Roger Federer: 2004 US Open was my best match and 2008 Wimbledon was my most heartbreaking loss

[RS]

it does in this case because 1 swing could've changed things massively with certainty.

Ok then Fed was better till then but overall the winner was winner and won the most important points in the end

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Really ? So he breadsticked Djokovic, Djokovic crunched his way through TB's, had match points......but he played worse ? You kidding right ?

It's called being a clutch player.

It's impossible to know how matches would go if one set goes the other way. Does Djokovic lose some of the other sets so easily if he doesn't win the tie breaks?

 

[RS]

You do realise about 4 threads have been started by Fed fans, lamenting this match.......since he announced his retirement ?

It will sting forever. Both fans and Fed.

Talk of the match was dying down till Fed retired and Djokovic won Wim again in July though lol.

 

[abmk]

You do realise about 4 threads have been started by Fed fans, lamenting this match.......since he announced his retirement ?

It will sting forever. Both fans and Fed.

never said it wasn't a bad loss.
Only your desperation to paint it as the worst says a lot about you.
As does you blatantly lying/ignoring RG 11/Wim 12 losses for Djoko vs fed.

Oh and fed fans having their opinion about Wim 19 is not the same as insisting you can mindread fed with 100% accuracy.

 

[abmk]

Talk of the match was dying down till Fed retired and Djokovic won vultured Wim again in July though lol.

Yep and fixed.

 

[RS]

Fixed.

Sorry man.

 

[RS]

lol

 

[abmk]

Sorry man.

just giving those Djokovic fans who've made this thread a mess a taste of their own medicine, albeit with reality instead of pretend 100% mindreading.

 

[abmk]

Ok then Fed was better till then but overall the winner was winner and won the most important points in the end

well, that's the reality obviously.

 

[nov]

yeah, right. We can all see the laughable desperation from some Djokovic fans about Wim 19 in this thread. Its turned comical.



and that's the problem. some djokovic don't know sh*t, are in their own la la land and insist they can mindread fed with 100% accuracy.

I am very desperate!

 

[Fedforever]

never said it wasn't a bad loss.
Only your desperation to paint it as the worst says a lot about you.
As does you blatantly lying/ignoring RG 11/Wim 12 losses for Djoko vs fed.

Oh and fed fans having their opinion about Wim 19 is not the same as insisting you can mindread fed with 100% accuracy.

I resorted to the Ignore button. I don't know what motivates this weird obsession.

The memory of the match will always sting but I'm delighted that the relentless trollery of the last three years has completely failed to undermine his legacy. Such a mean spirited mission deserves to fail.

 

[RS]

well, that's the reality obviously.

Now we should put it to rest now we settled this.

just giving those Djokovic fans who've made this thread a mess a taste of their own medicine, albeit with reality instead of pretend 100% mindreading.

For the next few years it's going to get more frequent if Djokovic keeps winning Wim titles. Don't know if fighting helps really.

 

[rUDin 21]

You honestly believe what these guys say verbatim ?

We have had numerous threads here, from Fed fans about 40-15, since he announce his retirement.

His coach admitted it was a heartbreaking loss.

You think he still doesn;t think about it ? Djokovic denying him the chance to retire on his own terms.

Federer is simply protecting his legacy, by choosing what he say's wisely.

He knows though. EVERYBODY knows.

I was listening to "The Tennis Podcast" the other day. The epitome of Fed fanboys. Matt Roberts though said the following, in terms of Federer versus the other two. "If I had to chose who would play for my life, it would be Djokovic. If I had to pay to watch a tennis player, it would be Federer".
If he had won Wimby 2019........NOBODY would be saying this.

the utter desperation of some Djokovic fans to insist on Wim 2019 final is just amusing.
speaks to the sheer desperation of seeking validation for that win.
Djokovic got super ultra lucky with 3 mediocre TBs from fed and coming back from MPs (though he was clutch when down MPs). played at a meh level in the match. had easy road to the final. A vultured slam (first of his 5)

I thought 2019 wasn't heartbreaking?
These two guys are in a looney bin with Alan now

 

[RS]

I have to say I never thought the forum would become so Djokovic and Nadal centric.

I am all for it.

 

[StrongRule]

That fed chose Wim 08 over AO 09 shows he definitely cares more about Wimbledon than about AO.

Makes sense. Wimbledon 2008 was his only loss in Wimbledon between 2003-2009. The only loss there during his prime, in a period of dominance on grass. On the other hand, in AO 2009 he wasn't even the defending champion.

 

[ForehandRF]

So according to Federer, and his fans in here, he never suffered any heartbreaking losses, at the hands of Djokovic.

he has played Djokovic MORE TIMES than any other player in his career. And yet no heartbreaking losses.

Seems legit.

Il all fairness I also feel that he suffered the most heartbreaking losses at the hands of Djokovic as those losses happened late in his career and he had less and less time to add to his tally.Not to mention that against Nadal, he never lost a slam match after holding MP on his own serve.I also think that 2008 Wimbly loss is exaggerated in retrospect because he was bound to lose at some point because nobody wins countless titles in a row.I mean, not even Nadal won the FO more than 5 times in a row.At the time, the 2008 loss was terrible, but after all that happened, it doesn't look that way anymore I believe

 

[joekapa]

Talk of the match was dying down till Fed retired and Djokovic won Wim again in July though lol.

Yes there was some hope for revenge. Didn't happen.

 

[RS]

Yes there was some hope for revenge. Didn't happen.

I remember thinking they would meet in Wim 2021.

 

[abmk]

Now we should put it to rest now we settled this.

For the next few years it's going to get more frequent if Djokovic keeps winning Wim titles. Don't know if fighting helps really.

I didn't chose it. They did.
I'm simply retorting with reality instead of letting forum be over-run with nonsense.
While a Djokovic fan goes so far as to have pretend amnesia about RG 11 and Wim 12 losses.

 

[abmk]

Makes sense. Wimbledon 2008 was his only loss in Wimbledon between 2003-2009. The only loss there during his prime, in a period of dominance on grass. On the other hand, in AO 2009 he wasn't even the defending champion.

I think it simply has to do with Wimbledon vs AO. Fed rating Wimbledon higher.
If matches were both played at same venue, AO 09 match would probably be considered worse by Fed since he was the better player for 1st 4 sets combined there unlike in Wim 08 where Nadal was better.

 

[StrongRule]

Because had he beaten Djokovic, he would have beaten his BIGGEST rival on grass, in his most important tournament. Similar to what he did to Rafa at AO 2017. He could of retired and SOLIDIFIED his GOAT status, even if the others went on to surpass him in records and slams.

Even I was in awe when he beat Rafa in AO 2017. It was a MAJOR victory for him......if not his most important slam win. He finally figured out Rafa on one of the biggest stages.

If he had done the same to Djokovic, it would of been career ending, but certainly career solidifying moment.

That's why it mattered so much.

People would NOT be talking about how "pretty" his game is, in order to give him points in the GOAT debate. They would be talking about beating both his rivals on the biggest of stages......even IF they surpassed him in records.

You can't see this ?

A comment full of BS. Beating Djokovic in Wimbledon 2019 would have been a great achievement obviously, but I don't see how would it change the GOAT debate. Only thing, it would have maybe stopped Djokovic from vulturing the Wimbledon record. But for slams in general, it wouldn't change much.

AO 2017 was a big win at the time, but it didn't end up changing the GOAT race. Nadal still has a big lead in the head to head (especially in slams), and he now has more slams than Federer. Why would the outcome of AO 2017 final be more relevant than the slam finals where Nadal beat Federer?

 

[StrongRule]

Funny how Djokovic fans used to bring Federer's words as an argument to him being at his best in 2015, but now when he said something they don't like, they blame him for lying.

His choice makes perfect sense. If not for the weak era, a 38 years old Federer wouldn't have even reached a final in Wimbledon. And would have reached maybe one of the 2014-2015 finals, but not both. The weak competition kept giving past prime big 3 extra opportunities which they didn't really deserve. So as bad as the 2019 loss was, it shouldn't be compared to losing close matches during Federer's prime, when he was dominating the game. The only reason why 2019 is being discussed so much is because he was close to winning it.

 

[mike danny]

Mediocre TB's?When you going to serve for championship at 40-15 on your favorite surface, it doesnt matter how you played before, because now you are at perfect winning position.

But if he'd won one single tiebreak, it wouldn't have got that far.

 

[mike danny]

You're just looking for excuses to make yourself feel better. Once again, you can play very bad all match and win, it doesnt matter. Win is a win, Fed was at perfect winning position.

Sure, but against a better opponent that wouldn't cut it.

 

[mike danny]

Funny how Djokovic fans used to bring Federer's words as an argument to him being at his best in 2015, but now when he said something they don't like, they blame him for lying.

Hit the nail on the head here. It only took 7 years for things to come around.

 

[joekapa]

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[Mustard]

actually fancied Hewitt's chances of winning before the match started
and it was about grit and determination in New York.

What is your criticism?

 

[abmk]

A comment full of BS. Beating Djokovic in Wimbledon 2019 would have been a great achievement obviously, but I don't see how would it change the GOAT debate. Only thing, it would have maybe stopped Djokovic from vulturing the Wimbledon record. But for slams in general, it wouldn't change much.

AO 2017 was a big win at the time, but it didn't end up changing the GOAT race. Nadal still has a big lead in the head to head (especially in slams), and he now has more slams than Federer. Why would the outcome of AO 2017 final be more relevant than the slam finals where Nadal beat Federer?

While most of his post is BS, if fed had won, Fed would have the bragging rights to beating Nadal+Djokovic b2b in a slam at nearly 38.
Djokovic would be 1 slam behind.
One slam behind nadal would be still ok given fed's significant edge in YECs, weeks at #1, that he has 5+ slams at 3 venues etc. etc.
AO 17 was a significant in that fed beat nadal in a slam after long time and in epic fashion to the boot. But from tennis point of view, obviously not more important than Wim 07/08, AO 09 etc.

 

[Incognito]

Had he won Wimbledon 2008, that would been 7 wimbledons in row. Then we would be questioning who is more dominant on their best surface. Prime Rafa on clay or Prime Fed on grass?

2019 Wimbledon is not even top 10.

 

[abmk]

Funny how Djokovic fans used to bring Federer's words as an argument to him being at his best in 2015, but now when he said something they don't like, they blame him for lying.

to me, it was obvious Fed was just saying that to not show vulnerabilities at that time. Its what many players do.
He's far too astute student of the game to actually believe he was better in 15 than at his peak.
Now that he's retiring, he's saying what he actually feels.

His choice makes perfect sense. If not for the weak era, a 38 years old Federer wouldn't have even reached a final in Wimbledon. And would have reached maybe one of the 2014-2015 finals, but not both. The weak competition kept giving past prime big 3 extra opportunities which they didn't really deserve. So as bad as the 2019 loss was, it shouldn't be compared to losing close matches during Federer's prime, when he was dominating the game. The only reason why 2019 is being discussed so much is because he was close to winning it.

Fed beat prime Murray in Wim 15. doubt you will find too many harder opponents for a slam semi.
14 wasn't even a weak year anyways.
Agree on the last sentence.

 

[alexio]

Had he won Wimbledon 2008, that would been 7 wimbledons in row.

faster than a speeding bullet

 

[ForehandRF]

Had he won Wimbledon 2008, that would been 7 wimbledons in row. Then we would be questioning who is more dominant on their best surface. Prime Rafa on clay or Prime Fed on grass?

2019 Wimbledon is not even top 10.

Yeah, but at least Fed managed to do something in his prime at Wimbledon that not even Nadal could do at the French and that is reaching 7 finals in a row

 

[joekapa]

 

[StrongRule]

to me, it was obvious Fed was just saying that to not show vulnerabilities at that time. Its what many players do.
He's far too astute student of the game to actually believe he was better in 15 than at his peak.
Now that he's retiring, he's saying what he actually feels.



Fed beat prime Murray in Wim 15. doubt you will find too many harder opponents for a slam semi.
14 wasn't even a weak year anyways.
Agree on the last sentence.

Murray for most of 2014-2016 was a punching bag against Federer and Djokovic. Especially in BO5, where he couldn't keep a high level without collapsing at some point of the match. (usually he gave a fight for at most 2 sets) That wasn't 2012-2013 Murray who could play long matches and fight for wins. After the first set of that Wimbledon semifinal I already knew Federer was winning the match. And I also knew this means nothing for the final against Djokovic. And indeed, in the final we saw how much he really has declined compared to his prime.

IMO Federer was better in Wimbledon 2014 than 2015. Was also closer to winning it.

 

[abmk]

Murray for most of 2014-2016 was a punching bag against Federer and Djokovic. Especially in BO5, where he couldn't keep a high level without collapsing at some point of the match. (usually he gave a fight for at most 2 sets) That wasn't 2012-2013 Murray who could play long matches and fight for wins. After the first set of that Wimbledon semifinal I already knew Federer was winning the match. And I also knew this means nothing for the final against Djokovic. And indeed, in the final we saw how much he really has declined compared to his prime.

IMO Federer was better in Wimbledon 2014 than 2015. Was also closer to winning it.

14 Murray was recovering from surgery. not relevant
15 is still a prime year for him. Not anywhere near weak opponent by any means.
Fed was better pre-final in Wim 15 than in Wim 14 for sure.
Better in Wim 14 final on stamina basis/that he held on longer, but he peaked higher in the Wim 15 final (first 2 sets)

 

[StrongRule]

14 Murray was recovering from surgery. not relevant
15 is still a prime year for him. Not anywhere near weak opponent by any means.
Fed was better pre-final in Wim 15 than in Wim 14 for sure.
Better in Wim 14 final on stamina basis/that he held on longer, but he peaked higher in the Wim 15 final (first 2 sets)

I watched both semifinals, and don't see how he played better than Gasquet. They even won the same number of games, and Gasquet actually impressed at some moments. (though as expected, at the big points he always lost)

 

[abmk]

I watched both semifinals, and don't see how he played better than Gasquet. They even won the same number of games, and Gasquet actually impressed at some moments. (though as expected, at the big points he always lost)

you must be joking. Djokovic only played as well as he needed to vs Gasquet. He probably (rightfully) considered Cilic a bigger threat than Gasquet and peaked vs him in the QF.
Fed OTOH had to play his 2015 best vs Murray, including serving at his best.
Murray OTOH served at 70+ (not so usual for him) and played good (not very good) off the ground.

DJokovic couldn't finish Murray in straights at AO. he's certainly not doing that at Wim.
needed shenanigans at AO to turn the match.
Also went 5 vs Murray at RG.
That fed was able to beat him in straights at Wim says a lot.

I mean several people over-rate Wim 15 semi from fed, but you are under-rating him and Murray's level that day.

 

[ForehandDTL]

I'm talking in terms of reality, the impact, at prime. Fed's biggest rival is Nadal.
Secondly fed was the only one to tame Djokovic in 2011 in slams. beat him in RG 11 and nearly again in USO 11. was up 2 sets to love and had MPs at the USO.
no one else even came close, no one else even took 2 sets off 11 djokovic in a slam match.

Fed also beat Djokovic comfortably in Wim 12. peak Djokovic couldn't even come remotely close vs prime-ish/past prime fed in Wim 12.

Stan owned Djokovic from 2014-2019 4-1 in slams

So take that rubbish about post 2010 Djokovic and throw it in the gutter bin.

Also get your memory/integrity tested. Either one or both have failed big time.

Djokovic got big time lucky with ~33+ yo old fed in slams. That's it.

Uncouth style of phrasing, but entirely correct.

Djokovic had nothing against prime Fed. Got owned against prime Nadal in slams from 08-13 barring the 2011 blip year.

 

[Shaolin]

That 04 final was absolutely beautiful.

Just wish it could've been 6-0,6-0,6-0

 

[BeatlesFan]

I have to say I never thought the forum would become so Djokovic and Nadal centric.

I am all for it.

Enjoy it while it lasts. A week after one or both retire, then the forum will become Alcaraz-centric, or whatever other young player is dominating at the time.

 

[Subway Tennis]

This forum needs to let this match rest.

It is so disappointing that we can’t just have a post reflecting on Federer’s very interesting remarks without the thread becoming a protracted Fedovic plssing contest.

He is going to be doing a lot of interesting interviews over the next few months. I am realising that we are just not going to be able to discuss his insights about his own career in a serious way on TTW.

A historic moment in the game is going to pass in the background on TTW while people fight, argue and troll each other.

 

[nov]

But if he'd won one single tiebreak, it wouldn't have got that far.

But it doesnt matter what happened in the past if youre at good position now. Its nonsense.

 

[Biotic]

No mention of 2007 USO QF legendary sharpness?

 

[Mainad]

That 04 final was absolutely beautiful.

Just wish it could've been 6-0,6-0,6-0

Federer once said that he felt uncomfortable winning matches like that which is why he probably let Hewitt in a little bit in that 2nd set.