If you could change the outcome of any point in tennis history..

FedExpress117 said:
Which point would you choose?

Roddick had 2 break points against Fed in the 5th set of the 2009 Wimbledon Final. Win any of those two, and he surely goes to serve out the match. I would have probably chosen to change either of those break points.
Click to expand...

Yes, and Federer had a break point late in the 1st set in that same match. He had a short sitter forehand and missed the DTL winner by 1/4 inch on the shot spot challenge. If Federer had won the first set, odds are Federer wins in 3 or 4 sets.
 
Federer had several break points in the 2008 Wimby final against Nadal in the 5th set. In fact, Federer had more break points and in more games, I would change one of those break points.
 
Last night I lost a "sudden death" match point in a mini-superset at the end of my drill session...........at the moment, that's the one I'd change. Unforced error. Stupid. I'd change that one.

:)
 
Chico said:
This is the second thing I would do. Just stop Pascal Maria from showing up on Chartrier that day. Novak would have 10 slams, while Nadal would be at 11 now if Pascal Maria's robbery was stopped on that day.
Click to expand...

Stop crying because a superior player won that day.

However, before that, I would stop Gunther Parche from attacking and stabbing Monica Seles. It would be Seles 16 slams, Graf 15 slams now and no one would ever consider Graf as GOAT.
Click to expand...

Patently offensive, as your ill-minded, nationalistic foolishness cares more about elevating a player to fit your fantasy, instead of caring about Seles moving beyond being a victim and her entire life not being defined by that.

These are the two most terrible things that ever happened in tennis history on tennis court. The world would be a much better place if these two things were prevented.
Click to expand...


Any reference to Djokovic failing to do his job against a superior player as one of the "most terrible things that ever happened in tennis history on tennis court" is absurd in the extreme.

MichaelNadal said:
Yeah of a commanding 4 set victory by Nadal :lol:
Click to expand...

All so true.
 
i would have novak flip over the net during the french open as opposed to just ever so slightly graze it
 
Chico said:
I explained 100 times what Pascal Maria did and how he robbed Novak on that sad day for tennis history and that is not that net call. You would know if you even watched the match. If you didn't search function of this nice forum is your friend.
Click to expand...

So Pascal makes a few wrong calls (not certain they were) and somehow that was the deciding factor in that match. Let's just ignore the dozen smashes Djokovic missed in that match (not only the one falling in the net, he missed many others). If your hero knew how to smash he would be RG 13 winner now. Pascal or no Pascal.
 
jm1980 said:
All of you must be Nadal fans. Because if Djoker lost to Fed that day, Nadal would have 15 Slams now, one more USO, and a 24-10 H2H over Fed (not that this last part matters much now)
Click to expand...

You're right. I keep forgetting this.

(but what if Federer would've beaten nadal?!?!?!?!)
 
If it was only one point that I could change I would say the AO 05 SF MP that Federer had on Safin in the 4th set TB.

Federer wins that point, he bags another slam guaranteed IMO. No way on god's green earth Hewitt is beating him at that point, even in an AO final.

Any Federer fan saying the 2011 USO SF MP is just a sucker for punishment. Nadal would be sitting on 15 slams right now with 3 USO's if that points outcome is changed.
 
Last edited:
Why? When Nadal is not playing well he is very beatable. In 2011 USO he was not playing that well. Fed crushed him 6:3 6:0 at the wtf only a few months later. No matter how biased you are you have to recognize USO is much closer to indoor hard than clay.
 
The Seles stabbing could not have been prevented by changing a particular point in the match. But the death of an umpire could have been prevented by changing one point in a match featuring Stefan Edberg on September 10th, 1983 at the US Open. So that's No. 1.

No. 2 for me would be Tsonga failing to convert a break point in the 4th set against Djokovic in their AO final. Both players were near the net and Tsonga had a weak ball on his forehand. He could have driven right through Djokovic's chest, but instead was nice and played it down the line, figuring he had the point won regardless. Of course Djokovic guessed right, won the point, didn't get broken that game, won the set and therefore the match. This was at a time before the gluten free diet and whatever else Djokovic has figured out to manage his fatigue issues. Had Tsonga broken, he would have certainly won that set, and most likely easily cruised in the fifth, as Djokovic Was on his last legs and ready to collapse.

No. 3 would be Federer's Rome match point, as that could have changed that rivalry substantially. I believe the worst part of that match up is mental.

No. 4 would have been Federer converting one of his 783,973 break points against Nadal in the 2007 FO final, especially one in the first set. One time he even had triple break point in that set. Federer had just beaten Nadal on clay and looked like he might have been able to beat Nadal that year at the FO. Plus I was in the stands, so on a personal note, I would have really liked to see that history happen live.

No. 5 would be Rafter consolidating his mini break in the second set tie break against Sampras in their Wimbledon final. Had Rafter gone up two sets to love, he may have won that match.

No. 6 would be Alex Coretja converting a match point vs Sampras in their US Open quarter final. Sampras was not feeling well, but over embellished his illness, looking like he was on the verge of death between points, but somehow managing to serve aces and run down balls during points (even worse than Andy Murray currently does).

I felt bad Coria didn't win a FO. But he gave it everything he had in that final. He didn't choke. He was cramping to the point he could barely walk, and still almost won. How bad would Gaudio feel if he couldn't even beat a severely crippled opponent? Coria should have recovered from that loss and continued a great career.
 
Steve0904 said:
If it was only one point that I could change I would say the AO 05 SF MP that Federer had on Safin in the 4th set TB.

Federer wins that point, he bags another slam guaranteed IMO. No way on god's green earth Hewitt is beating him at that point, even in an AO final.

Any Federer fan saying the 2011 USO SF MP is just a sucker for punishment. Nadal would be sitting on 15 slams right now with 3 USO's if that points outcome is changed.
Click to expand...

Hewitt ain't beating nobody in an AO final in this universe.
 
Beacon Hill said:
The Seles stabbing could not have been prevented by changing a particular point in the match. But the death of an umpire could have been prevented by changing one point in a match featuring Stefan Edberg on September 10th, 1983 at the US Open. So that's No. 1.

No. 2 for me would be Tsonga failing to convert a break point in the 4th set against Djokovic in their AO final. Both players were near the net and Tsonga had a weak ball on his forehand. He could have driven right through Djokovic's chest, but instead was nice and played it down the line, figuring he had the point won regardless. Of course Djokovic guessed right, won the point, didn't get broken that game, won the set and therefore the match. This was at a time before the gluten free diet and whatever else Djokovic has figured out to manage his fatigue issues. Had Tsonga broken, he would have certainly won that set, and most likely easily cruised in the fifth, as Djokovic Was on his last legs and ready to collapse.

No. 3 would be Federer's Rome match point, as that could have changed that rivalry substantially. I believe the worst part of that match up is mental.

No. 4 would have been Federer converting one of his 783,973 break points against Nadal in the 2007 FO final, especially one in the first set. One time he even had triple break point in that set. Federer had just beaten Nadal on clay and looked like he might have been able to beat Nadal that year at the FO. Plus I was in the stands, so on a personal note, I would have really liked to see that history happen live.

No. 5 would be Rafter consolidating his mini break in the second set tie break against Sampras in their Wimbledon final. Had Rafter gone up two sets to love, he may have won that match.

No. 6 would be Alex Coretja converting a match point vs Sampras in their US Open quarter final. Sampras was not feeling well, but over embellished his illness, looking like he was on the verge of death between points, but somehow managing to serve aces and run down balls during points (even worse than Andy Murray currently does).

I felt bad Coria didn't win a FO. But he gave it everything he had in that final. He didn't choke. He was cramping to the point he could barely walk, and still almost won. How bad would Gaudio feel if he couldn't even beat a severely crippled opponent? Coria should have recovered from that loss and continued a great career.
Click to expand...

I don't know why anyone thinks it would have been different. He's both beaten and bageled Nadal on clay before.
 
MichaelNadal said:
I don't know why anyone thinks it would have been different. He's both beaten and bageled Nadal on clay before.
Click to expand...
It was a big final early in their rivalry, best of 5 sets, on a surface that is closest to FO, with both players at their best. Those matches matter. Especially to mentally-fragile Federer, when he has the match on his racquet with his favorite shot. It's just not the same as beating Nadal on blue clay etc.
 
Beacon Hill said:
It was a big final early in their rivalry, best of 5 sets, on a surface that is closest to FO, with both players at their best. Those matches matter. Especially to mentally-fragile Federer, when he has the match on his racquet with his favorite shot. It's just not the same as beating Nadal on blue clay etc.
Click to expand...

I think each match is new. It's not like he'd have been in Nadal's head. It took someone like Djokovic playing out of his skin for final after final in a row to do that to Nadal and that was the only time you've seen someone in there. I get what you're saying and agree with the premise, but just in the case of Federer-Nadal, I don't see how it would have helped Federer much in the long run.
 
I can't think of many historic points like you guys so I'll say one that is in the memory.

This year when Murray was playing Djokovic at IW or Miami.

Murray actually felt like an equal chance of victory until Djokovic got an illegal point by hitting the ball with his racket over the net. Murray got pi55ed off and lost focus and basically gave up.

I feel he could have reallly won that one otherwise.
 
rome 2005 and/or 2006 would certainly help to nip the evil in the bud, and to keep the topspin plague from spreading like it unfortunately did.

also, i'd like to convert one of those double-break points marcos had in the AO final against federer... he could have made it, and the whole dynamics of his career would have benefited from it, of course.
 
Flint said:
I can't think of many historic points like you guys so I'll say one that is in the memory.

This year when Murray was playing Djokovic at IW or Miami.

Murray actually felt like an equal chance of victory until Djokovic got an illegal point by hitting the ball with his racket over the net. Murray got pi55ed off and lost focus and basically gave up.

I feel he could have reallly won that one otherwise.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, beating Djokovic on Miami slow high bouncing court, is one of the the last few things Murray could dream. Result of that match obvious like every Federer- Ferrer match, no matter how Murray would have played. I'm happy Murray saved himself rest of the season losing in straights! :lol:
 
Sabratha said:
That match point Federer had at 2011 USO against Djokovic.
Click to expand...
I wish Federer would've aced out the match after Djokovic's return winner.

TennisCJC said:
Federer had several break points in the 2008 Wimby final against Nadal in the 5th set. In fact, Federer had more break points and in more games, I would change one of those break points.
Click to expand...

Federer had that one break point at 4:3, 30-40...if only...but well, that match was crazy anyway.

John6239 said:
Those two match points in Rome 2006 final.
Click to expand...
also a good call. Although I preferred Federer to win the set point vs Nadal at RG 2011.

I suggest other points:
Australian Open 2009, 3rd set. Federer had 3 break points vs Nadal at 4:4, couldn't convert one, all of them on second serve. On the 3rd he put an easy forehand in the net instead for a winner. At 5:5 he had three more, missed those too, the second with a forehand just slightly wide instead of winning the point...
Had he won one of those, I truly believe Federer would've won the AO09. At that point, he was all over Nadal and still somehow wasn't able to win the 3rd set.

Australian Open 2005, Match point vs Safin. Well, that would've given Federer another Grand Slam title, I'm pretty sure about that.

but above all...I know it's somehow silly, but there was one point I really really hoped Federer could win it
Tennis Masters Cup 2005, Federer - Nalbandian:
Federer fought back in the 5th, injured/tired/whatever. He was a break up, 6:5, 30:0. I just wished he would've made the next point for 40-0. Nalbandian was a little angry because of a (correct) overrule. Well...he didn't make it and went on to lose the TB.
 
MichaelNadal said:
I think each match is new. It's not like he'd have been in Nadal's head. It took someone like Djokovic playing out of his skin for final after final in a row to do that to Nadal and that was the only time you've seen someone in there. I get what you're saying and agree with the premise, but just in the case of Federer-Nadal, I don't see how it would have helped Federer much in the long run.
Click to expand...
Not suggesting he would be in Nadal's head. As you mentioned, Nadal rarely has let anyone do that. But it may have helped Federer's head, which is really the problem. Looking at only straight physical skills, I think Federer matches up well with Nadal on any surface. But of course the game has the mental aspect, and Nadal beats Federer hands down in that department.

Agreed that each match should be new. But Federer's brain does not work that way. Once he realized Nadal was trouble, his brain did not allow his physical skills to shine. Yes, it's tough hitting Nadal's heavy topspin shots, especially with a one handed backhand. But Federer had the tools to do it, and had other tools to hurt Nadal. But at the important moments, Federer would collapse. Not because of topspin, but because of mental demons.

Had he beaten Nadal a few times early on, when they were both playing well, I believe Federer would have had a chance to not let Nadal enter his head. Just a chance, not saying it wouldn't have eventually happened. But with just the physical matchup, I believe Federer beats Nadal 9 or 10 times out of 10 on grass and fast hard courts, 8 times out of 10 on slower hard courts, and plays him at least even on clay.

Don't get me wrong. I admire Nadal's mental game, and he's shown why that's over half of what it takes to win.
 
MichaelNadal said:
I don't know why anyone thinks it would have been different. He's both beaten and bageled Nadal on clay before.
Click to expand...

I don't either. Nadal would still turn out better on clay. That one match doesn't change much. Nadal was the better clay player from 07 on. People are just overestimating the effect that that loss had, whether it helped Federer or hurt Nadal doesn't matter much. As I said, Nadal was just better on clay from 2007 on IMO. In 2006 Federer had his chances, but in 2007 it didn't matter how many BP's Federer had in the RG final. Nadal was winning it. The low BP conversion rate is part of the match up anyway, and has very little if anything to do with Federer's "mental" strength IMO.
 
Last edited:
The thing about the 2006 Rome final is that Federer played such an excellent clay-court match, yet blew his chances on the championship points. It was a big psychological factor. Nadal sucked up all that pressure, like being down 1-4 in the fifth set, facing 2 championship points when serving at 5-6, and being down 3-5 in the tiebreak, to win in the end, and take his head-to-head against Federer to 5-1, at the time of Federer's absolute peak.

Had Federer won, Federer knows he can beat Nadal over 5 sets on clay, from behind (Federer was 1-2 down in sets), and the head-to-head is just 4-2 to Nadal. Nadal also didn't play at his top level at the 2006 French Open. He was more vulnerable than most years at that French Open.
 
Arthur Ashe getting a blood transfusion giving him aids.

Vitas Gerulaitas accidental death from carbon monoxide poisoning due to a faulty hotel propane heating and air-conditioning system.

Jimmy Connors banned from playing the French Open in 1974.
 
Steve0904 said:
I don't either. Nadal would still turn out better on clay. That one match doesn't change much. Nadal was the better clay player from 07 on. People are just overestimating the effect that that loss had, whether it helped Federer or hurt Nadal doesn't matter much. As I said, Nadal was just better on clay from 2007 on IMO. In 2006 Federer had his chances, but in 2007 it didn't matter how many BP's Federer had in the RG final. Nadal was winning it. The low BP conversion rate is part of the match up anyway, and has very little if anything to do with Federer's "mental" strength IMO.
Click to expand...
You honestly don't believe a majority of Nadal's mastery over Federer is mental? You don't think Federer has the physical tools to handle Nadal? How do you does he get to break point so often? Or get huge leads in sets, and then choke them away? No be able to hit routine shots? Not once run around a backhand return when the serve goes to his backhand 100% of the time? Doesn't sound physical to me.
 
Beacon Hill said:
You honestly don't believe a majority of Nadal's mastery over Federer is mental? You don't think Federer has the physical tools to handle Nadal? How do you does he get to break point so often? Or get huge leads in sets, and then choke them away? No be able to hit routine shots? Not once run around a backhand return when the serve goes to his backhand 100% of the time? Doesn't sound physical to me.
Click to expand...

But why is it mental? How comes? Did Federer just get intimidated when he saw Nadal's big left bicep. Couldn't he handle the 'gaze of death' of the Spanish bull. Couldn't it be that Nadal's game is difficult for him?
 
Beacon Hill said:
You honestly don't believe a majority of Nadal's mastery over Federer is mental? You don't think Federer has the physical tools to handle Nadal? How do you does he get to break point so often? Or get huge leads in sets, and then choke them away? No be able to hit routine shots? Not once run around a backhand return when the serve goes to his backhand 100% of the time? Doesn't sound physical to me.
Click to expand...

It isnt mental, You cant explain a whole matchup only with mental ownage, Rafa has weapons that hurt federer, he has a lot of stamina a good running forehand that hurts federer more so when he hits it with heavy topspin to his backhand..
 
Non tennis event would be the Seles stabbing, no question. So much was destroyed in that one moment.

Tennis wise, that overhead in the 2009 Wimbledon final between Roddick and Federer. If Andy makes that...
 
Beacon Hill said:
You honestly don't believe a majority of Nadal's mastery over Federer is mental? You don't think Federer has the physical tools to handle Nadal? How do you does he get to break point so often? Or get huge leads in sets, and then choke them away? No be able to hit routine shots? Not once run around a backhand return when the serve goes to his backhand 100% of the time? Doesn't sound physical to me.
Click to expand...

It's not mental, if it was, Federer would have problems with a lot more guys than Nadal. Rafa's game is just way too physical for Fed over long matches. It may have become mental after a while, but that's not why it's hard for him to beat Nadal. The same way Djokovic is really the only guy that can get in Nadal's head... at the end of the day it's because his game itself is the only one that can cause Nadal to get out of his comfort zone on a regular basis. The same is true for Nadal with Federer, his style doesn't let Fed do what he wants.
 
MichaelNadal said:
It's not mental, if it was, Federer would have problems with a lot more guys than Nadal. Rafa's game is just way too physical for Fed over long matches. It may have become mental after a while, but that's not why it's hard for him to beat Nadal. The same way Djokovic is really the only guy that can get in Nadal's head... at the end of the day it's because his game itself is the only one that can cause Nadal to get out of his comfort zone on a regular basis. The same is true for Nadal with Federer, his style doesn't let Fed do what he wants.
Click to expand...

This. 10this.
 
kandamrigam said:
This. 10this.
Click to expand...
Of course it's not 100% mental. Nadal is a great player. I just don't think his physical skills are as good as Fed's. How many times has Fed had leads against Nadal, in games, in sets, then you can see the nerves enter the match and it's all over. Here's a perfect example of a Fed choke against Nadal: He dominates him and builds a big lead. He misses an easy drop shot on game point that would give him an almost insurmountable lead. That missed shot gets in his head. Then he loses several consecutive games in a row and loses the set, barely putting up a fight and suddenly playing horribly. That didn't happen because of fatigue. Or because Nadal suddenly played better. It's simply one of many horrendous chokes.

Fed doesn't have the same problems against most other players because he's vastly superior to most players so it doesn't enter the equation. If Fed had Nadal's head, he'd have 25 majors.

Fed also has shown mental weakness against Murray and Djokovic. He rarely wins close matches against these main rivals. He needs to beat them handily, so nerves don't come as much into play.

Fed's mental weakness again highlighted in US Open semi when Djokovic hit his lucky winner on match point. If that happened to Nadal, Nadal's brain would say, "I still have a match point. You had to have incredible luck to save the first one. That won't happen again." Whereas Fed's brain says: "That was lucky. This match should be over. I should have won. This is not fair. There is no justice. I don't even want to be out here anymore. I give up." Again, Fed didn't suddenly get tired. He just choked.

Credit to Nadal for being mentally strong, and winning despite not having the physical tools Fed does. Not to say Nadal doesn't still posses amazing physical talent, but I believe it's his mental game that has gotten him to where he is.

One thing I've noticed, though, about Fed in the last couple years is he's actually shown a little bit of fight. His physical skills have diminished (the peak still there, just not the consistency), but he's actually fought hard in matches where I believe he would have previously given up. He hasn't necessarily come out on top, but it's been nice to see him almost enjoy the fight.
 
^You're selling him really short mentally. You have to be pretty damn strong mentally to win as much as he has. Nadal is just a beast for anyone to beat, and that includes Federer.
 
moonballs said:
Why? When Nadal is not playing well he is very beatable. In 2011 USO he was not playing that well. Fed crushed him 6:3 6:0 at the wtf only a few months later. No matter how biased you are you have to recognize USO is much closer to indoor hard than clay.
Click to expand...


2010 USO was a better chance for Fed in my opinion in terms of form. He also had two mps but lost. Yes nadal was in top form and eager to win but Federer would have had more confidence in 2010 against nadal than 2011. Even if fed had lost it would have affected slam totals.
 
kOaMaster said:
I wish Federer would've aced out the match after Djokovic's return winner.



Federer had that one break point at 4:3, 30-40...if only...but well, that match was crazy anyway.


also a good call. Although I preferred Federer to win the set point vs Nadal at RG 2011.

I suggest other points:
Australian Open 2009, 3rd set. Federer had 3 break points vs Nadal at 4:4, couldn't convert one, all of them on second serve. On the 3rd he put an easy forehand in the net instead for a winner. At 5:5 he had three more, missed those too, the second with a forehand just slightly wide instead of winning the point...
Had he won one of those, I truly believe Federer would've won the AO09. At that point, he was all over Nadal and still somehow wasn't able to win the 3rd set.

Australian Open 2005, Match point vs Safin. Well, that would've given Federer another Grand Slam title, I'm pretty sure about that.

but above all...I know it's somehow silly, but there was one point I really really hoped Federer could win it
Tennis Masters Cup 2005, Federer - Nalbandian:
Federer fought back in the 5th, injured/tired/whatever. He was a break up, 6:5, 30:0. I just wished he would've made the next point for 40-0. Nalbandian was a little angry because of a (correct) overrule. Well...he didn't make it and went on to lose the TB.
Click to expand...

It seems to me like Federer has had the worst luck out of the big 3 in terms of missed opportunities. When nadal or Djokovic get opportunities they take them. Still Federer has had the best luck in terms of winning 17 slams. He is very lucky to do what he did. As much as Rome and MC would have been nice he has the biggest one. Federer is a french Open champion.
 
Beacon Hill said:
Fed also has shown mental weakness against Murray and Djokovic. He rarely wins close matches against these main rivals. He needs to beat them handily, so nerves don't come as much into play.

Fed's mental weakness again highlighted in US Open semi when Djokovic hit his lucky winner on match point. If that happened to Nadal, Nadal's brain would say, "I still have a match point. You had to have incredible luck to save the first one. That won't happen again." Whereas Fed's brain says: "That was lucky. This match should be over. I should have won. This is not fair. There is no justice. I don't even want to be out here anymore. I give up." Again, Fed didn't suddenly get tired. He just choked.

Credit to Nadal for being mentally strong, and winning despite not having the physical tools Fed does. Not to say Nadal doesn't still posses amazing physical talent, but I believe it's his mental game that has gotten him to where he is.

One thing I've noticed, though, about Fed in the last couple years is he's actually shown a little bit of fight. His physical skills have diminished (the peak still there, just not the consistency), but he's actually fought hard in matches where I believe he would have previously given up. He hasn't necessarily come out on top, but it's been nice to see him almost enjoy the fight.
Click to expand...

Hahaha that's exactly what I thought that went through Federer's head at that moment, and that thought of Nadal was exactly what I wanted him to be thinking. I agree with your last comment, he has shown fight (e.g. Wimbledon final this year, and coming on top against Simon and Mayer in Shanghai, Wawrinka WTF) but just too bad he can't always see it through at the most important stages.
 
Beacon Hill said:
Of course it's not 100% mental. Nadal is a great player. I just don't think his physical skills are as good as Fed's. How many times has Fed had leads against Nadal, in games, in sets, then you can see the nerves enter the match and it's all over. Here's a perfect example of a Fed choke against Nadal: He dominates him and builds a big lead. He misses an easy drop shot on game point that would give him an almost insurmountable lead. That missed shot gets in his head. Then he loses several consecutive games in a row and loses the set, barely putting up a fight and suddenly playing horribly. That didn't happen because of fatigue. Or because Nadal suddenly played better. It's simply one of many horrendous chokes.

Fed doesn't have the same problems against most other players because he's vastly superior to most players so it doesn't enter the equation. If Fed had Nadal's head, he'd have 25 majors.

Fed also has shown mental weakness against Murray and Djokovic. He rarely wins close matches against these main rivals. He needs to beat them handily, so nerves don't come as much into play.

Fed's mental weakness again highlighted in US Open semi when Djokovic hit his lucky winner on match point. If that happened to Nadal, Nadal's brain would say, "I still have a match point. You had to have incredible luck to save the first one. That won't happen again." Whereas Fed's brain says: "That was lucky. This match should be over. I should have won. This is not fair. There is no justice. I don't even want to be out here anymore. I give up." Again, Fed didn't suddenly get tired. He just choked.

Credit to Nadal for being mentally strong, and winning despite not having the physical tools Fed does. Not to say Nadal doesn't still posses amazing physical talent, but I believe it's his mental game that has gotten him to where he is.

One thing I've noticed, though, about Fed in the last couple years is he's actually shown a little bit of fight. His physical skills have diminished (the peak still there, just not the consistency), but he's actually fought hard in matches where I believe he would have previously given up. He hasn't necessarily come out on top, but it's been nice to see him almost enjoy the fight.
Click to expand...

That's somewhat undermining a champions like Federer's mentality. The difference wont be that contrasting.

Did Federer choke? I think yes a little bit. But after saving those 2 MPs, Djokovic clearly started to change his strategy in that he was focusing on abusing Fed BH. And it crumbled, giving returns from that wing.

You can also not forget that Federer has escaped many times showing better mental strength than most others on tour. But I agree in a general sense that Nadal and Djoker edge Federer in mental department slightly.
 
MichaelNadal said:
^You're selling him really short mentally. You have to be pretty damn strong mentally to win as much as he has. Nadal is just a beast for anyone to beat, and that includes Federer.
Click to expand...
Fed's mental game against the second tier of players is better most of the time. But I believe that's because he knows they will crumble first. Like Monfils or others do when the match is on the line. The small group of second tier (or even third tier) players that don't bow down to Fed's greatness can beat Fed in close matches if they are having a hot day. But they have to be having a hot day, because Fed's physical skills are better.

Fed is a genius on the court physically, but his mental game is nowhere near his physical game. Not as bad as players like Safin or Rios (and of course nothing like Novotna), but still nowhere near his physical level.
 
John6239 said:
It seems to me like Federer has had the worst luck out of the big 3 in terms of missed opportunities. When nadal or Djokovic get opportunities they take them. Still Federer has had the best luck in terms of winning 17 slams. He is very lucky to do what he did. As much as Rome and MC would have been nice he has the biggest one. Federer is a french Open champion.
Click to expand...
Nadal has taken his opportunities, but I wouldn't put Djokovic in the same category. Djokovic sometimes does. But he should really have 2 or 3 French Opens by now, and he also should not have lost to Murray in any major finals. He's better now than his early days, though, where he too often would quit. He's improved that aspect of his game, but still has lapses. Nadal seems to have been born with it.

Consider big matches that the Big 3 should have won, but didn't. One hardly comes to mind with Nadal, there are a few that come to mind with Djokovic, and there are several that come to mind with Federer. That pretty much sums up how they rank in terms of mental strength. And I believe it's the reverse order for physical skills.
 
Beacon Hill said:
Nadal has taken his opportunities, but I wouldn't put Djokovic in the same category. Djokovic sometimes does. But he should really have 2 or 3 French Opens by now, and he also should not have lost to Murray in any major finals. He's better now than his early days, though, where he too often would quit. He's improved that aspect of his game, but still has lapses. Nadal seems to have been born with it.
Click to expand...

Why should he have not lost to Murray in any major finals? In the 2 he lost to him, Djokovic was ranked #2 and #1 respectively to Murray's #3 and #2 so there was only ever one ranking place between them! Murray was a top player with a good hardcourt and grasscourt record against Djokovic and was always threatening to break through on the biggest stages. It was certainly no shame for Djokovic to lose to Murray. He wasn't exactly playing some scrub from the lower ends of the rankings, was he?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
That one point that could change the outcome of a match and rivalry,
2
Replies
74
Views
5K
merwy
M
HetTheGreaterer
If you could just change one point in entire modern tennis history, what will it be?
Replies
26
Views
1K
73west
7
Rafa the King
If you could change the outcome of one match
3 4 5
Replies
229
Views
10K
every7
every7
TheMaestro1990
If players could change ONE thing...
Replies
19
Views
1K
metsman
metsman
Razer
IF you could change the outcome of 3 Open Era Tennis Matches, what would they be ?
2 3
Replies
129
Views
3K
ChrisRF
C
Back
Top