Do you retroactively evaluate a match win? - Case in point - Wawrinka

McEnroeisanartist

Hall of Fame
Do you retroactively evaluate a match win?

For example: Federer defeated Wawrinka 5 times at a Grand Slam: 2010 French Open, 2011 Australian Open, 2011 French Open, 2014 Wimbledon, and 2015 US Open.

Does Federer's wins at the 2010 French Open, 2011 Australian Open, and 2011 French Open become more impressive even though he defeated Wawrinka before Wawrinka won a Grand Slam.
Does Federer's win at the 2014 Wimbledon become bigger considering Wawrinka would win the French Open a year later.
Does Federer's win at the 2016 US Open become bigger considering Wawrinka would win the next year's US Open?
 

tacou

G.O.A.T.
Ive considered this before. it definitely works the opposite way, ie losing to a young gun who goes on to win the tournament and/or has a great career soon after.

I guess my opinion though is that a win is a win. That's why I don't really buy into the cakewalk draw argument. if Stan was playing like junk in 2010, who cares what he did 4 years later?

but Im not sure.
 

Flash O'Groove

Hall of Fame
Do you retroactively evaluate a match win?

For example: Federer defeated Wawrinka 5 times at a Grand Slam: 2010 French Open, 2011 Australian Open, 2011 French Open, 2014 Wimbledon, and 2015 US Open.

Does Federer's wins at the 2010 French Open, 2011 Australian Open, and 2011 French Open become more impressive even though he defeated Wawrinka before Wawrinka won a Grand Slam.
Does Federer's win at the 2014 Wimbledon become bigger considering Wawrinka would win the French Open a year later.
Does Federer's win at the 2016 US Open become bigger considering Wawrinka would win the next year's US Open?

Not really, a match can be evaluated in itself indepently of what the players involved do before or after. Rosol was astonishing when he defeated Nadal at Wimbledon, irrespective of his lack of success later. That's only if you can see the match and be honest in assessing player's skill.

I think Wawrinka was really a threat at Wimbledon 2014. He was also good at the Australian Open 2011. The others I don't remember.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Not really, a match can be evaluated in itself indepently of what the players involved do before or after. Rosol was astonishing when he defeated Nadal at Wimbledon, irrespective of his lack of success later. That's only if you can see the match and be honest in assessing player's skill.

I think Wawrinka was really a threat at Wimbledon 2014. He was also good at the Australian Open 2011. The others I don't remember.
2011 FO was also a good slam from Stan. IMO he would have been a threat for a SF run without Fed.
 

SinjinCooper

Hall of Fame
I don't really evaluate individual matches at all apart from aesthetically.

If you play in a Grand Slam tournament, you either win it, or you don't.

If you win it, you defeated every other player in that field. If you lost, sure you lost a match to somebody, but big picture: you lost the tournament...to the guy who won it. Along with 127 other also-rans. Please comfort yourself with this nice, fat paycheck on the way out the door.

Tennis is the history of tournaments, not the history of matches.
 

Flash O'Groove

Hall of Fame
2011 FO was also a good slam from Stan. IMO he would have been a threat for a SF run without Fed.

Yeah, I don't remember this match honestly. Anyway it make little sense to evaluate a performance of a player based on his performance at other time, especially for the widly inconsistent ones like Wawrinka.
 

ollinger

G.O.A.T.
Does Federer's wins at the 2010 French Open, 2011 Australian Open, and 2011 French Open become more impressive even though he defeated Wawrinka before Wawrinka won a Grand Slam.

I'm begging you, get over this nonsense. Everyone in every sport has ups and downs, highs and low; making a big deal about sequence of wins is more of your staring at trees but missing the forest.
 

BauerAlmeida

Hall of Fame
A win is judged by the level a player was showing during that tournament. If he goes on to become a great player years later, that's a different story.

OTOH, if a player is average or not great for ATG standards but is playing incredible tennis during that week, it's a really impressive win.

For example, Federer beating Baghdatis at the AO 2006 or Djokovic beating Kyrgios at Wimbledon 2022 are more impressive than they are given credit for.
 
Top