Ljubicic "He changed the sport, Wimbledon 2019 the big regret"

P

pj80

Legend
Ivan Ljubicic, Federer's last coach, praised the Swiss champion this way on the day of his retirement announcement to the microphones of Sky Sports: "Roger is elegance, he is class, but above all he has won so much. The first image of him that comes to mind? The scary numbers, like winning the title of most beloved player 19 years in a row. Most of all, though, he took tennis to another level. Everyone else, including me, chased him and had to improve to keep up with him. He broke the ice, the others came later and as is normal in some ways they even surpassed him.

He raised the bar from all points of view," Ljubicic continued, "Everyone will now be sad not to see him play anymore, even though he said he loved tennis too much to stop playing. He showed everyone that you can play and win at 36-37 years old. He changed the sport. He was the first to dominate 52 weeks a year. Before him we had Borg, McEnroe, Sampras, Agassi, for goodness sake, but he was the first one to show everybody that you can win all the time. He made 17 finals in 18 Slams in a row, he had impressive continuity. He brought continuity to tennis. He has brought beautiful tennis and he is leaving it just as beautiful because Alcaraz, the No. 1 today, plays spectacular tennis that is beautiful to watch."

Finally, a confession: "Biggest regret? The 2019 Wimbledon final, indigestible even with time. But the Australian Open win against Nadal was an indescribable joy and never experienced before."


Coach Federer: "He changed the sport, Wimbledon 2019 the big regret" (msn.com)
 
DSH said:
Not even the bald Croatian has digested one of the greatest sports chokes of all time.
:X3:
Click to expand...
Well...it's hard to say if it was a choke. I think even if that situation was replayed, Djokovic would still break back because he's done it several times before in prior meetings.
 
Hitman said:
Yeah W 2019 will always be known as his biggest loss, especially as time marches on. But it doesn't really erase all the greatness he had shown over the course of his career.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, it takes him out of the the GOAT debate. No doubt about it.
 
The Fedfather said:
Like which ones?
Click to expand...
He had some very difficult matches in earlier rounds of the majors he won. And some he got a little lucky due to some choking from the opponent. Many of the majors were competitive. Wimbledon 2009 final against Roddick was very close. Wimbledon 2007 final against Nadal he was facing BPs in the 5th set. US Open 2007 final he was hardly the better player in those first 2 sets. RG2009 he had a lot of trouble with Haas and Del Potro. AO2017 he had to come back from a break down in the final in the 5th.
 
joekapa said:
With all due respect, it takes him out of the the GOAT debate. No doubt about it.
Click to expand...

People need to understand that GOAT is not a real thing, Federer will be seen as third in this era for being surpassed by Nadal and Djokovic.
 
Mike Sams said:
He had some very difficult matches in earlier rounds of the majors he won. And some he got a little lucky due to some choking from the opponent. Many of the majors were competitive. Wimbledon 2009 final against Roddick was very close. Wimbledon 2007 final against Nadal he was facing BPs in the 5th set. US Open 2007 final he was hardly the better player in those first 2 sets. RG2009 he had a lot of trouble with Haas and Del Potro. AO2017 he had to come back from a break down in the final in the 5th.
Click to expand...
You could say Roger had some luck, for sure. But if we call the instances you cite as "won barely by the skin of teeth", what do we call Djokovic's titles where he was saving multiple MPs? It doesn't really balance out.
 
The Fedfather said:
Like which ones?
Click to expand...


Fed won 11 of his 20 without even reaching a 5th…and even for most of those he wasn’t “lucky”:

04 USO QF: storm-like winds against the best wind player of his era, wins each set cleanly by a break.

06 AO R4: wins the first two handily, and the 5th by a double break

07 Wimby F: wins his first two sets without ever being behind, and the 5th by a double break

08 USO R4: nip-and-tuck match where Fed’s DR was 1.10, not “lucky”

09 RG R4: finally a worthy example lol, but still not lucky…Fed was the far better player in set 1 (3.92 dominance ratio, 0 service points lost before the TB) yet lost it, saved that BP late in the third with a third-ball winner and went on to win sets 4 and 5 handily.

09 RG SF: another nip-and-tuck match where Fed was marginally better but either guy could’ve won. Stretch to call that lucky.

09 Wimby F: alright, maybe lolz..but even here he’s the far better player on a per-point basis.


12 Wimby R3: Fed comfortably the better player in 2 of the 5 sets, splits the two tiebreakers. Bum-clenching stuff, but not luck.


17 AO: on the fortunate side to get through three 5-setters in one tournament, but he was the better player in all three.

18 AO F: by far the better player in that match, gifted set 4 and won the 5th by a double break.


Fed tended to win by huge margins and lose by small ones…for better or worse that’s almost always been the case. He’s definitely lost a disproportionate amount of nail-biters, whether through muggery or misfortune.
 
Last edited:
TheFifthSet said:
Fed won 11 of his 20 without even reaching a 5th…and even for most of those he wasn’t “lucky”:

04 USO QF: storm-like winds against the best wind player of his era, wins each set cleanly by a break.

06 AO R4: wins the first two handily, and the 5th by a double break

07 Wimby F: wins his first two sets without ever being behind, and the 5th by a double break

08 USO R4: nip-and-tuck match where Fed’s DR was 1.10, not “lucky”

09 RG R4: finally a worthy example lol, but still not lucky…Fed was the far better player in set 1 (3.92 dominance ratio, 0 service points lost before the TB) yet lost it, saved that BP late in the third with a third-ball winner and went on to win sets 4 and 5 handily.

09 RG SF: another nip-and-tuck match where Fed was marginally better but either guy could’ve won. Stretch to call that lucky.

09 Wimby F: alright, maybe lolz


12 Wimby R4: Fed comfortably the better player in 2 of the 5 sets, splits the two tiebreakers. Bum-clenching stuff, but not luck.


17 AO: on the fortunate side to get through three 5-setters in one tournament, but he was the better player in all three.

18 AO F: by far the better player in that match, gifted set 4 and won the 5th by a double break.


Fed tended to win by huge margins and lose by small ones…for better or worse that’s almost always been the case. He’s definitely lost a disproportionate amount of nail-biters, whether through muggery or misfortune.
Click to expand...
Exactly! Thank you for breaking it down :) But really, Federer and 'won by the skin of teeth' don't go along really well in comparing him to Novak. Losing by the skin is more like it :notworthy:
 
Dont see why it would hurt so much now as Nadal ended 2 slams in front so had he won the match he would have still not held the slam record which makes it much less big a deal historically speaking. Connors gets lauded to the heavens for making a SF run at Us Open in 1991 aged 39. Federer was 38 and got within a point of winning Wimbledon so cant say its a regret at all. It adds to his legacy clearly
 
The Fedfather said:
Exactly! Thank you for breaking it down :) But really, Federer and 'won by the skin of teeth' don't go along really well in comparing him to Novak. Losing by the skin is more like it :notworthy:
Click to expand...

Definitely.

Heck not only is ‘won by the skin of his teeth’ not apt I’d go a step further and say there isn’t an
ATG in the Open Era that won the biggies by more convincing margins off clay.
 
joekapa said:
The GOAT debate was started by Federer and his publicity team initially. So there is no use in complaining about it now.
Click to expand...

That’s so off-base it’s head-scratching. Fed has typically demurred that kind of talk, and has shown a healthy respect for the older players. Whether justified or not, it was the media engaging in the early GOAT talk, on their own volition. Mac was raising the possibility as early as ‘04.

Also, it was in the 90’s that the obsession with major count/GOAT-hood started.
 
Last edited:
TheFifthSet said:
Fed won 11 of his 20 without even reaching a 5th…and even for most of those he wasn’t “lucky”:

04 USO QF: storm-like winds against the best wind player of his era, wins each set cleanly by a break.

06 AO R4: wins the first two handily, and the 5th by a double break

07 Wimby F: wins his first two sets without ever being behind, and the 5th by a double break

08 USO R4: nip-and-tuck match where Fed’s DR was 1.10, not “lucky”

09 RG R4: finally a worthy example lol, but still not lucky…Fed was the far better player in set 1 (3.92 dominance ratio, 0 service points lost before the TB) yet lost it, saved that BP late in the third with a third-ball winner and went on to win sets 4 and 5 handily.

09 RG SF: another nip-and-tuck match where Fed was marginally better but either guy could’ve won. Stretch to call that lucky.

09 Wimby F: alright, maybe lolz


12 Wimby R4: Fed comfortably the better player in 2 of the 5 sets, splits the two tiebreakers. Bum-clenching stuff, but not luck.


17 AO: on the fortunate side to get through three 5-setters in one tournament, but he was the better player in all three.

18 AO F: by far the better player in that match, gifted set 4 and won the 5th by a double break.


Fed tended to win by huge margins and lose by small ones…for better or worse that’s almost always been the case. He’s definitely lost a disproportionate amount of nail-biters, whether through muggery or misfortune.
Click to expand...
At AO 2006 I'd add the Davydenko match. To me it was closer than the Haas match and Fed barely squeaked by.
 
mike danny said:
At AO 2006 I'd add the Davydenko match. To me it was closer than the Haas match and Fed barely squeaked by.
Click to expand...

sure, but for any match that ends in 4 I need extremely aberrant stuff to happen to call into question the final outcome. Davy not capitalizing on a few opportunities ain’t that.
 
40-15 is another meme that we will always remember

But credit to Roger for beating Novak in straight sets at YEC after the heart breaking loss . We will see if Rafa or Novak are able to match that or for that matter get to No 1 at age 36
 
TheFifthSet said:
That’s so off-base it’s head-scratching. Fed has typically always demurred that kind of talk, and has shown a healthy respect for the older players. Whether justified or not, it was the media engaging in the early GOAT talk, on their own volition. Mac was raising the question as early as ‘04.

Also, it was in the 90’s that the obsession with major count/GOAT-hood escalated.
Click to expand...
He NEVER played it down. That's one reason I never warmed to him. Remember the ad for Net Jets ? And let's not mention the various Rolex ads.

He more than encouraged it.
 
joekapa said:
It's not. They played into it. He NEVER denied it.....he approved those obnoxious ads with his publicist.
Click to expand...

It actually, objectively, is lol…the GOAT debate didn’t start with Fed’s publicity team. Not a subjective thing here. The effusive praise and GOAT coronations started long before any NetsJets ads (oh let’s have a cow, Federer didn’t actively rebuke his sponsors, yikes!)

You’re a Sampras fan, yes? Well I imagine you know that mainstream acceptance of him as “GOAT” started after he passed Emerson in majors…a guy who was, max, 4th best in his own era (Gonzo, Laver, Rosewall). I like Pete (and in no way hold this against him), but that’s about as farcical as it gets. And Sampras was no stranger to opining that he’s the best on his best day or, heck, even explicitly comparing himself favourably to other players (Q: “what’s the difference between you and Rafter” A: “10 slams”, LOL).
 
Last edited:
NatF said:
I think 2019 is overblown, yes it was a bitter loss to be within one point of beating his two younger great rivals back to back is legendary in itself.
Click to expand...
Yep. People view it kind of like Federer almost hit jackpot in a lottery but missed out in the end. Federer's amazing feat of coming that close to victory at almost 38 gets ridiculously overlooked. This is one problem with sports being extremely title-centric.
 
NatF said:
I think 2019 is overblown, yes it was a bitter loss but to be within one point of beating his two younger great rivals back to back is legendary in itself.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the choke was baaaaad but if he lost a tight 4-setter (or heck even a tight straight-setter like 08/11 AO) no one would have cared. That he was a point away from pulling off one of the most incredible feats of the OE at age 37.9 is worthy of praise, no two ways about it.
 
NatF said:
I think 2019 is overblown, yes it was a bitter loss but to be within one point of beating his two younger great rivals back to back is legendary in itself.
Click to expand...
Nope. It was a bitter loss, that cost him. When even his coach acknowledges the significance of that loss.......Fed fans should take note.
 
joekapa said:
Nope. It was a bitter loss, that cost him. When even his coach acknowledges the significance of that loss.......Fed fans should take note.
Click to expand...

Don't really care what Djokovic fans like you think. Take note of that ;)

TheFifthSet said:
Yeah, the choke was baaaaad but if he lost a tight 4-setter (or heck even a tight straight-setter like 08/11 AO) no one would have cared. That he was a point away from pulling off one of the most incredible feats of the OE at age 37.9 is worthy of praise, no two ways about it.
Click to expand...

People forget he was a break down in the fifth as well. The choke wasn't even that bad, basically poor shot selection if it happened in another game it would hardly be worth talking about it.
 
Mike Sams said:
Well...it's hard to say if it was a choke. I think even if that situation was replayed, Djokovic would still break back because he's done it several times before in prior meetings.
Click to expand...
It was unquestionably a choke, needed one point, one point to do it. The first point he came in off a bad approach because he didn’t have the cajones to win a rally and hoped he could luck into the point. Second point he choked on bad swing not to mention the two first serves he missed.
 
NatF said:
Don't really care what Djokovic fans like you think. Take note of that ;)
Click to expand...

:(
Edit: oh, missed the “like you” part lolz

People forget he was a break down in the fifth as well. The choke wasn't even that bad, basically poor shot selection if it happened in another game it would hardly be worth talking about it.
Click to expand...


Strictly in a vacuum, yeah, it wasn’t that bad. Just the worst possible timing given Djoker’s total ineptitude on the return in the first 4-ish hours. I don’t think Fed had even lost three consecutive service points by that stage.
 
joekapa said:
Nope. It was a bitter loss, that cost him. When even his coach acknowledges the significance of that loss.......Fed fans should take note.
Click to expand...
We do acknowledge that. The reason the loss was bitter in particular is because, as far as sustained level of tennis goes, Federer was clearly the better player in that match. Something you don't see znti-Federer users talk about much when they keep pressing the point about that final being a really painful loss.
 
NatF said:
I think 2019 is overblown, yes it was a bitter loss but to be within one point of beating his two younger great rivals back to back is legendary in itself.
Click to expand...
Especially now that a win wouldn't make a difference in the slam race.. a loss is a loss regardless of with mos or straight sets, and in hindsight better than getting smoked in straights. It shows that he could hang and beat the #1 6-7 years younger than him.

As Djokovic himself said, he's following in RFs footsteps with the longevity.
 
TheFifthSet said:
:(
Edit: oh, missed the “like you” part lolz




Strictly in a vacuum, yeah, it wasn’t that bad. Just the worst possible timing given Djoker’s total ineptitude on the return in the first 4-ish hours. I don’t think Fed had even lost three consecutive service points by that stage.
Click to expand...

Yeah there are more than a few Djokovic fans I like lol.
 
pj80 said:
that's BS...Fed came in playing as well as he always did, beat Rafa in 4.
Click to expand...

That doesn’t mean anything. Djokovic on grass is tougher for Federer than an older Nadal. Federer had been pounding Nadal since 2017. There were very few on this board expecting a Federer win.
 
I had never seen Federer looking physically tired before 2019 Wimby final. He was plain old. I think it was even more amazing a player that old pushed the undisputed no.1 guy still in his prime all the way like that. We always forget Roger is 5 years older than Rafa and 6 years older than Nole. Those years are not easy to make up for as age catches you up.
 
Pass750 said:
It was unquestionably a choke, needed one point, one point to do it. The first point he came in off a bad approach because he didn’t have the cajones to win a rally and hoped he could luck into the point. Second point he choked on bad swing not to mention the two first serves he missed.
Click to expand...
40-15 is nothing new. It's been a thing since 2011 in their rivalry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

davey25
  • Poll Poll
Who is more talented- Ljubicic or Gonzalez
Replies
35
Views
3K
inkpw2
inkpw2
P
‘I think the Australian Open is not a real possibility right now,’ says Roger Federer’s coach Ivan Ljubicic
Replies
43
Views
2K
DjokoLand
D
R
How far Nadal will go to Wimbledon ?
Replies
26
Views
1K
SonnyT
S
BeatlesFan
Ljubicic predicts the big 3 will rule tennis in 2020 once again
Replies
22
Views
2K
The Blond Blur
The Blond Blur
Frenchy-Player
Ricardo Piatti says he does not regret splitting from Novak Djokovic, reveals the Serb "squinted before hitting the ball" in his youth
Replies
3
Views
1K
Tennfan123
T
Back
Top