In the final analysis, Federer actually came closer to the CYGS (TWICE)

[Sudacafan]

After winning the Australian Open, neither Federer nor Nadal won Roland Garros. So, their road ended there for the CYGS. Nole was in contention in 2016 (ended by Querrey) and 2021 (ended by Medvedev).

Being the usual winner of the AO, Djokovic will normally be the player who comes closer to the CYGS more often.

 

[Amen786]

No, no and no. Federer never won the AO-FO double and therefore Courier was actually closer than Federer.

Well that's the difference between playing a young lion nadal & an injured nadal.

 

[Amen786]

Lol I don't agree that Fed came anywhere close to CYGS.. But if we are talking hypothetical scenarios then yes Fed 2006 potentially could have done it if he didn't have to contend with peak Rafa on clay

This.

 

[adil1972]

do players have to operate bank account in every country where they play tournaments to receive prize money

how do they transfer prize money from guest country to their home country bank account

 

[ForehandRF]

This.

Nadal was beatable in that 2006 French Open final, but Federer couldn't get over the loss in Rome.If anything, Rog should not be excused for facing prime Nadal at RG that year

 

[Amen786]

Nadal was beatable in that 2006 French Open final, but Federer couldn't get over the loss in Rome.If anything, Rog should not be excused for facing prime Nadal at RG that year

Well yes nadal was beatable. I wonder why federer abandoned the rome 2006 strategy though. (Not surprised because he's an idiot in terms of tactics) because that was closest I've ever seen anybody outplaying an extremely good nadal on clay in best of five sets format & actually gaining huge momentum. I mean look at the set number 2.

But the problem with federer is that his biggest shots let him down in the critical moments in history, forehand and serve. With all the talks of his backhand being poor & 2nd serve return being unclutch, its actually the serve & forehand which start misfiring big time in big moments and let him down.
2005 australia open semi :- forehand in set 4
2006 rome open final :- two floating sitter forehand misses on match points
2008 Wimbledon final :- wild misses in that 0-30 game in set 5
2009 australia open final :- serve offline for the match, wild forehand misses in the critical 9th 0-40 nadal service game in set 3
2009 us open final :- forehand & serve errors in set 2 from 5-4 30-0 up to go two sets up
2011 us open semi :- easy forehand putaway shanked into net on 2nd match point. 40-15 bloody choker roflmao.
2014 Wimbledon final :- overhead (kind of serve) miss to gain a crucial 0-30 lead in 9th game in set 5
2015 us open final :- wild forehand shanks everywhere on break points.
2019 Wimbledon final :- do I need to explain this? Djokovic could barely read his service that day, and yet roger found away to mess up with himself and lose a service game from 40-15 up. Choker.

 

[Amen786]

Lmao, im black homie. (not to mention you clearly didn't get what I was saying) Go back to sleep.

What a poor lie and defence after being caught out for open racism. "I'm black homie". No way I'm believing this.
I thought you were a good poster from whatever interactions we had in last 2 weeks or so.
but seriously, this is a SHAME...
I HOPE ALLAH GRANTS YOU WITH NON RACIST MENTALITY.

 

[MichaelNadal]

What a poor lie and defence after being caught out for open racism. "I'm black homie". No way I'm believing this.
I thought you were a good poster from whatever interactions we had in last 2 weeks or so.
but seriously, this is a SHAME...
I HOPE ALLAH GRANTS YOU WITH NON RACIST MENTALITY.

Stop pretending to be new with your dupe account lol, it's like decade old news that I'm black

 

[ForehandRF]

Well yes nadal was beatable. I wonder why federer abandoned the rome 2006 strategy though. (Not surprised because he's an idiot in terms of tactics) because that was closest I've ever seen anybody outplaying an extremely good nadal on clay in best of five sets format & actually gaining huge momentum. I mean look at the set number 2.

But the problem with federer is that his biggest shots let him down in the critical moments in history, forehand and serve. With all the talks of his backhand being poor & 2nd serve return being unclutch, its actually the serve & forehand which start misfiring big time in big moments and let him down.
2005 australia open semi :- forehand in set 4
2006 rome open final :- two floating sitter forehand misses on match points
2008 Wimbledon final :- wild misses in that 0-30 game in set 5
2009 australia open final :- serve offline for the match, wild forehand misses in the critical 9th 0-40 nadal service game in set 3
2009 us open final :- forehand & serve errors in set 2 from 5-4 30-0 up to go two sets up
2011 us open semi :- easy forehand putaway shanked into net on 2nd match point. 40-15 bloody choker roflmao.
2014 Wimbledon final :- overhead (kind of serve) miss to gain a crucial 0-30 lead in 9th game in set 5
2015 us open final :- wild forehand shanks everywhere on break points.
2019 Wimbledon final :- do I need to explain this? Djokovic could barely read his service that day, and yet roger found away to mess up with himself and lose a service game from 40-15 up. Choker.

Well you can't win them all and he also won slams that he arguably should have lost.Still, his shot selection has sometimes been poor in the tightest moments, it's in his nature

 

[Amen786]

Stop pretending to be new with your dupe account lol, it's like decade old news that I'm black

If that is the case then I apologise for misjudgement. But its still not good to use that term even if you're Black.

And if there's something I am duping or pretending, its definitely not my presence on this website.

 

[Amen786]

Well you can't win them all and he also won slams that he arguably should have lost.Still, his shot selection has sometimes been poor in the tightest moments, it's in his nature

Naah he's just a tactical idiot and a choker. That's all.
He won less "should have lost" slams than he loss "should have won" slams.

 

[GoldenMasters]

I know you guys dislike Djoker but no need to start bs threads with no logic. Those who get the closest need to win the slams in a row from AO to FO or WIMB not act like oh had he won this final blabla. Sorry it doesn't work like that.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Joker is 1st, but I would put Borg '78 next. Had he not had the blister, he would have been the massive favorite at AO.

You’re assuming Borg would have beaten Connors even without the blister. That’s a pretty far leap of logic when Connors won the USO five times and Borg never won it.

1978 was also the first year it was played at Flushing Meadows and Borg said several times it was very difficult for him to get used to the venue and especially the lights during night matches.

 

[RaulRamirez]

It's one thing to say that Player A, in hindsight, had a better slam season than Player B - even though Player A lost in the second slam. It's another (actually, it's fallacious) to say that Player A came closer to achieving the GS.

In hindsight, maybe Djok15 had a better slam season than Djok21. But he came closer to the CYGS in 2021. Why is this a tough concept?

If an NFL team goes 15-1, but lost its 8th game of the season (assuming a 16-game schedule), it did not come as close as a 15-1 team that started 15-0 to having an undefeated regular season. And no, it doesn't matter what their margin of victory was, or whether their star player was injured. That's all part of the deal.

 

[zagor]

But if fed had won against Nadal in RG 07, he'd be clearly more confident and Nadal less at Wimbledon.

Yes but he'd have more pressure to defend Wimbledon after winning FO to get closer to CYGS.

Either way, I think Wimbledon final that year was destined to be an epic decided by few points. Don't think confidence would have played a factor that much in that match, they were both playing some absolutely amazing tennis and holding nothing back.

 

[zagor]

I think if Rafa doesn't tweak his knee in 2010 Aussie QF, he wins it that year. He was unstoppable from 2009-2010. Only injury and Robin hurt him.

But it's a silly head game to play. None of them did it. Nole came closest. And that's all she wrote.

He was healthy in the 1st against Murray that he lost IIRC. And Nadal is never a safe bet in AO, there's a reason he only has one title there.

 

[heninfan99]

'88 Wilander for the win!

 

[vex]

I know Djokovic's run this year was the most dramatic because he took it down to the very last match out of the 28 grand slam matches needed to achieve the CYGS, but he fell at 25/28 sets needed. Federer, actually came closer to Novak's '21 run twice. In fact, Novak was closer in '15 than this year.

Here is the breakdown of how the Big 3 have fared in getting those 28 sets:

Federer:

2006 - 26/28
2007 - 26/28

Djokovic

2015 - 26/28
2021 - 25/28

Nadal:

2010 - 19/28
2019 - 21/28

Your math is blowing my mind.
…
No srsly, you f’d up the math lolz

 

[Julian Houston]

Yes Djokovic had the correct order, but the point is he would never even have reached that point had he faced 06 or 07 Nadal at the FO like Federer did. Sorry, not happening.

The luck of night semi. Federer never faced Nadal at night on RG.

 

[Thetouch]

Federer couldn't even win 4 in a row when he had the chance to do that from RG 2009 to AO 2010, he still only won 3.

 

[diggler]

Federer was never going to beat Nadal at the French. He was never close. Closer than Sampras though.

 

[PerilousPear]

As if losing in the final of the Roland Garros helped him in New York in 06 and 07?

Regardless of he winning/losing 06 and 07 FOs he would have roasted Roddick and young Novak in the finals, it was a no brainer, Federer was too strong for his field at his peak, he surged so far ahead out of the blue that even touching him was unthinkable in his peak, only Nadal did it on clay and that was because he himself was a GOAT level guy at the very peak of his powers without any injury or anything to bother him.

The bolded parts shouldn't belong in a same sentence.

 

[zvelf]

But it's a silly head game to play. None of them did it. Nole came closest. And that's all she wrote.

This. What actually happened is what matters. People can speculate all they want without full context of every possible factor involved, come up with unprovable hypotheticals, make assumptions they can't possibly know are true, but in the end, none of that takes precedence over what actually happened and what is in the record books.

 

[mental midget]

You can't say that, because we've seen now twice in the past 10 years just how the pressure builds as you get closer and closer to the end of that long road. If Federer had won either of those Roland Garros finals you don't know what state he would have been in come New York. The pressure might have broken him too.

true, hard to say ultimately. but federer was rolling back then in a way i'm not sure even novak was this year. not so much grinding people down as just handing out lessons left and right.

 

[travlerajm]

I think 2006 Fed was playing at a much higher level than 2021 Djok, and had a pseudo-legitimate shot to beat Nadal in the French.

In contrast, in 2021, public perception of Djokovic’s level was much higher than reality going into the 2021 US Open final, and the outcome wasn’t a surprise to anyone who pays close enough attention to look beyond the hype.

 

[ibbi]

true, hard to say ultimately. but federer was rolling back then in a way i'm not sure even novak was this year. not so much grinding people down as just handing out lessons left and right.

I mean I agree, it's likely he would have, but as others have pointed out... In reality he didn't even get half way there. It's also not like we haven't seen pressure get to Federer. I feel like that had at least something to do with the loss and reaction in Australia in 2009, or even his less than optimum performance for 4 sets of the Wimbledon final that year. Granted, he wasn't playing anyone like 2009 Oz Nadal at the 2006 US Open, but in 2007 he played a bunch of closely contested matches that could have gone either way if you add the obviously immense pressure of what he would have been going for, especially as he plays a lower percentage style of tennis more likely to break down in those sorts of situations.

 

[roysid]

We don't know what would have happened in 2007 had he won RG, his mentality was a big part in winning the finals of Wimbledon and USO, and that might have been different had he won RG and had the Grand Slam pressure.

But in 2006 if he had won RG he would have won the Grand Slam, little argument there.

Agree with this

 

[roysid]

Novak was definitely closer, that much is indisputable. The pressure, the expectations, etc. all weigh considerably more heavily on someone in the process of completing the last few stages of a CYGS. It's really no comparison at all to someone who missed out on his chance midway through and was relatively free from that kind of pressure in the last two Slams.

But Djokovic most likely wouldn't have been if he had 2006 or 2007 Nadal on clay instead of 2021 Nadal to deal with, however, so I don't think that argument actually means a whole lot in the long run if we're comparing him to 2006 or 2007 Federer.

Yep. And also 2017-19 Nadal whips him hard

 

[Gazelle]

Fed was also 2 sets away in 2009.

 

[Rhino]

Didn’t Fed have a walkover in 2007 (Wimbledon vs Haas)? So that’s one less match.

But anyway, peak Nadal on clay would be a lot tougher than Medvedev at the USO, so a component of this topic is just pure luck of the draw.

 

[King No1e]

I know Djokovic's run this year was the most dramatic because he took it down to the very last match out of the 28 grand slam matches needed to achieve the CYGS, but he fell 3 sets short of what was needed. Federer, actually came closer to Novak's '21 run twice. In fact, Novak was closer in '15 than this year.

Here is the breakdown of how the Big 3 have fared in getting the necessary sets required to win all four GS:

Federer:

2006: -2 sets required
2007: -2 sets required

Djokovic

2015: -2 sets required
2021: -3 sets required

Nadal:

2010: -9 sets required
2019: -7 sets required

Federer was never beating Nadal at RG, ever. Djokovic had better chances against Wawrinka and Medvedev.

 

[kishnabe]

Put 2006-7 Federer in 2021 Draws, CYGS easily.

Put 2021 Djokovic in 2006-07 Draws, 1 slam max (No FO, humiliations in the hands of a Prime Nadal that can run rabbits around the court).

 

[TennisLurker]

In 2004 Federer lost to Kuerten quite easily in straight sets (Kuerten lost in the next round to Nalbandian, I think Kuerten may have had hip pain in that match, or perhaps Nalbandian simply won the duel of backhands).
On clay he also lost to Costa, the 2002 RG Champion.
And he won a close three sets matches against Gaudio in Hamburg, like 75 in the third set iirc. So, the top clay courters before Nadal domination, weren't easy for 2004 Federer.

But I think it may have been his best chance, all he needed was not getting Kuerten in the first rounds, a better draw.
Coria was a never a problem for Federer.

 

[martinezownsclay]

Considering you aren't certain to still win the U.S Open with the pressure of trying for a Grand Slam (the building pressure can even cause defeat at Wimbledon) that logic is flawed.

Like does anyone believe Serena still loses the 2015 US Open if she weren't going for a Calendar Grand Slam? That she can't beat Vinci and Pennetta in her final 2 matches to win the U.S Open, if it weren't for trying to complete a Grand Slam. Or Navratilova still loses at the 84 Australian Open to Sukova. Or possibly, although I am less sure of this one, Djokovic still loses at the 2021 U.S Open.

You aren't even really 2 sets away when you lose the battle at Roland Garros.

And that aside Federer ever beating Nadal in a RG final was always more impossible/never going to happen kind of thing, than say Djokovic even winning the exact U.S Open final vs Medvedev he lost in straight sets.

 

[TripleATeam]

Put 2006-7 Federer in 2021 Draws, CYGS easily.

Put 2021 Djokovic in 2006-07 Draws, 1 slam max (No FO, humiliations in the hands of a Prime Nadal that can run rabbits around the court).

Oh easily. 2021 Djoker has only chances at AO, and Federer would steamroll 2021 Nadal and everyone else at RG. Plus everywhere else, assuming USO 2006/2007 Federer doesn't let the pressure get to him.

But that doesn't mean he was closer to the CYGS in 06/07.

 

[Backspin1183]

If that is the case then I apologise for misjudgement. But its still not good to use that term even if you're Black.

And if there's something I am duping or pretending, its definitely not my presence on this website.

I wouldn't worry over it. Some posters on here are just suspicious for no reason. They probably suspect you're a formerly banned poster @HetTheGreaterer. Just ignore them.

 

[Amen786]

I wouldn't worry over it. Some posters on here are just suspicious for no reason. They probably suspect you're a formerly banned poster @HetTheGreaterer. Just ignore them.

Yes I even got a direct message from one of them regarding the same and some 3-4 posts regarding that too.
Its actually very frustrating to be honest.

 

[jondice]

He was healthy in the 1st against Murray that he lost IIRC. And Nadal is never a safe bet in AO, there's a reason he only has one title there.

I agree that he hasn't been a safe bet at the AO post 2012, but in 2010? He didn't have any bad mental mojo to contend with. He'd won it the previous year in glorious fashion. I think he win it if not for the knee... But I know I'm very, very biased!

 

[onyxrose81]

I’ve officially read everything on this board.

 

[BGod]

I agree with the sentiment that stringing together the Slam victories makes it harder. And look, in Fed's case maybe that's why it was harder for him to keep steady and win 2005 AO and 2009 USO but in 2006 given how his 2007 came out I think he was at about as strong as he ever would be mentally and specifically that French Open he absolutely could have beaten Nadal in the final. So yeah, in 2006 I'd say he was closer in capability of completing the Calendar Slam than Novak in 2021 because of how many sets Djokovic dropped and how thoroughly destroyed he was in the final. Can anyone seriously think Fed would have played the USO somehow that much worse if he was gunning for it? For a refresher, Fed only dropped one set on route to the final, that being a 9-11 third set breaker against James Blake, he faced Roddick in the final and beat him 6-1 in the final fourth set. Now granted the third set was close so maybe a more nervous Roger gets pushed to 5 sets or even loses in 5 to Roddick but that would still be closer than 2021 USO Novak.

 

[FedrMatt]

You can't say that, because we've seen now twice in the past 10 years just how the pressure builds as you get closer and closer to the end of that long road. If Federer had won either of those Roland Garros finals you don't know what state he would have been in come New York. The pressure might have broken him too.

There was absolutely no way Federer was losing the USO in 2006

2007 you might have a case, but 2006? No.

 

[Deleted member 748597]

I wouldn't worry over it. Some posters on here are just suspicious for no reason. They probably suspect you're a formerly banned poster @HetTheGreaterer. Just ignore them.

Lmao.

 

[Patogen]

You guys realize that the alternative universe in which Fed beats Rafa in 06 or/and 07 also presents the possibility of Fed losing or even not making the Wimby / USO finals afterwards, right? Those events are connected.

So he wasn't really closer.

EVER.

 

[mr tonyz]

Fed was toying with the field in 2006 on HC/grass, I doubt CYGS pressure would have fazed him. In general, Fed's problem was dealing with Djokodal specifically (especially once the age gap started working in their favour) not the big stage pressure per say, he wouldn't have won 20 slams otherwise.

People forget that Fed used to be a tough cookie mentally in his peak years, he had ridiculous amount of confidence.

Fred was inches away from losing both of the first 2 sets to Djoker in the '07 final. Try repeating that year & see where the cookie crumbles. That QF with Roddick serving absolute bombs & Fred taking the first 2 sets in breakers (5 & 4). Matches like those would be a lot tougher mentally for a guy with the weight of history on his shoulders. These things matter @ the highest level.

 

[zagor]

Fred was inches away from losing both of the first 2 sets to Djoker in the '07 final. Try repeating that year & see where the cookie crumbles. That QF with Roddick serving absolute bombs & Fred taking the first 2 sets in breakers (5 & 4). Matches like those would be a lot tougher mentally for a guy with the weight of history on his shoulders. These things matter @ the highest level.

I said 2006, not 2007.

If Fed was meant to win CYGS, 2006 would have been the year. In 2007 field was closing the gap already.

 

[Breakpointerer]

Novak was clearly closer, there's no doubt about that.
Could Federer have won the CYGS in 06/07 if he had beaten Rafa in those French Open finals? We'll never know. I do think if Federer was going to do it, 2006 would have been the year rather than 2007 because of how much more comfortably he won W/USO that year. Either way no point of discussing it now lmao, what happen-ned happen-ned and here we are

 

[BeatlesFan]

If that is the case then I apologise for misjudgement. But its still not good to use that term even if you're Black.

What term... "Homie?" Are you kidding? That term is ubiquitous in California and probably where MN is as well about 2,000 miles from here. There's nothing racist about the word "homie." Is this a joke or something?

 

[King No1e]

What term... "Homie?" Are you kidding? That term is ubiquitous in California and probably where MN is as well about 2,000 miles from here. There's nothing racist about the word "homie." Is this a joke or something?

He didn't say homie IIRC, he said a more controversial word that nevertheless doesn't deserve a ban.

 

[goldengate14]

Federer was definitely closer.

 

[Amen786]

What term... "Homie?" Are you kidding? That term is ubiquitous in California and probably where MN is as well about 2,000 miles from here. There's nothing racist about the word "homie." Is this a joke or something?

Not homie. The word starting with N.