If Federer had lost in 6 Grand Slam semifinals.

M

McEnroeisanartist

Hall of Fame
What if Federer had lost when he played his 2009 Australian Open semifinal against Roddick, his 2006 French Open semifinal to Davydenko, his 2007 French Open semifinal to Davydenko, his 2008 French Open semifinal to Monfils, his 2011 French Open semifinal to Djokovic, and 2008 Wimbledon semifinal against Marat Safin.

What if he had lost all six of those matches?

He might have a 17-1 record in Grand Slam finals.

He would be 2-2 against his biggest career rival in grand slams.

Other than not having the first and second longest consecutive Grand Slam finals streak and the record for most grand slam finals, what would Federer have lost if he just didn't "have it" on those days?

But, he did win all six of those matches, which many think hurt his career legacy.
 
Last edited:
What if i was a girl?
What if i didn't like tea?
What if my shin splints were cured?
What if you didn't exist? Would it matter? I'd say no.
 
Contrary to what some people believe, reaching a slam final, but not winning it, also enhances your greatness. A guy who won 17 slams and lost 7 finals is greater than a guy who won 17 slams and lost no finals.
 
McEnroeisanartist said:
What if Federer had lost when he played his 2009 Australian Open semifinal against Roddick, his 2006 French Open semifinal to Davydenko, his 2007 French Open semifinal to Davydenko, his 2008 French Open semifinal to Monfils, his 2011 French Open semifinal to Djokovic, and 2008 Wimbledon semifinal against Marat Safin.

What if he had lost all six of those matches?

He might have a 17-1 record in Grand Slam finals.

He would be 2-2 against his biggest career rival in grand slams.

Other than not having the first and second longest consecutive Grand Slam finals streak and the record for most grand slam finals, what would Federer have lost if he just didn't "have it" on those days?

But, he did win all six of those matches, which many think hurt his career legacy.
Click to expand...

If he couldnt roll over the players like Roddick and co, he wouldnt have dominated the weak era in the first place. What makes you think he will have 17 slams in the first place to have a 17-1 record?
 
If you never take a swing at a pitch in the bottom of the ninth; you'll never strike out to lose the game.

If you never take a shot at the buzzer; you'll never miss the game winner.

Every player that ever steps on the court has a chance at success or failure.From Federer to 3.0 hacker. It's the player that ponies up with the fear of failing history remembers.
 
BeGreat said:
What if i was a girl?
What if i didn't like tea?
What if my shin splints were cured?
What if you didn't exist? Would it matter? I'd say no.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand what op is trying to say.

Fed is being penalized for making all those finals.

17/24 is better than 17/17. Having 2-6 in finals vs Nadal is better than not reaching a final at all.

It's strange that some people can think Fed losing in a semi would be better than losing in a final.
 
McEnroeisanartist said:
What if Federer had lost when he played his 2009 Australian Open semifinal against Roddick, his 2006 French Open semifinal to Davydenko, his 2007 French Open semifinal to Davydenko, his 2008 French Open semifinal to Monfils, his 2011 French Open semifinal to Djokovic, and 2008 Wimbledon semifinal against Marat Safin.

What if he had lost all six of those matches?

He might have a 17-1 record in Grand Slam finals.

He would be 2-2 against his biggest career rival in grand slams.

Other than not having the first and second longest consecutive Grand Slam finals streak and the record for most grand slam finals, what would Federer have lost if he just didn't "have it" on those days?

But, he did win all six of those matches, which many think hurt his career legacy.
Click to expand...

Yeah great point. Don't let people get to you. Most people here know what you are trying to say. That Fed is being penalized for losing in a final instead losing early. And I agree. 24/17 is still better than 17/17. Fed made additional finals.

People don't understand that Fed's h2h in GS finals with Nadal is a GOOD thing. Because Fed won 17 and in ADDITION , he made all those finals to lose to Rafa instead of losing early.

Of course losing early will hurt his legacy. No streaks. Less weeks at nr.1.
No additional finals.

I don't know how anyone can think Sampras 7/7 in W is better than Fed's 7/8 in finals. Fed made additional final.
 
Yeah, and if he hadn't been born he'd never have lost a grand slam final. These threads are getting more and more desperate. Is the OP capable of feeling embarassment? Apparently not.
 
686941Capture.jpg
 
El Diablo said:
Yeah, and if he hadn't been born he'd never have lost a grand slam final. These threads are getting more and more desperate. Is the OP capable of feeling embarassment? Apparently not.
Click to expand...

rofl...gold man..thats gold
 
McEnroeisanartist said:
What if Federer had lost when he played his 2009 Australian Open semifinal against Roddick, his 2006 French Open semifinal to Davydenko, his 2007 French Open semifinal to Davydenko, his 2008 French Open semifinal to Monfils, his 2011 French Open semifinal to Djokovic, and 2008 Wimbledon semifinal against Marat Safin.

What if he had lost all six of those matches?

He might have a 17-1 record in Grand Slam finals.

He would be 2-2 against his biggest career rival in grand slams.

Other than not having the first and second longest consecutive Grand Slam finals streak and the record for most grand slam finals, what would Federer have lost if he just didn't "have it" on those days?

But, he did win all six of those matches, which many think hurt his career legacy.
Click to expand...

You have just found the surest way to Nadochistic glory: lose more often to marginally talented players. :lol:

Remember: to Federer's most obsessed haters here in the Troll Kingdom, this is infinitely superior than a losing record in a h2h match-up. ;)
 
chandu612 said:
If he couldnt roll over the players like Roddick and co, he wouldnt have dominated the weak era in the first place. What makes you think he will have 17 slams in the first place to have a 17-1 record?
Click to expand...

You're not grasping the full implications of myopic Nadochistic "logic": if Federer hadn't dominated the "weak era", it necessarily wouldn't have been a "weak era".
 
McEnroeisanartist said:
What if Federer had lost when he played his 2009 Australian Open semifinal against Roddick, his 2006 French Open semifinal to Davydenko, his 2007 French Open semifinal to Davydenko, his 2008 French Open semifinal to Monfils, his 2011 French Open semifinal to Djokovic, and 2008 Wimbledon semifinal against Marat Safin.

What if he had lost all six of those matches?

He might have a 17-1 record in Grand Slam finals.

He would be 2-2 against his biggest career rival in grand slams.

Other than not having the first and second longest consecutive Grand Slam finals streak and the record for most grand slam finals, what would Federer have lost if he just didn't "have it" on those days?

But, he did win all six of those matches, which many think hurt his career legacy.
Click to expand...

If he would have lost in those then he wouldn't have made it to the final. Case closed. Another one of your horrid threads, one bad thread after another is your thing, huh? Cluttering it up.
 
:lol: I love how this thread is really upsetting the Nadochists! :lol:

But it does that because it brilliantly exposes one of the most ridiculous gaps in their spit-flecked fulminations.
 
OP, in the Dopeworld, losing early is better than losing finals. Losing in finals against a good player means you are not a big match player.

In the dopeworld what matters are the H2H and so Hrbaty and Davydenko are the GOAT's.
 
Well Roddick couldn't manage a slam win over Fed if you gave him a 2 set lead every time. He would find SOME WAY to choke it all away
 
90's Clay said:
Well Roddick couldn't manage a slam win over Fed if you gave him a 2 set lead every time. He would find SOME WAY to choke it all away
Click to expand...

Did he choke, or was he just outplayed repeatedly by a (much) more talented player who was also a pretty bad matchup for him? I think Roddick was very mentally tough, actually.
 
Roger Federer is great player in all time tennis era.

If he lost these 6 matches, he would be lost more matches,and his retirement time must be earlier.
Just like Andy Roddick.

2010 Australian Open,that is the last climax of Roddick time.
After this time,Roddick didn't have his tennis competitiveness.

2010 Roland Garros 3R,2010 Wimbledon 4R,2010 US Open 2R, 2011 Australian Open 4R, 4 consecutive not until quarter-final in Grand Slam, is the best example that I say.

In contrast, Roger Federer. He got 4 Champion and 4 Runner-Up in 8 consecutive Grand Slam finals,from 2008 Roland Garros to 2010 Australian Open.

After that, he just lose winning champion continuous.From 2010 Roland Garros to 2013 Australian Open. He hust won 1 Grand Slam.But he reached 2 Grand Slam Finals, 7 Semi-Finals, 3 Quarter-Finals.

His tennis competitiveness declined rapidly since 2013 Roland Garros, that his age is 31.It's not thesame as Roddick.
 
tennisaddict said:
This hypotheses is wrong; Nadal keeps losing to Davydenko, yet mostly had the upper hand against Federer and Novak in the slam finals. His aura was not lost because he lost to Darcis, Giles Muller, Rosol.
Click to expand...

No, b/c matches between the Big 3 and Big 4 don't depend on auras; just who plays better. It's losses to the non-great players that would have dented Federer's aura and made him more vulnerable to other non-greats. Nadal's losses to Davydenko and Gonzales gives belief to guys like Rosol who in turn gives belief to guys like Darcis. We see the evidence of what could potentially have happened to Federer in Nadal's losses to lesser players.
 
McEnroeisanartist said:
What if Federer had lost when he played his 2009 Australian Open semifinal against Roddick, his 2006 French Open semifinal to Davydenko, his 2007 French Open semifinal to Davydenko, his 2008 French Open semifinal to Monfils, his 2011 French Open semifinal to Djokovic, and 2008 Wimbledon semifinal against Marat Safin.

What if he had lost all six of those matches?

He might have a 17-1 record in Grand Slam finals.

He would be 2-2 against his biggest career rival in grand slams.

Other than not having the first and second longest consecutive Grand Slam finals streak and the record for most grand slam finals, what would Federer have lost if he just didn't "have it" on those days?

But, he did win all six of those matches, which many think hurt his career legacy.
Click to expand...
Winning a SF is actually good. Winning a Final is even better. If he had lost those SF matches, his ranking might have dropped to a point that he might have begun drawing Nadal before the Final. What would your strategy dictate then?
 
Forehand Of Doom said:
Winning a SF is actually good. Winning a Final is even better. If he had lost those SF matches, his ranking might have dropped to a point that he might have begun drawing Nadal before the Final. What would your strategy dictate then?
Click to expand...

The strategy should have been to lose early in clay . So his ranking would have been less. So he would have met Rafa early on grass and hard and he could have spanked him there.

Toni, the master strategist , not only coached Rafa on court , but gave him this off court strategy of not trying hard enough on non clay surfaces and losing to the likes of Davydenko, Giles Muller, Ferrer, Rosol and Darcis.
 
tennisaddict said:
The strategy should have been to lose early in clay . So his ranking would have been less. So he would have met Rafa early on grass and hard and he could have spanked him there.

Toni, the master strategist , not only coached Rafa on court , but gave him this off court strategy of not trying hard enough on non clay surfaces and losing to the likes of Davydenko, Giles Muller, Ferrer, Rosol and Darcis.
Click to expand...

Nadal was "not trying hard enough on non clay surfaces" because he was 19-22, and he hadn't developed an effective and consistent game on hardcourt. Federer didn't do crap before he was 22. The difference is Nadal was winning slams alreasy in RG at that age because he was a clay prodigy.

As for Toni coaching Nadal to tank outside clay or Federer preferring to draw Nadal early in Wimbledon, you suck at trolling. At least try to make things believable.
 
Yep, he did win all of those matches, which is precisely why the argument that him not making finals is better for his career is stupid. Part of his greatness is all the finals he made, the SF streak, etc.

Yes, it would have been better if he won every final he got to, but that seems like a ridiculous standard.

It really comes down to, "oh, you only have 17 Major finals won? Why didn't you win 18, 19 or 20?"

Why not just say he should have won every match he ever played.

McEnroeisanartist said:
What if Federer had lost when he played his 2009 Australian Open semifinal against Roddick, his 2006 French Open semifinal to Davydenko, his 2007 French Open semifinal to Davydenko, his 2008 French Open semifinal to Monfils, his 2011 French Open semifinal to Djokovic, and 2008 Wimbledon semifinal against Marat Safin.

What if he had lost all six of those matches?

He might have a 17-1 record in Grand Slam finals.

He would be 2-2 against his biggest career rival in grand slams.

Other than not having the first and second longest consecutive Grand Slam finals streak and the record for most grand slam finals, what would Federer have lost if he just didn't "have it" on those days?

But, he did win all six of those matches, which many think hurt his career legacy.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
When Federer Loses 3 Sets Before Grand Slam Semifinal
Replies
6
Views
1K
underground
underground
M
Comparing Djokovic/Nadal/Federer/Sampras - 5 Set Records in Grand Slam semifinals/finals
Replies
6
Views
1K
GuyForget
GuyForget
M
Does Federer-Djokovic feel like the biggest Grand Slam semifinal of all time?
Replies
42
Views
2K
Pheasant
Pheasant
M
Federer has lost more Grand Slam semifinals/finals in 5 sets than Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras combined
Replies
4
Views
760
CentreCourt
C
M
Grand Slam Matches With Combined 15 Grand Slam Championships
Replies
1
Views
623
adil1972
A
Back
Top