If you could change the result of one slam final for your favorite player...?

powerangle

Legend
For my favorite player, Novak: I'd change the 2012 RG final result. It'd give him the "Nole slam". I would have picked 2011 RG semi, but there is still not a 100% guarantee Novak would have beaten Rafa in that final (however likely it may have been ;)).

For my other faves:

1) Fed - 2006 RG final. Calendar slam, 'nuff said. And Rog's 2006 would probably end up being THE best year in the Open Era.

2) Rafa - 2014 AO final. Double career slam. (Not 2012 AO final, as that would have taken away from Novak).

3) Murray - 2010 AO final. He would have won 3 out of 4 majors at this point.
 

xFedal

Legend
For my favorite player, Novak: I'd change the 2012 RG final result. It'd give him the "Nole slam". I would have picked 2011 RG semi, but there is still not a 100% guarantee Novak would have beaten Rafa in that final (however likely it may have been ;)).

For my other faves:

1) Fed - 2006 RG final. Calendar slam, 'nuff said. And Rog's 2006 would probably end up being THE best year in the Open Era.

2) Rafa - 2014 AO final. Double career slam. (Not 2012 AO final, as that would have taken away from Novak).

3) Murray - 2010 AO final. He would have won 3 out of 4 majors at this point.
Nadal 2012 Final would have been nice.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
2012 RG but last year's USO would be a very close second, especially after reading SpicyCurry's post yesterday about the domino effect that result had on the YE#1 ranking as well as this year's AO.
 

Mayonnaise

Banned
2012 RG but last year's USO would be a very close second, especially after reading SpicyCurry's post yesterday about the domino effect that result had on the YE#1 ranking as well as this year's AO.
It really should be FO 2013. That is the reason Djokovic lost USO last year.
 
Easy: 2006 RG, had Federer won that, the whole Nadal matchup could've been different ever since. The Rome 2006 loss was really the one that IMO defined the rest of this rivalry. Had Federer won that tight match, it could've been possible that he would've got extra confidence to the RG final. And had he won both of those matches, what a stellar year that 2006 would've been!
 

eldanger25

Hall of Fame
'91 semifinal v. Courier in New York. Win or lose, a Connors championship match at the US Open that year would've been a motherf*cking Category 5 hurricane.

Not a final, but whatever.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Wimbledon 2008, Federer would have had 6x in a row and defended his fortress against Nadal for the third time.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
F
Murray - 2010 AO final. He would have won 3 out of 4 majors at this point.
I'd change that to 2013 AO final. He had better chances to win that one than in 2010 as he went a set up and only narrowly lost the second. After that, his movement was affected and he faded away. If he had kept up his level and won that final he would have become the first player in the Open Era to have won his first 2 Slams back to back and would now be on 3 Slams as well.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
I'd change that to 2013 AO final. He had better chances to win that one than in 2010 as he went a set up and only narrowly lost the second. After that, his movement was affected and he faded away. If he had kept up his level and won that final he would have become the first player in the Open Era to have won his first 2 Slams back to back and would now be on 3 Slams as well.
So was that final a match where Nole benefited from a tired and injured opponent Mainad? :wink:
 
I'd change that to 2013 AO final. He had better chances to win that one than in 2010 as he went a set up and only narrowly lost the second. After that, his movement was affected and he faded away. If he had kept up his level and won that final he would have become the first player in the Open Era to have won his first 2 Slams back to back and would now be on 3 Slams as well.
and would have won three slams consecutively, as he missed the french due to injury.
 

ibbi

Legend
I'd have liked to see Rafa convert one of his Wimbledon losses (probably 2006) and give him 3 channel slams alongside Borg. I'd have liked to see him get that US Open 2011 victory to have finished 2011 on a high after all the beatings he took. The Australian Open final in 2012 would have been nice too considering how long and hard he fought :lol: but ultimately if I had to pick one I'd go with this years Australian Open final.

Getting to play a personal pigeon in a Grand Slam final was a gift from the gods, and for it to go that horribly wrong was truly disastrous. I don't care how well Stan played in that 12 month span from his epic with Novak in Melbourne the previous year up to that maiden slam victory. Rafa still owned him multiple times during that period.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
So was that final a match where Nole benefited from a tired and injured opponent Mainad? :wink:
Possibly (I recall Murray being treated for a nasty foot blister after the 2nd set and we got gory closeups of it) but that means diddlysquat as Djokovic outlasted him and thus proved to be the better player. End of! :)
 

Arafel

Professional
Hmmm

1977 - Connors vs Borg, Wimbledon (I think if Connors wins this, he doesn't go away in 79--80)

1977 - Connors vs Vilas, U.S. Open

1978 - Evert vs. Navratilova, Wimbledon

1984 - McEnroe vs Lendl, French Open

2009 - Roddick vs. Federer, Wimbledon
 

Netspirit

Hall of Fame
If Federer won 2006 RG, he might have never pushed that hard for his 2009 win.

My vote goes for the 2009 USO final. Del Potro had no business winning it really.
 

magnut

Hall of Fame
biggest for me......edberg win over chang in the french open final would put him in GOAT category as a serve and volleyer.

second.......rafter wimbledon win over sampras or goran would have put him at another level confidence wise and he probably would have played a bit longer.

i would have liked to see henman win wimbledon but he never got to a final.

hewitt winning austrailia against safin would have been great and probably extended his hunger a bit longer.
 

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
'91 semifinal v. Courier in New York. Win or lose, a Connors championship match at the US Open that year would've been a motherf*cking Category 5 hurricane.

Not a final, but whatever.
I didn't realize your favorite player was Connors. Makes more sense now why it was easy to convince you of Wilander>Edberg, Wilander + Edberg>Nastase, and Vilas>Courier>Ashe, but you absolutely refused to budge on Lendl>Connors :razz:
 

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
Oh and

Nole - FO 2012 in addition to the NCY and career slams, another interesting cascade.

The points from a French win would have kept Nole rated #1 in the world even after losing at Wimbledon vs Fed. He would have drawn the #1 seed at USO 12 and met Murray in the SF on Saturday on full rest and without inclement weather. I like him to win in that scenario.

Fed would have been on the opposite half of the draw as the #2 seed and avoided Berdych playing a QF vs Del Po. Whoever wins that QF, I am confident beats Ferrer in the Sunday semifinal and then has to play Nole in a Final on short rest. A big hitting Del Po or 31 year old shot making Fed on short rest in windy conditions vs a fully rested Nole? I like those odds a lot more than a Nole on short rest vs a counter puncher in windy conditions.

Nole has a second straight 3 slam season, never loses his #1 ranking and goes into his RG 2013 SF vs Rafa with the win in their most recent RG match and Nole 2.0 unbeaten in slams except vs Federer.
 

eldanger25

Hall of Fame
I didn't realize your favorite player was Connors. Makes more sense now why it was easy to convince you of Wilander>Edberg, Wilander + Edberg>Nastase, and Vilas>Courier>Ashe, but you absolutely refused to budge on Lendl>Connors :razz:
Yup, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Jimbo fan. But I like to think I'm reasonably objective about his and the other early Open Era guys' standing among later generations of top dogs. Mac, Connors, Borg, Nasty, Vitas, Newk, Ashe, Vilas - those guys paved the road our latter day stat/records gobbling favorites are walking. They got a lot of modern players paid with their efforts before the sport started to make sense of itself and offer more stable bases for evaluation starting in the mid 80s, and in particular from 1990 onward.
 

Pete.Sampras.

Semi-Pro
1995 Wimbledon: Becker vs Sampras.

Sampras won in four after losing the first set. Becker is my favourite player and it was his last appearance in a W final. I wish Becker would have won, so this...
 

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
Yup, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Jimbo fan. But I like to think I'm reasonably objective about his and the other early Open Era guys' standing among later generations of top dogs. Mac, Connors, Borg, Nasty, Vitas, Newk, Ashe, Vilas - those guys paved the road our latter day stat/records gobbling favorites are walking. They got a lot of modern players paid with their efforts before the sport started to make sense of itself and offer more stable bases for evaluation starting in the mid 80s, and in particular from 1990 onward.
Ha, I was only half being serious, my comment was made mostly in jest. I don't doubt your objectivity at all. As has become clear in our future debates since then regarding Nadal vs Djoker at USO (and both vs Agassi) and in the rivalries thread regarding Nole vs Fed or against each man vs Nadal we just have a slight difference in philosophy that tends to cause minor rifts in our otherwise very similar rankings.

When two players are fairly close in career, I tend to value body of work, consistency, and look at overall pure raw numbers vs the field to separate the two, while you tend to put a larger emphasis on isolated instances of big matches to see who did best when the lights were on brightest, and more heavily weigh head to head if in the same era. You also like to rate off court elements such as impact on the sport, cultural transcendence, value against the general public more so than I do.

I think you could sort of say we are a spectrum:

On one end you have Timenz who is purely 100% about raw numbers, body of work, and totality of accomplishments.

Next you have me who values most of that, but places a much higher degree of emphasis on wins (especially at slams) vs Runner-Ups as shown by his valuation of a Slam Final being worth 60% of a Slam Win. This takes into account a small degree of cultural significance/impact/perception, but more largely weights the actual numbers.

Next you have you who values wins in a similar manner to me, but everything else to a lesser degree than I do instead favoring some more of the mainstream tenants such as the big match, the head to head, and non-tangible elements like impact.

On the other end you have the mainstream community which pretty much values nothing besides Slam wins and head-to-head and even views Slam Final loses as actually a detriment against a player.
 

Jam

Semi-Pro
well Murray is my favourite player so in terms of finals:

hmmm well the ones he lost he was fairly beaten so maybe 2010 against Fed.

For Fed well I really wanted Fed to win Oz 2009 against Nadal as I could see the writing on the wall for him as far as Nadal was concerned. So that or maybe 08 Wimby (although at the time I was indifferent who won wimpy).

Djokovic - well 2011 semi (but you don't win that), so 2012 or 2014 french or maybe even 2013 us to protect his hard court record. that last one was a bad loss. dunno really.

I'd like djoko to regain his hard court slam advantage over Nadal, Fed to win 1 more slam and Murray most importantly to get it together and get 2 more slams. Nadal can also win more but I think I'd prefer Fed to have the overall slam record so Nadal doesn't take everything from him. Co-goats is fine. Djoko just behind say 10-12 slams and Murray say 4 or 5 slams as a tier 3 great sounds about right for the era.
 

eldanger25

Hall of Fame
Ha, I was only half being serious, my comment was made mostly in jest. I don't doubt your objectivity at all. As has become clear in our future debates since then regarding Nadal vs Djoker at USO (and both vs Agassi) and in the rivalries thread regarding Nole vs Fed or against each man vs Nadal we just have a slight difference in philosophy that tends to cause minor rifts in our otherwise very similar rankings.

When two players are fairly close in career, I tend to value body of work, consistency, and look at overall pure raw numbers vs the field to separate the two, while you tend to put a larger emphasis on isolated instances of big matches to see who did best when the lights were on brightest, and more heavily weigh head to head if in the same era. You also like to rate off court elements such as impact on the sport, cultural transcendence, value against the general public more so than I do.

I think you could sort of say we are a spectrum:

On one end you have Timenz who is purely 100% about raw numbers, body of work, and totality of accomplishments.

Next you have me who values most of that, but places a much higher degree of emphasis on wins (especially at slams) vs Runner-Ups as shown by his valuation of a Slam Final being worth 60% of a Slam Win. This takes into account a small degree of cultural significance/impact/perception, but more largely weights the actual numbers.

Next you have you who values wins in a similar manner to me, but everything else to a lesser degree than I do instead favoring some more of the mainstream tenants such as the big match, the head to head, and non-tangible elements like impact.

On the other end you have the mainstream community which pretty much values nothing besides Slam wins and head-to-head and even views Slam Final loses as actually a detriment against a player.
Solid summary - some philosophical differences between us, but where would the conversation go without them?
 
biggest for me......edberg win over chang in the french open final would put him in GOAT category as a serve and volleyer.

second.......rafter wimbledon win over sampras or goran would have put him at another level confidence wise and he probably would have played a bit longer.

i would have liked to see henman win wimbledon but he never got to a final.

hewitt winning austrailia against safin would have been great and probably extended his hunger a bit longer.
Perhaps not against Goran. Like Rafter has alluded to before, he might just have saved Goran's life by losing.

I would like to change the 2009 Wimby final to Roddick winning. Just for closure.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
well Murray is my favourite player so in terms of finals:

hmmm well the ones he lost he was fairly beaten so maybe 2010 against Fed.

For Fed well I really wanted Fed to win Oz 2009 against Nadal as I could see the writing on the wall for him as far as Nadal was concerned. So that or maybe 08 Wimby (although at the time I was indifferent who won wimpy).

Djokovic - well 2011 semi (but you don't win that), so 2012 or 2014 french or maybe even 2013 us to protect his hard court record. that last one was a bad loss. dunno really.

I'd like djoko to regain his hard court slam advantage over Nadal, Fed to win 1 more slam and Murray most importantly to get it together and get 2 more slams. Nadal can also win more but I think I'd prefer Fed to have the overall slam record so Nadal doesn't take everything from him. Co-goats is fine. Djoko just behind say 10-12 slams and Murray say 4 or 5 slams as a tier 3 great sounds about right for the era.
Nadal doesn't take everything from him. Fed would still have the weeks at no.1, the WTF and the dominance of HC and grass, 2 surfaces vs Nadal's 1 surface, clay
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Fed 2005 AO. He wins that one and he has 4 straight 3 slam seasons and complete domination over the non clay slams for 4 straight years.

Also he would have been the only player in history to win 3 different slams at least 4 consecutive times each
 

robok9

Semi-Pro
Fed - (other than one of the french open finals) 2008 wimbledon. Would have been 6 straight wimbys and maybe 7 depending on his 2009 result. Fed would have maintained perfect 3-0 record against Nadal on grass which would hurt the claims that Rafa is better.

Djokovic- 2012/2014 French. Obviously the career slam. Also, 2014 would have ended that drought of losing slam finals and give the #1 ranking.

Nadal- 2014 AO. At a time when Rafa seemed unbeatable, he was beaten. Would have given him more confidence, complete double career slam, and going into Wimbledon would have had chances for calendar slam.

Murray- 2008 US Open. At an early time in his career, he could have secured a spot as equal with the other big names. Rather, he was considered the "little brother" of the big 4. Also would have saved him a lot of grief before winning his first slam in 2012.

I would WANT the Fed and Djoker ones to happen, but not the latter 2.
 

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
Yeah, in some ways the USO defeat last year hurt more than the one at RG. I hate it when Nole loses to Nadal on HC. :mad:
For sure, I honestly had no expectations for Nole to win RG last year especially with how he was playing at Rome/Madrid. Obviously being up a break in the 5th hurt when it got to that point though.

The USO Final was devastating. Leading up to that event it was Murray I was concerned with after USO 12 and Wimby 13. Never expected Nole to lose to Nadal.

Shocking that after USO 2011, Wimby 14 was his first slam win outside of his home slam and Nadal got one before him.
 
I can't believe no other Nadal fan thinks this way but 2007 Wimbledon is obviously the slam final every Rafa fan should wish he had won.

Who cares about 2012 AO? It is better for Nadal's legacy that Djokovic ends up as the Australian Open GOAT.

But winning 2007 Wimbledon would mean so many awesome things:

1) The slam margin is 16-15 rather than the more daunting 17-14

2) Nadal has 3 channel slams

3) Nadal has a 3-2 Wimbledon Finals record rather than vice versa

4) Nadal has a winning h2h vs Federer on every surface
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
For sure, I honestly had no expectations for Nole to win RG last year especially with how he was playing at Rome/Madrid. Obviously being up a break in the 5th hurt when it got to that point though.

The USO Final was devastating. Leading up to that event it was Murray I was concerned with after USO 12 and Wimby 13. Never expected Nole to lose to Nadal.

Shocking that after USO 2011, Wimby 14 was his first slam win outside of his home slam and Nadal got one before him.
Home Slam? :confused:
 
Top