D
If you could change the outcome of any point in tennis history..
- Thread starter FedExpress117
- Start date
Nadal was tired and very vulnerable in 5th set, but Fed was somehow was even a way bigger mess although almost all the momentum must have in his hands. That must be the reason why Federer cried during the ceremony because Roger felt that he could(and should have) beat Nadal, but his body and nerves just refused to work properly
Agreed, that was the single most disappointing loss of Federer's career, imo. Well, USO 2009 is also close, one he certainly should have won and that really could have been done in 3. Both finals were marked by Federer controlling the final, despite serving poorly.
I distinctly remember thinking at USO 09 in the first 2 sets that, although Federer was cruising, if he didn't put it away in 3, it would be a big problem because of his poor serving. Pretty much the same for AO 2009. I think Federer played, for the most part, out of his skin from the baseline in AO 2009 until the 5th, and he couldn't keep it up there, and his serve wasn't clicking.
TheMusicLover
G.O.A.T.
You certainly weren't the only one thinking that!
I well remember watching that match with some friends, and 'everybody' thought the match was done-and-dusted after Fed easily took the first two sets. The only one having serious doubts was me (well, perhaps I was the only one still actually watching that match very closely?), as the match up till that point was a lot closer than the scoreline indicated. Well we all know how it ended. As much as was able to feel happy for Del Potro, I was quite a bit annoyed as to see how Fed completely lost it at the tail end of the third, I actually got the impression it was more than just a bit due to some weird kind of 'mental laziness' as much as to a failing serve.
As for AO 2009, all credits should go to Nadal for the way he managed to keep hanging on and grabbing the opportunity as it eventually came. At least that's my impression of that match.
Beacon Hill
Hall of Fame
More than the Edberg point that actually led to the death of an umpire?
TheMusicLover
G.O.A.T.
That was an accident. Seles' stabbing was a crime.
Quite a difference and yes, the latter is far far worse.
Beacon Hill
Hall of Fame
I don't see any logic in what you are saying. If there is one thing that could be changed, it certainly should be something that would prevent a death. What is a crime or not is unrelated and immaterial.
I didn't know about that, horrible accident. Yes, that one would come first as a point in tennis history to change.
We're really getting into stuff beyond the scope of the question, which is if you could change a point in tennis history, not any event that happened on the court. An errant serve and the linesman being hit, then stumbling and hitting his head isn't a tennis point, nor was the Seles stabbing.
Credit to Nadal, yes, but it was still a match on Federer's racket until the 5th, which is why it is one of the most painful losses. Wimbledon 2008, yes was tough, but Federer really wasn't playing his best and produced a monumental effort to push it to 5 and late in the 5th.
USO 09 was the other toughest loss, one he really should have won. Even with the serving, if a few things went his way, he could have won it. The issue with the umpire really threw him off his game, which was unfortunate, as it was a clear error on the umpire's part.
As much as possible, they ought to take the human element out of officiating -- it shouldn't affect the outcome of a match.
vernonbc
Legend
How could the match have been on Federer's racquet until the 5th set? Rafa had already won two sets. The match was every bit as much on Nadal's racquet as it was on Fed's and it was Nadal, again, who came through with his scintillating play to win his first hc slam.
TheMusicLover
G.O.A.T.
It might just be me, but I can't recall even a moment in that match where I thought that the match was 'on Federer's racket'. Back then, the cracks were already beginning to show in Fed's game, him having those unexplainable patches of sloppy play during matches even when he was playing well overall - so I never took the outcome for granted, so to say.
If there's just ONE player one cannot afford to have bad patches of play against, it's Nadal. In my memory, Nadal sort-of took advantage of such an expected bad patch, which is merely Nadal to credit for. But we may well have a different outlook on that match.
Isn't this nearly always the case, that the decision in a tough match comes down to just a couple of points? You may blame the ump for all you want (and yes, I do think he shouldn't have allowed Del Potro's very late challenge), but you may well also blame Fed himself, that he allowed himself to get rattled by the ump as much as he did. Fed was on the tour, for what, a decade or so already, and I think he should have known better. It may well have been a case of the Fed from his early youth days making a short, and fatal, reappearance...
And how would you suggest to 'take out the human element'? Let all points be decided by hawkeye? I bet there would be a lot of threads over here discussing the wrongdoings of hawkeye in such a case.
There will always be 'human factors' involving, as it's a human game. Unfortunately we're not living in Utopia...
Last edited:
Similar threads
