Federer's failures to win epic matches

[MTF07]

I can only think of two that he's won, Roddick (his pigeon) in 2009 Wimbledon final and 2007 Wimbledon final against Nadal in his prime. 2009 AO, 2008 Wimbledon, those US Open semis against Djokovic 2010-11, 09 US Open final, 2014 Wimbledon final and I might even be forgetting some.

Yes,there's something to be said for not getting blown out often, but there's also something to be said for virtually NEVER coming through in close slam finals. I think it's a damaging mark on his legacy. Djokovic was battling his own demons of failing in the clutch recently, he had him on HIS court and he still couldn't find a way to win that 5th set. That is terrible.

 

[rodrigo_palacio88]

mmm no.

losing o winning epic matches not said nothing , the important es only win.

anyway , epic is not only 5 set matches

 

[MTF07]

This loss knocks Federer down a few spots in the all time rankings.

 

[reaper]

If you're creating negative threads after that match you're unlikely to ever find much positive in anything. Absolutely brilliant from both players.

 

[robert.s]

This loss knocks Federer down a few spots in the all time rankings.

Joking or trolling? or are you really that clueless?

 

[90's Clay]

Thats because Fed is and has always been at his best as a frontrunner rolling over guys who just throw in the towel when they step on the court. When it comes to pressure, Fed has never been great in deciding sets vs. guys who don't just roll over and die.

A lot of it came from years of WEAK draws and no resistance put up by a clown field.

 

[underground]

Pathetic trolling attempt. So you mean Fed should have given up by throwing his serve away and losing the 4th 2-6? Now he's clawed back for a 5th just to lose it by small margins and you said he's a failure?

 

[Federer20042006]

Federer had no business even being in this match. He had no forehand whatsoever. Djokovic just kept going back to his forehand and waited for the hilarious Federer error or creampuff reply. Through the first 3 1/2 sets or so, you will not see a worse performance from a player from the forehand side. Stefan Edberg would be ashamed of Federer's modern grass court forehand.

It took incredible serving just to keep from being blown off the court in straight sets...and eventually, Djokovic started to lock in on the returns and Federer had no choice but to lose.

 

[MTF07]

Pathetic trolling attempt. So you mean Fed should have given up by throwing his serve away and losing the 4th 2-6? Now he's clawed back for a 5th just to lose it by small margins and you said he's a failure?

Yes, he's a failure in big moments. It's really disappointing because Sampras was so clutch in big matches. He would have never lost that final especially with the way Federer served.

 

[Kerber_Lover]

Federer chokes too easily. He's only confident when he's steamrolling someone. When things get tough and his opponent gives him a run for his money he starts to break down, so by the time it gets to 4 or 5 sets he's about had it. This is one of the main reasons he has such a terrible h2h against Nadal. As far as this year goes, you have to consider his age and that he can barely move anymore. I think he did pretty well all things considered.

 

[Murrayfan31]

He's mentally weak. He relies on his talent to avoid tight situations.

 

[MTF07]

They are talking about how great Federer played, but that's honestly a joke. The only thing he did well was hit his spots on first serves and volley. His ground game was atrocious.

 

[BigServer1]

Yes, he's a failure in big moments. It's really disappointing because Sampras was so clutch in big matches. He would have never lost that final especially with the way Federer served.

Sampras never would have played that final because he retired when he was 30.

Have some perspective. Federer is 5-6 years past his best, and he went toe to toe with a 27 year old player in his prime for four hours.

I don't understand how getting to a Major final, and pushing an opponent to the brink is a damaging mark on Federer's legacy. A win today would have been great, but this result is FAR better than a straight set loss, or a loss in an earlier round.

 

[RF20Lennon]

He just breaks easily for some reason. Can't hang in there. The thing is I would say a younger Federer a la 2006-2007 would've own this match. But in straights or 4 sets. Federer is one of the best frontrunners ever! So previously he would not let an advantage slip but when pushed to 5 he just cracks. Dunno why. Just not tough enough. I feel like he's a bit like Germany in that department. If they don't CRUSH the team and they get pushed they start losing it.

 

[MTF07]

Sampras never would have played that final because he retired when he was 30.

Have some perspective. Federer is 5-6 years past his best, and he went toe to toe with a 27 year old player in his prime for four hours.

I don't understand how getting to a Major final, and pushing an opponent to the brink is a damaging mark on Federer's legacy. A win today would have been great, but this result is FAR better than a straight set loss, or a loss in an earlier round.

This is where you're wrong. No one will remember the loss to stakhovsky last year. But people will remember him losing two Wimbledon finals to Nadal and Djokovic, the two US Open losses to Djokovic from up match points, etc. people will remember that he lost all these close losses to his rivals in finals. 3-7 in slam finals against Nadal and Djokovic.

 

[worldtennis]

If you're creating negative threads after that match you're unlikely to ever find much positive in anything. Absolutely brilliant from both players.

Thanks so much for your positivity - it was an absolutley outstanding match by 2 great opponents. If you somehow lost sight of that, then that's to bad really.

Brilliant performance and nice to see Fed back!

 

[rodrigo_palacio88]

90`s clay talking of weak field , jajaja , sampras won wimbledon without face a top-20 player until the final!!!!!

and with a main rival in drugs and media.

you can`t compare agassi with nadal or djokovic.

federer today show many heart , he should lost in 3.

HE WAS FACING THE Nº1 , NOT MUGS OUTSIDE TOP-20 LIKE SAMPRAS FACED MANY TIMES

 

[KtM]

There is a reason there have been no male tennis players in the open era to win a grandslam at Federer's age. Men decline physically more than women as they approach mid 30s.

This adds to Feds resume as GOAT even if he didn't win.

 

[Murrayfan31]

There is a reason there have been no male tennis players in the open era to win a grandslam at Federer's age. Men decline physically more than women as they approach mid 30s.

This adds to Feds resume as GOAT even if he didn't win.

I would say men's tennis requires more physically. So a slight drop in that area is huge.

 

[TennisCJC]

This loss knocks Federer down a few spots in the all time rankings.

How does a 33 year old man losing to an all time great who is 27 years old and supposedly in his prime knock down the old man. Let's see how Nadal and Djokovic are playing when they are 33 years old. But, you don't have to wait, I will tell you now. Since Nadal and Djokovic depend so much on defense and running, and neither has the incredible feel and racket skills of Federer, they will either be long retired or suck really bad when they are 33 years old.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

It isn't like this match was neck and neck and then Federer blew it. It was amazing that he won the 1st and 4th sets. His near comeback against Nadal in 2008 also was.

Federer just finds himself in 5th sets when he should've lost in 3-4. You can spin it both ways. But in this match, it definitely doesn't work against him.

 

[ScottleeSV]

Anyone who thinks losing that match damages fed's legacy simply doesn't have a clue about tennis.

Ignore the trolls. Revel in what was an amazing match.

 

[90's Clay]

How does a 33 year old man losing to an all time great who is 27 years old and supposedly in his prime knock down the old man. Let's see how Nadal and Djokovic are playing when they are 33 years old. But, you don't have to wait, I will tell you now. Since Nadal and Djokovic depend so much on defense and running, and neither has the incredible feel and racket skills of Federer, they will either be long retired or suck really bad when they are 33 years old.

Because for supposedly being considered the greatest ever his record in pressure deciding sets for most of his career has been PATHETIC to say the least. He could rarely if ever handle pressure against his main rivals. More times than hes always folded like a cheap suit

 

[WhiskeyEE]

I guess Federer should've let Novak serve it out in the 4th instead of forcing a 5th set. That would've been better for his legacy.

I'm sorry, but this thread is just bad. Did you watch the match? Federer's fight to force a 5th set was insane. Then Novak came up with some big returns late in the 5th.

 

[ForLoveOfTheGame]

Sampras never would have played that final because he retired when he was 30.

Have some perspective. Federer is 5-6 years past his best, and he went toe to toe with a 27 year old player in his prime for four hours.

I don't understand how getting to a Major final, and pushing an opponent to the brink is a damaging mark on Federer's legacy. A win today would have been great, but this result is FAR better than a straight set loss, or a loss in an earlier round.

Completely agree

 

[90's Clay]

Sampras never would have played that final because he retired when he was 30.

Have some perspective. Federer is 5-6 years past his best, and he went toe to toe with a 27 year old player in his prime for four hours.

I don't understand how getting to a Major final, and pushing an opponent to the brink is a damaging mark on Federer's legacy. A win today would have been great, but this result is FAR better than a straight set loss, or a loss in an earlier round.

Thats because Sampras kept his rivals at bay. He could retire younger. If Fed would have done the same he wouldn't have to keep playing until his late 30s either and would actually be able to enjoy his post tennis career instead of trying to relive the glory days :shock::shock:

 

[ibbi]

I don't disagree with you OP, but it could just as easily be said that he's so good that if you want to beat him in a big slam match this is what it takes.

 

[FormerNadalFan]

I'm really taken back by all of the negative comments directed towards Fed - so ridiculous.

 

[ScottleeSV]

I'd rather lose a bunch of five set classics people will still be talking about for decades, than a bunch of early tournament losses to nobodies outside the top 100

 

[RF20Lennon]

Thats because Sampras kept his rivals at bay. He could retire younger. If Fed would have done the same he wouldn't have to keep playing until his late 30s either and would actually be able to enjoy his post tennis career instead of trying to relive the glory days :shock::shock:

Sampras faced rivals in the same age group as him. Federer kept Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian and all the other guys at bay. He's had to deal with people 5-6 years younger than him.

 

[jg153040]

Thats because Sampras kept his rivals at bay. He could retire younger. If Fed would have done the same he wouldn't have to keep playing until his late 30s either and would actually be able to enjoy his post tennis career instead of trying to relive the glory days :shock::shock:

When did Sampras have to deal with someone like Nadal/Nole five years younger from him?

You are so wrong here man.

 

[jg153040]

Sampras faced rivals in the same age group as him. Federer kept Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian and all the other guys at bay. He's had to deal with people 5-6 years younger than him.

If Sampras had to deal with Nole/Rafa five years younger, he would have won only half of his slams.

 

[ibbi]

If Sampras had to deal with Nole/Rafa five years younger, he would have won only half of his slams.

He had to deal with Safin and Hewitt in the 00/01 US Open finals, and he got annihilated on both occasions.

 

[BigServer1]

Because for supposedly being considered the greatest ever his record in pressure deciding sets for most of his career has been PATHETIC to say the least. He could rarely if ever handle pressure against his main rivals. More times than hes always folded like a cheap suit

I guess he should have folded like a cheap suit down match point in the fourth set. Or let Djokovic serve it out at 5-3.

This is ridiculous. By this logic, a straight set final loss is better, and better still is losing before the final. I just don't get it.

 

[JustBob]

This loss knocks Federer down a few spots in the all time rankings.

I'm torn between idiotic, pathetic and downright stupid.

 

[90's Clay]

When did Sampras have to deal with someone like Nadal/Nole five years younger from him?

You are so wrong here man.

Um not Im not actually:shock::shock:. Fed had a DECADE (dating all the way back to Fed's prime peak years) to take slams away from Nadal and failed to deliver 95 percent of the time.

You take slams away from your rival you add to your tally and decrease his chances.

If Fed would have beaten his main rival even ONCE In a while he wouldn't have to be out there at 33 at 17 slams trying to fight his main rival who has 14 slams because he couldn't take any away from him.


Sampras stopped Agassi more times than not on the big stages and kept him at 8 or else Andre would have had the slam record not Pete

 

[BigServer1]

Thats because Sampras kept his rivals at bay. He could retire younger. If Fed would have done the same he wouldn't have to keep playing until his late 30s either and would actually be able to enjoy his post tennis career instead of trying to relive the glory days :shock::shock:

That is total crap. Sampras was tapped out. He said so himself multiple times. He was done far earlier than Fed is done. Sampras couldn't have produced this level of tennis at 32 years, 11 months old.

 

[jg153040]

Um not Im not actually:shock::shock:. Fed had a DECADE (dating all the way back to Fed's prime peak years) to take slams away from Nadal and failed to deliver 95 percent of the time.

You take slams away from your rival you add to your tally and decrease his chances.

If Fed would have beaten his main rival even ONCE In a while he wouldn't have to be out there at 33 at 17 slams trying to fight his main rival who has 14 slams because he couldn't take any away from him.


Sampras stopped Agassi more times than not on the big stages and kept him at 8 or else Andre would have had the slam record not Pete

You are comparing Agassi with Nadal? LOL man. I lost all respect for your credibility. Not that it was any high even before this statement.

 

[BigServer1]

Sampras faced rivals in the same age group as him. Federer kept Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian and all the other guys at bay. He's had to deal with people 5-6 years younger than him.

And in Majors, Fed is 6-6 against Djokovic and 4-1 against Murray. It's only Nadal that Federer has really struggled against.

A combined 10-7 in majors against two guys that are 6 years younger than him is pretty amazing.

 

[90's Clay]

That is total crap. Sampras was tapped out. He said so himself multiple times. He was done far earlier than Fed is done. Sampras couldn't have produced this level of tennis at 32 years, 11 months old.

Sampras won a slam ending his career. He went out with a bang not a whimper. You don't think Sampras would have kept playing if Andre was on 10-11 slams instead of 7 at the time? But Pete kept the slam record out of reach by taking a few wimbledons and MULTIPLE USO titles away from Andre

 

[jg153040]

He had to deal with Safin and Hewitt in the 00/01 US Open finals, and he got annihilated on both occasions.

True. And those guys are nothing close compared to Rafa/Nole.

If Pete has to deal with Rafa/Nole, he would be lucky to win 8 majors.

 

[jg153040]

Sampras won a slam ending his career. He went out with a bang not a whimper. You don't think Sampras would have kept playing if Andre was on 10-11 slams instead of 7 at the time? But Pete kept the slam record out of reach by taking a few wimbledons and MULTIPLE USO titles away from Andre

Fed is smarter. He is just letting Rafa to break Pete record and still hold a record.

That way Pete won't even be nr.2.

 

[BigServer1]

Sampras won a slam ending his career. He went out with a bang not a whimper. You don't think Sampras would have kept playing if Andre was on 10-11 slams instead of 7 at the time? But Pete kept the slam record out of reach by taking a few wimbledons and MULTIPLE USO titles away from Andre

You're wrong again. Pete went out with a whimper and then a bang. He went 2.5 years without a Major and then won the US Open to cap his career. We don't know how Fed's career will end, and you're simply guessing if you think you know.

 

[90's Clay]

You're wrong again. Pete went out with a whimper and then a bang. He went 2.5 years without a Major and then won the US Open to cap his career. We don't know how Fed's career will end, and you're simply guessing if you think you know.

if Fed couldn't win wimbledon this year where everything fell into place for him like it did this year (between Raonic in the semis, Wawrinka sick, and Nole choking) I don't see another slam in Fed's future.

An opportunity of his magnitude will doubtfully ever present itself like this again. There field is much better on clay and hards. And he couldn't ask for an easier Wimbledon draw and perfect circumstance. Add to the fact, hes only getting older not better.

I think its more 99 percent Fed never wins another slam again.

 

[rodrigo_palacio88]

sampras keep playing??? he was suffering humilliations against hewitt and safin.....he had the luck that his pigeon agassi beated hewitt in semis too of that us open 2002 , because would be another annihiliation for him.

agassi sttoped himself many times with his crazo head , he was 2 years out of tennis too

 

[rodrigo_palacio88]

if Fed couldn't win wimbledon this year where everything fell into place for him like it did this year (between Raonic in the semis, Wawrinka sick, and Nole choking) I don't see another slam in Fed's future.

An opportunity of his magnitude will doubtfully ever present itself like this again. There field is much better on clay and hards. And he couldn't ask for an easier Wimbledon draw and perfect circumstance. Add to the fact, hes only getting older not better.

I think its more 99 percent Fed never wins another slam again.

the field is hard on harcourts??? jja.

no delpo , no murray and guys like berdych or tsonga in ruins.

only has nole-

 

[90's Clay]

the field is hard on harcourts??? jja.

no delpo , no murray and guys like berdych or tsonga in ruins.

only has nole-

Hes got Nole and Rafa show will EASLY dispatch of him at Flushing. Nole is way better on hards at this point than he is on grass and so is Rafa

 

[Achilles82]

This loss knocks Federer down a few spots in the all time rankings.

Yes.

From No1

No1 Federer
No1....
No1...
No1...
No1...
No1...
No1...
No1...
No1...
No10 Rafael Nadal

To

No1... Federer
No1...
No1...
No1...
No1...
No1...
No1...
No8 Rafael Nadal

This comes from Novak fan

 

[rodrigo_palacio88]

rafa??? the miracle of 2013 not happen all days , if the surface is not blue clay again this year , we will have djoko and federer in the final

 

[smoledman]

Thats because Fed is and has always been at his best as a frontrunner rolling over guys who just throw in the towel when they step on the court. When it comes to pressure, Fed has never been great in deciding sets vs. guys who don't just roll over and die.

A lot of it came from years of WEAK draws and no resistance put up by a clown field.

What do you say about Djoker's 7-7 career record in GS finals?