How would he have been viewed?..He would have beaten Nadal in a highly competitive match which would have removed doubts that Nadal could beat him on the green grass at the all england club. He would have won six Wimbledon titles in a row, his aura of invicilibity would have sky rocketed along with his ego..Would have have more Slams than he does, after Wimbledon 2008 he won five slams..would he have won more?
If Federer won Wimbledon 2008?
- Thread starter Zain786
- Start date
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
2008 is not the Rubicon it is made out to be. The real backbreaker was the 2009 AO final. A match that closed the door on his last and best shot at winning 4 majors inside a calendar year.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
He would have been viewed differently as you say. 6 in a row and all that comes with it, but Nadal would've beat Federer at Wimbledon eventually, or at least won Wimbledon once regardless. Revisionist history is no good because if you change one thing, the high likelihood is that not everything else stays the same. Maybe if he wins Wimbledon he loses at the USO because he already has a major in 2008 so he loses that extra competitive edge in his match with Andreev for example. You just don't know.
Dedans Penthouse
Legend
^^^
Spot on Rj, it was the 2009 AO that was the 'Rubicon' ...the river of tears....
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Rafa deserved that one for the fight he gave though Fed held break point in the 5th set that he lost 7-9
Fed deserved the AO 2009 where he was the better player, won more points and still ended on the losing side.
Fed deserved the AO 2009 where he was the better player, won more points and still ended on the losing side.
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
^^^
Spot on Rj, it was the 2009 AO that was the 'Rubicon' ...the river of tears....
lol I just assumed everyone knows what the Rubicon's significance was.
Actually, he would have won 7 consecutive Wimbledon titles, since he bounced back to beat Roddick in '09.
I would hesitate to say winning that match would have altered any future outcomes and here's why...
1. Based on his career, I don't think Federer's competitive drive to win slams changes much based on wins or losses.
2. I don't think Federer lacked for confidence in Australia due to his close loss at Wimbledon. He played quite well in that match, arguably as good or better than he did at Wimbledon.
3. I don't think losing the Wimbledon final would have affected Nadal much either. He has proven throughout his career that he can handle tough losses and come back strong.
Both guys have been steady in their careers. They don't need extra motivation. Their desire to win is pretty constant.
So, to me, if Federer won in '08, that's the only outcome that would be different. He'd have 7 straight Wimbledon titles and 8 total, while Nadal would have one in five finals. Slam count would be 18-13.
I would hesitate to say winning that match would have altered any future outcomes and here's why...
1. Based on his career, I don't think Federer's competitive drive to win slams changes much based on wins or losses.
2. I don't think Federer lacked for confidence in Australia due to his close loss at Wimbledon. He played quite well in that match, arguably as good or better than he did at Wimbledon.
3. I don't think losing the Wimbledon final would have affected Nadal much either. He has proven throughout his career that he can handle tough losses and come back strong.
Both guys have been steady in their careers. They don't need extra motivation. Their desire to win is pretty constant.
So, to me, if Federer won in '08, that's the only outcome that would be different. He'd have 7 straight Wimbledon titles and 8 total, while Nadal would have one in five finals. Slam count would be 18-13.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Spot on, sir.
Federer20042006
Banned
Federer had no business being in that match. Nadal choked away the 4th set tiebreak to allow him the chance to extend it the way he did.
It was clear watching that match Nadal was a better grass court player than Federer ever was. Federer's mental toughness won him 7 Wimbledons, basically.
It was clear watching that match Nadal was a better grass court player than Federer ever was. Federer's mental toughness won him 7 Wimbledons, basically.
I agree but only partially. 5th Set AO 09 was a massive choke and/or physical breakdown by Fed. Nadal completely deserved it.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Federer has posted some very inconvincing results from the end of 2007 throughout 2008. It was not specifically his match with Nadal that deprived him of his "invincibility".
To put your speculation to rest - Federer has had competitive matches with Nadal the previous two years. It is not like he beat him 3-0 with score like 6-1 6-3 6-0 to demonstrate total superiority, so that the people suddenly would think that Nadal doesn't have a shot at the win. With the constantly slowing conditions and the ever presented match-up advantage it was a matter of time, before Nadal gets this one win over Federer.
Djokovic_is_the_best#1
Bionic Poster
All ifs and buts. He didn't so this is not relevant!
Hollywood401k
Semi-Pro
Yea, this. Except I don't think he would've cried at the AO '09
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
I still don't like changing results like this. I just let things like this lie instead of going off in dreamland about Federer having so many more slams. Maybe I do that because I don't like to think about those possibilities, but that's just the way I look at it.
Federer's done a fantastic job of getting to 17, and he inevitably had some tough losses along the way because that is what happens when you make the SF and/or Finals at every slam. If Federer had won all the matches that we talked about here, he basically wouldn't have lost at all at slam level for 5 years except to Nadal on clay, but that's not possible. It's insane really. Everybody loses at some point.
Federer's done a fantastic job of getting to 17, and he inevitably had some tough losses along the way because that is what happens when you make the SF and/or Finals at every slam. If Federer had won all the matches that we talked about here, he basically wouldn't have lost at all at slam level for 5 years except to Nadal on clay, but that's not possible. It's insane really. Everybody loses at some point.
sbengte
G.O.A.T.
I thought his back was already broken before the final began but you could be right in that he may have broken his back somewhere around the third or fourth set.
90's Clay
Banned
Unfortunately he didn't. NEar his best level of play (I don't think Fed dropped a set in 2008 at wimbledon did he?) and couldn't even beat a dirt baller in the finals.
Oh but all of a sudden Peak Fed would beat Peak Sampras? Peak Fed can't even beat a far LESS Inferior PEAK Nadal on grass.
Oh but all of a sudden Peak Fed would beat Peak Sampras? Peak Fed can't even beat a far LESS Inferior PEAK Nadal on grass.
LazyNinja19
Banned
smoledman
G.O.A.T.
Agreed, he lucked out 7 titles there.
JoshDragon
Hall of Fame
The US Open 2009 final was a much greater loss for Federer than the Wimbledon 2008 final to Nadal. Fed came within 1 set of the grand slam (RG, Wimb, US, and AO straight.) Del Po was playing tremendous level tennis that year but let's face it, that was Federer's match to lose.
I think the 08 Wimbledon final was a lot more important for Nadal than it was for Federer. By mid 2008, Federer had been number one for over four years and Nadal had been riding his coat tails for most of that time.
Nadal, had to mount a massive assault on Federer to take the #1 ranking away from him.
Tennisknowledge99
Banned
"If Federer won the 2006 Rome final" is better question imo.
FEDisanAlien
Rookie
The only sure thing is that if he has won I would have had another 2 k pounds in my bank accounts 
)
)
Prabhanjan
Professional
If a 2-time champion and 5-time finalist is a mere dirt baller, the argument that Fed would whip peak Sampras is also fine
Similarly, if you rate the run to final as an indicator of the form, like you CHOOSE for Fed in 2008, you must be embarrassed to call Pete in fine form for the 99 final as he had lost 2 of the 5 and 1/4 sets played in QF and SF. And the 99 finalists was a mere 3 GS winner in Agassi against a 4 GS winner in Nadal. If Pete had to run deep at 99 FO and lose the finals to Nadal and face him again in Wimbledon final, we know how pathetic would be the performance. :twisted:
Well, it's nice to see someone finally give him some credit for his mental toughness. Thumbs up.
Similar threads
