did fairly easily, and Kafelnikov is Sampras's pigeon. And if Norman somehow wins he goes down even easier.

Kuerten vs Ferrero 2001 French Open, probably both 2001 and 2000 in fact

No doubt the winner of that semi final beat either Corretja or Grosjean in 2001, and almost for sure both Norman and Squillari in 2000 (I guess Norman has an outside shot vs rookie Ferrero)

Safin vs Federer 2005 Australian Open

I guess you could argue Roddick if he wins, has a shot vs Safin if he still beats Federer. However 100% Federer beats Hewitt here, Safin already comfortably beat Hewitt, Federer of course guaranteed beats Roddick, and in the form Safin was in here and Roddick being better on faster courts and only playing well but not great here (and couldn't even close out a tired Hewitt who had a ton of tennis in him at that point) I see almost no way Safin loses. Esp. when Safin beat Roddick in 2004 when Roddick was stronger, more confident, actualy ranked #1, and Safin while in i mpressive form there was clearly below his 2005 Australian Open level.

 

[abmk]

Hewitt vs Henman - Wimbledon 2002 SF:
1) Nalbandian was utter crap in the final
2) Henman actually beat Nalbandian here at Wimbledon one year later

Sampras vs Becker - Wimbledon 1993 SF: even though Becker lost to Pete in straight IRL, he was 6-0 against Courier and had too many tools and weapons - especially the serve (the biggest difference between Becker and anyone Courier faced before the final) - in his arsenal to beat someone like Courier in a Wimbledon final. Becker would have also employed a similar return strategy to Edberg rather than Pete - aggressive return-approach - against Courier (which actually worked well in the SF for Stefan - the key problem was that Edberg could not defend his serve), so he would have broken Courier instead of going to tiebreaks.

Yes for Wim 02
No for Wim 93

The Sampras Courier final was closer than the Sampras Becker semi.

 

[martinezownsclay]

Yes for Wim 02
No for Wim 93

The Sampras Courier final was closer than the Sampras Becker semi.

That does not mean Courier beats Becker at all though. Given the match up and the surface, I highly doubt he does. In fact Becker probably beats Courier easier than Sampras did. Just based on watching Courier's matches vs Becker over that period, and they didn't even play on grass yet.

The Agassi, Sampras, Courier, Becker, Stich group that year probably has a wide variety of outcomes given the different matches that year, except Sampras probably wins everyone (he already played all those minus Stich).

 

[abmk]

That does not mean Courier beats Becker at all though. Given the match up and the surface, I highly doubt he does. In fact Becker probably beats Courier easier than Sampras did. Just based on watching Courier's matches vs Becker over that period, and they didn't even play on grass yet.

The Agassi, Sampras, Courier, Becker, Stich group that year probably has a wide variety of outcomes given the different matches that year, except Sampras probably wins everyone (he already played all those minus Stich).

I doubt Becker beats Courier easier than Sampras even if fresh, even with the matchup. Courier was in very good form.
And Becker was already spent to an extent after Stich QF. Imagine if he had to come into the final after beating Sampras.

 

[NedStark]

doubt Becker beats Courier easier than Sampras even if fresh, even with the matchup. Courier was in very good form

Well, a fresh Becker surely would have thrashed Courier like in ATP Finals 1992, overpowering him on serve, return and baseline.

And Becker was already spent to an extent after Stich QF. Imagine if he had to come into the final after beating Sampras.

Sure, but remember that Courier never returned bombs well on grass (and on fast courts overall to be honest). Becker actually went too much on his first serves against Pete which caused pct to drop - he probably would not have had to do so against Courier whose big serve return was inferior to Pete. Plus Pete volleyed better in the SF (against Becker’s better returning - Pete actually faced more low returns here than in the final, and knocked them off for winners).

 

[nolefam_2024]

Agassi - Rafter AO 2001
Safin - Federer AO 2005
Federer - Nadal RG 2005
Djokovic - Nadal RG 2013
Djokovic - Nadal RG 2021
Djokovic - Nadal Wimbledon 2018
Nadal - del Potro USO 2017

2021 RG is not a done deal. You must be very 30000 feet view person to have completely stopped considering Tsitsipas at RG.

In 2020 just 7 months earlier, Tsitsipas pushed Djokovic to five at RG semis. His first semis ever.
In 2021 Barcelona, he had mp vs Nadal and lost in almost 4 hr match in Barcelona. He was also in 3 hr match vs Djokovic where he barely lost in Rome.
In RG semis, he had defeated Zverev and Medvedev before reaching the final.

This is not the same Tsitsipas as one we see today.

In your case, a DE FACTO loser actually was up 2 sets to love vs Djokovic.

 

[nolefam_2024]

2022 RG semis might come to my mind. Zverev was playing well in this event and Nadal had pretty tough time putting him away.
Zverev also had previous results at RG making qfs multiple times and semifinal in the previous year.
Ruud came to the final without facing big challengers as all three top favorites Djokovic Nadal and Alcaraz were in other half.

The difference between semifinals level and finals level was drastic.

 

[abmk]

Well, a fresh Becker surely would have thrashed Courier like in ATP Finals 1992, overpowering him on serve, return and baseline.

yeah, surely because every other match of theirs from 91 onwars was a blowout..wait no, wait they weren't.**
becker was as good on grass as he was indoors ...wait, he wasn't.

**
Stockholm 91 was 6-4 in the deciding 3rd set
Brussels 92 was 7-5 in the deciding 5th set
Paris 92 was 7-6,6-3
Indianapolis 93 was won by Courier 7-5,6-3

 

[abmk]

Sure, but remember that Courier never returned bombs well on grass (and on fast courts overall to be honest). Becker actually went too much on his first serves against Pete which caused pct to drop - he probably would not have had to do so against Courier whose big serve return was inferior to Pete. Plus Pete volleyed better in the SF (against Becker’s better returning - Pete actually faced more low returns here than in the final, and knocked them off for winners).

Still Courier broke Sampras 2x, Becker broke him 0x (in fact, Becker never broke Sampras in their 3 grass court meetings)

 

[martinezownsclay]

I doubt Becker beats Courier easier than Sampras even if fresh, even with the matchup. Courier was in very good form.
And Becker was already spent to an extent after Stich QF. Imagine if he had to come into the final after beating Sampras.

At the very least I am pretty sure Becker wins. Do you actually think Courier beats Becker? I can't see it with his 0-6 head to head with Becker going into that match, and it being grass. Of course there is the fatigue factor, I had not considered that enough, so that is true. Still it is hard for me to see Becker losing to Courier on grass given their history, even with his 3-4 record in Wimbledon finals.

I just don't think their respective matches vs Sampras mean that much. Outside of Agassi, Sampras was the worst opponent for Becker, since he was like a younger and better version of himself. Sampras did not play as well in the final IMO as the semi final. And Courier was extra charged up and had extra motivation for Sampras, losing his #1 ranking to him, and being outspoken that (correctly IMO) with their slam results in the previous year losing his #1 ranking to Sampras was not justified up to that point. Yes Courier did play very well at that Wimbledon though, I never would have imagined him being capable of a Wimbledon final ever, even when he was at the peak of his dominance in 92.

 

[abmk]

At the very least I am pretty sure Becker wins. Do you actually think Courier beats Becker? I can't see it with his 0-6 head to head with Becker going into that match, and it being grass. Of course there is the fatigue factor, I had not considered that enough, so that is true. Still it is hard for me to see Becker losing to Courier on grass given their history, even with his 3-4 record in Wimbledon finals.

I just don't think their respective matches vs Sampras mean that much. Outside of Agassi, Sampras was the worst opponent for Becker, since he was like a younger and better version of himself. Sampras did not play as well in the final IMO as the semi final. And Courier was extra charged up and had extra motivation for Sampras, losing his #1 ranking to him, and being outspoken that (correctly IMO) with their slam results in the previous year losing his #1 ranking to Sampras was not justified up to that point. Yes Courier did play very well at that Wimbledon though, I never would have imagined him being capable of a Wimbledon final ever, even when he was at the peak of his dominance in 92.

if Becker is not fresh, Courier beats him IMO.

Sampras was even worse matchup for Courier than he was for Becker. (outside of clay obviously)

 

[I get cramps]

Perhaps one of the most memorable moments of the 1999 Roland Garros tournament was the intense 4th round match between Agassi and Moyà. We could see some top-notch tennis in the first three sets of that match.

I have watched it repeatedly, and I don't see a then very young and inexperienced Hrbatý, nor Medvedev, beating that Moya. Moya had too much foot speed for the Ukrainian at that time in their respective careers.