If you could change the outcome of one match

Rafa the King

Hall of Fame
Which match would you choose? This match won't alter the course of history so just one match.
I'd either go for the 2007/2011 Wimbledon finals or the 2012 AO one. I think I'd go for the AO as it would have given Rafa a double career grand slam. What would you choose?
 
How does that work, though? Unless you're changing the result of a final, you are altering the course of history because you're creating 1 or 2 new matchups? For instance, I might pick Henman to beat Hewitt in the 2002 Wimbledon SF because he'd then have a good chance to beat Nalbandian in the final, and it would have been great to see Henman win Wimbledon. But if, under your rules, Henman can't win the final, then I would pick another match.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ
either the 06 Rome, 06 FO, or 09 AO final. Although the latter 2 may have been caused by the former so in that case Rome 06 fixes everything. However if I had to pick just 1 on the account that picking would not change future, I would definitely pick the 09 AO.

06 Rome to give Federer more confidence against Nadal in B05 on clay which could influence future 5 set finals as well, 06 FO to give Fed the 4 straight majors at the midst of his peak. Winning either one of those titles would also give Federer maybe the best run in tennis history as he would have a B05 in a big clay tournament along with everything. 09 AO to show that peak for peak Federer would be better than Nadal everywhere off clay so the h2h argument would not hold as much weight. Also 4 straight but imo losing the 09 AO is the biggest potential hole in Federer's GOAT case.
 
09 AO. That 5th set Fed fell away, apparently with a back injury, and a match he should have won was lost.

I really don't think there's any other match I'd change a result in.

Edit: Roddick 2009 Wimbledon, he deserved it. Different though, no injury.
 
Last edited:
either the 06 Rome, 06 FO, or 09 AO final. Although the latter 2 may have been caused by the former so in that case Rome 06 fixes everything. However if I had to pick just 1 on the account that picking would not change future, I would definitely pick the 09 AO.

06 Rome to give Federer more confidence against Nadal in B05 on clay which could influence future 5 set finals as well, 06 FO to give Fed the 4 straight majors at the midst of his peak. Winning either one of those titles would also give Federer maybe the best run in tennis history as he would have a B05 in a big clay tournament along with everything. 09 AO to show that peak for peak Federer would be better than Nadal everywhere off clay so the h2h argument would not hold as much weight. Also 4 straight but imo losing the 09 AO is the biggest potential hole in Federer's GOAT case.

If he wins RG 06 he would have won 7 straight majors :eek: . No Rafa means he wins 11 straight majors followed by a run of 6 straight majors.
 
Going "old school" with 1981 Wimbledon final; the beginning of the end for Borg! If he had held his title for a 6th year, he might not have retired so abruptly at the end of the season in Jan.! IMO McEnroe shouldn't have even been there; throwing a monumental hissy fit in an early round match! They allowed him to continue when anyone else would have been disqualified calling the umpire a "bald eagle!" I lost some respect for them when they talk about being "above reproach" in matters concerning the tournament! :rolleyes: ;) :p
 
Last edited:
Going "old school" with 1981 Wimbledon final; the beginning of the end for Borg! If he had held his title for a 6th year, he might not have retired so abruptly at then end of the season in Jan.! IMO McEnroe shouldn't have even been there; throwing a monumental hissy fit in an early round match! They allowed him to continue when anyone else would have been disqualified calling the umpire a "bald eagle!" I lost some respect for them when they talk about being "above reproach" in matters concerning the tournament! :rolleyes: ;) :p
But America! ;)
 
Going "old school" with 1981 Wimbledon final; the beginning of the end for Borg! If he had held his title for a 6th year, he might not have retired so abruptly at then end of the season in Jan.! IMO McEnroe shouldn't have even been there; throwing a monumental hissy fit in an early round match! They allowed him to continue when anyone else would have been disqualified calling the umpire a "bald eagle!" I lost some respect for them when they talk about being "above reproach" in matters concerning the tournament! :rolleyes: ;) :p

why would you alter wimby 81 final instead of USO 80 final ? That'd have given Borg the USO that is sorely missing in his cabinet trophy and vs mac to the boot
 
If he wins RG 06 he would have won 7 straight majors :eek: . No Rafa means he wins 11 straight majors followed by a run of 6 straight majors.
There are always risks to extrapolating like that because no one can win every single match even if they are the overwhelming favorite. Federer found that out in my avatar haha.
 
2013 US Open final.
vomit-into-the-toilet.gif
 
why would you alter wimby 81 final instead of USO 80 final ? That'd have given Borg the USO that is sorely missing in his cabinet trophy and vs mac to the boot
80 USO would have given Borg maybe the best season in open era. But imo most of all I'd give him 81 USO. He choked that match plain and simple in the third set. If he wins that he was 4 straight multiple major years which is ridiculous and matched only by Federer and he also doesn't walk off the court afterwards which might enable him to pile up the GOAT resume.

With 2 USO I might rate Borg over Fed as he would have 2 or more at the 4 biggest events at the day with super polarized conditions that did not suit him along with total domination of two of those events. 1 USO would make him very close to Federer imo but you would still have to give it to Fed because he lasted 10 years longer lol. But again if he wins the 81 USO he might stick around for a little longer, win another FO or two.
 
However, probably AO 2014, as I think Novak actually was better than wawrinka overall as he won more points, whereas RG 2013 semi, nadal was better player overall but Novak so nearly pulled off an incredible win against nadal who was playing like the nadal all conquering clay beast we used to know on clay and RG!
 
2006 Roland Garros final, 2013 Roland Garros semifinal and 2014 Australian Open final. Those were the matches where I cheered for the eventual loser.
 
Hard to choose between the 2013 RG semifinal and the USO final that year. It would've been a wonderful feather in Djokovic's cap to defeat a prime level, lights out in the 5th set Nadal on his turf and probably would've prevented the subsequent defeats later on that summer. On the other hand, losing for the second time in three finals on his favourite surface, especially the manner in which it happened, was an absolute sickener and made me seriously question if a tennis God truly does exist. So yeah, if you put a gun to my head I'd probably go with the USO final.

Having said all this, I do believe everything happens for a reason and the chief reason Novak hired Becker in the first place was due to losing that match so if he had won it who knows, there might be no Boris on the scene and the rampage we've seen from the Earth's mightiest warrior these past two years might never have materialised. :)

The other good thing to come out of that final in NYC is that it put a rocket under Novak in all the matches he's played against Nadal on hard courts ever since. Like I said the other day, there's nothing like a good spanking every now and then and 11 wins in their last 12 meetings certainly attests to that! :p
 
if you're an agassi fan or pete hater, yes this is the match for you. Had a big impact on mens tennis for the next 3 years, this match.

I had to hate Pete a little back then. I love the Australian Open wins, but just not being able to beat Pete at their Grandslam sucks. I am sure that I was really optimistic before Pete shut him down.

In some ways, it was like Hulk Hogan returning to WWF in 1993. It set the WWF back a couple of years and this set back Agassi. Fair play to him for getting it together again.
 
2009 Wimbledon - Men's Singles Final
Andy Roddick d. Roger Federer
7-5 6-7(6) 6-7(5) 6-3 10-8

Only changing one point here
 
Hard to choose between the 2013 RG semifinal and the USO final that year. It would've been a wonderful feather in Djokovic's cap to defeat a prime level, lights out in the 5th set Nadal on his turf and probably would've prevented the subsequent defeats later on that summer. On the other hand, losing for the second time in three finals on his favourite surface, especially the manner in which it happened, was an absolute sickener and made me seriously question if a tennis God truly does exist. So yeah, if you put a gun to my head I'd probably go with the USO final.

Having said all this, I do believe everything happens for a reason and the chief reason Novak hired Becker in the first place was due to losing that match so if he had won it who knows, there might be no Boris on the scene and the rampage we've seen from the Earth's mightiest warrior these past two years might never have materialised. :)

The other good thing to come out of that final in NYC is that it put a rocket under Novak in all the matches he's played against Nadal on hard courts ever since. Like I said the other day, there's nothing like a good spanking every now and then and 11 wins in their last 12 meetings certainly attests to that! :p
Djokovic was horrible for two sets in the 13 USO final
 
I am going away from the Slams for a moment and saying 2009 Madrid SF.
 
RG 2012 final

That was the first big match Djokovic lost in a long time and started a downward spiral

If he had won that he probably would be at 15/16 Slams right now. Of course it would also decrease Nadal's Slam count, which is always a plus
 
2009 Wimbledon: sorry Rog, but the agony of such a near miss for Andy Roddick after so many failed attempts was so hard to bear!

2012 Shanghai: If Andy had converted just 1 of his 5 match points he would have been on a roll against Novak after beating him in New York and he would probably have had the mental edge come Melbourne.

2013 or 2015 AO (preferably both): Murray was in a position to have won either of these events and he would by now have completed 3/4 of the career Grand Slam.
 
why would you alter wimby 81 final instead of USO 80 final? That'd have given Borg the USO that is sorely missing in his cabinet trophy and vs Mac to the boot.

Excuse me, but I thought this was my choice! If you must know, a lot of it has a lot to do with my lack of respect for our own Nat'l Championship! It's been wracked with a history most would soon forget; unfortunately I can' t! I started watching back in '75 when it 1st went to Har-Tru from the grass courts of Forest Hills! Borg had his best chances even though a young Turk on the rise, he had won a couple FO's by then! He lost 2 matches to Connors and defaulted after the 2nd set in '77 with a shoulder injury to Dave Stockton! By the time they went to that pane of glass they called a hardcourt in Flushing, he was already vulnerable; the fast court or big servers at night! Connors caught him with a thumb injury in '78 and Roscoe Tanner blew him off the court in the middle of the night in '79 when Borg isn't at his best! McEnroe was expected and made sense for him to own his own home championship! Borg had taken ownership of Wimbledon and the French Open! Why be greedy? Borg had his chances and blew it! His legend is still "way up there" regardless of no USO! Most top players have a hole in their resume; Borg has 2 (USO & AO)! :rolleyes: ;) :p
 
Last edited:
Back
Top