The original 8-7 40-30

King No1e

Legend
No, I don't mean Djokovic's passing shot in this year's final. Epic but beaten to death.

I mean 8-7 40-30 at Wimbledon 2008. After 7 hours of nonstop drama and top quality tennis, Nadal finally has MP on his serve. Then Federer blasts a backhand return. You thought you'd seen everything, the match is finally over. And then that. Extremely underrated moment in tennis history. So underrated I can't even find video of it.
But it was one of the most unforgettable moments in all my tennis watching years.
 

ForehandRF

Professional
No, I don't mean Djokovic's passing shot in this year's final. Epic but beaten to death.

I mean 8-7 40-30 at Wimbledon 2008. After 7 hours of nonstop drama and top quality tennis, Nadal finally has MP on his serve. Then Federer blasts a backhand return. You thought you'd seen everything, the match is finally over. And then that. Extremely underrated moment in tennis history. So underrated I can't even find video of it.
But it was one of the most unforgettable moments in all my tennis watching years.
One of the greatest backhand returns in tennis history, given the context.Too bad that his backhand wasn't as good thorough the match.
 

FRV2

Semi-Pro
Wait what? No way that's not included in any of the highlights. There's even a full match on youtube.
That video doesn't show the score for some reason so it is very hard to find what OP is talking about. I just saw much more of that match than I ever cared to (30 seconds).
 
No, I don't mean Djokovic's passing shot in this year's final. Epic but beaten to death.

I mean 8-7 40-30 at Wimbledon 2008. After 7 hours of nonstop drama and top quality tennis, Nadal finally has MP on his serve. Then Federer blasts a backhand return. You thought you'd seen everything, the match is finally over. And then that. Extremely underrated moment in tennis history. So underrated I can't even find video of it.
But it was one of the most unforgettable moments in all my tennis watching years.
I am sorry but that can't be beaten to death. Daily dose(s) of the 40-15 is what every person needs. :whistle:
 

Nadal_Django

Hall of Fame
No, I don't mean Djokovic's passing shot in this year's final. Epic but beaten to death.

I mean 8-7 40-30 at Wimbledon 2008. After 7 hours of nonstop drama and top quality tennis, Nadal finally has MP on his serve. Then Federer blasts a backhand return. You thought you'd seen everything, the match is finally over. And then that. Extremely underrated moment in tennis history. So underrated I can't even find video of it.
But it was one of the most unforgettable moments in all my tennis watching years.
That's why Federer lost the very next two points in very forgettable, very predictable fashion, like a good old pigeon that he was.
The standard of epic and unforgettable moments is so low with you Federer fanboys nowadays.:laughing::-D
 

Eren

Professional
It's a long shot. He's had his heartbreaks over the years anyway.
Would still watch out though, for the mental giant he is supposed to be, he has already lost 9 Slam finals. He'll catch up to Federer and Lendl as well. Perhaps Federer might beat everyone in this category though Djokovic is on his way as well :unsure:
 
Would still watch out though, for the mental giant he is supposed to be, he has already lost 9 Slam finals. He'll catch up to Federer and Lendl as well. Perhaps Federer might beat everyone in this category though :unsure:
He generally underperformed in most of those finals. If he ever got close like Fed did at this year's Wimbledon though, I'd sure bet on him finishing the job.

Nobody beats PETE in the finals category.
 

Eren

Professional
He generally underperformed in most of those finals. If he ever got close like Fed did at this year's Wimbledon though, I'd sure bet on him finishing the job.

Nobody beats PETE in the finals category.
You never know, it can change. I'd bet on Federer to do the job as well, but he couldn't and Djokovic has a 16-9 record in finals which is FAR from good, let that be clear.

Second, about Sampras, I am sure no one GOAT candidate sucks as much as he did on his worst surface, couldn't even reach a single RG final. Obviously, that would pad up his final stats.

If Sampras would have reached the amount of RG finals that Djokovic or Federer have, I am sure you know what the outcome would have been.
 
No, I don't mean Djokovic's passing shot in this year's final. Epic but beaten to death.

I mean 8-7 40-30 at Wimbledon 2008. After 7 hours of nonstop drama and top quality tennis, Nadal finally has MP on his serve. Then Federer blasts a backhand return. You thought you'd seen everything, the match is finally over. And then that. Extremely underrated moment in tennis history. So underrated I can't even find video of it.
But it was one of the most unforgettable moments in all my tennis watching years.
If only that would be djok, it would be the best comeback of open era.
 
You never know, it can change. I'd bet on Federer to do the job as well, but he couldn't and Djokovic has a 16-9 record in finals which is FAR from good, let that be clear.

Second, about Sampras, I am sure no one GOAT candidate sucks as much as he did on his worst surface, couldn't even reach a single RG final. Obviously, that would pad up his final stats.

If Sampras would have reached the amount of RG finals that Djokovic or Federer have, I am sure you know what the outcome would have been.
20-11 is not great either if we put it that way. Playing finals as often as they have, they were bound to lose some.

Yeah I imagine Peter's record would be a little worse.
You're not embracing it. :(

:p
 

Eren

Professional
20-11 is not great either if we put it that way. Playing finals as often as they have, they were bound to lose some.

Yeah I imagine Peter's record would be a little worse.
It would be way worse for Sampras lol, losing them all in Freddy 08 fashion.

About Fred, obviously 20-11 is bad. Many consider him to be mentally weak so it fits.

But for the mental giant to have a 16-9 record, that does not add up.

Fred: 20/31 = 64.52% conversion rate in finals
Djoke: 16/25 = 64% conversion rate in finals.
(Sampras: 14/18 = 77.78% conversion rate in finals, not bad indeed)

Both seem like chokers to me.
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
No, I don't mean Djokovic's passing shot in this year's final. Epic but beaten to death.

I mean 8-7 40-30 at Wimbledon 2008. After 7 hours of nonstop drama and top quality tennis, Nadal finally has MP on his serve. Then Federer blasts a backhand return. You thought you'd seen everything, the match is finally over. And then that. Extremely underrated moment in tennis history. So underrated I can't even find video of it.
But it was one of the most unforgettable moments in all my tennis watching years.
And lost it...two points later?
 
Last edited:

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
It would be way worse for Sampras lol, losing them all in Freddy 08 fashion.

About Fred, obviously 20-11 is bad. Many consider him to be mentally weak so it fits.

But for the mental giant to have a 16-9 record, that does not add up.

Fred: 20/31 = 64.52% conversion rate in finals
Djoke: 16/25 = 64% conversion rate in finals.
(Sampras: 14/18 = 77.78% conversion rate in finals, not bad indeed)

Both seem like chokers to me.
Nah, given PETE made a RG final he'd find a way to win it, whether that meant cramping, throwing up, collapsing throughout and after the match, he'd limp across that finish line somehow. BUT he'd never make another one after that. Hell, might even skip it altogether.
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
He generally underperformed in most of those finals. If he ever got close like Fed did at this year's Wimbledon though, I'd sure bet on him finishing the job.

Nobody beats PETE in the finals category.
Yes, if Pete plays in conditions where his serve cannot be returned properly, or against a player who isn’t able to do it generally.

However, against Djokovic I guess it would rather look like against Hewitt at the 2001 US Open. So yes, no chance to choke if we want to see it this way.

But by the way, in the close 2001 Wimbledon match against Federer he crumbled extremely under pressure. Federer actually could return his serves and Pete missed many volleys and even overheads in pressure situations. In the last game which gave Federer the win he was totally shaky at the net and only hoped that his serves alone would do the job.
 

ForehandRF

Professional
Such a return on such a pressure situation is very rare from Fed though; it was Djokovic's style I can say.Still, it was for nothing after all.
 

TennisFan3

Legend
Overrated moment imo. This point wasn’t even that important for the 8th game outcome.
I couldn't agree MORE. This point was NOT that significant. The fact is that Nadal WAS dominating Novak in set 5. He was the better player, and Novak was on his heels.
Even if Novak had NOT touched the net (and he lost the pt legitimately), he might NOT have won the game. And even if he DID win the game, there is NOTHING to indicate that he would have won the match.

In that match, Novak was matching Nadal only in spurts. Nadal was clearly the better player overall, and the match might NOT even have gone to a 5th pending some lapses from Nadal.
 

Eren

Professional
Nah, given PETE made a RG final he'd find a way to win it, whether that meant cramping, throwing up, collapsing throughout and after the match, he'd limp across that finish line somehow. BUT he'd never make another one after that. Hell, might even skip it altogether.
LOL no, he'd lose it for sure lmao. No way. Btw, before we enter an entire bs discussion about something completely hypothetical, I think Sampras was the man on grass and hard, but just not it on clay.

I don't even know why. Serve being less effective can't be the sole reason. I also don't buy the nonsense that Sampras was just a big server. That's bs, he's a 14-time Slam champion.

He should have tweaked his game way more to adapt on clay. Surely, one final at the very least should have been possible.
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
LOL no, he'd lose it for sure lmao. No way. Btw, before we enter an entire bs discussion about something completely hypothetical, I think Sampras was the man on grass and hard, but just not it on clay.

I don't even know why. Serve being less effective can't be the sole reason. I also don't buy the nonsense that Sampras was just a big server. That's bs, he's a 14-time Slam champion.

He should have tweaked his game way more to adapt on clay. Surely, one final at the very least should have been possible.
Eh, you believe what you want since we're talking about make-believe here, but in a world where PETE makes RG finals, I think the likelihood of PETE making more than one final at RG is slim/none since he'd beg, borrow, steal, with tooth, claw and nail to win it, then win it, then essentially coast at RG for the rest of his career.

PETE played an authoritarian dictatorial style on the court. Point destructive rather than constructive like the baseliners of today, and played in an era where courts played significantly different, also unlike today, so it was really a matter of putting his eggs in the right basket and figuring out what his priorities were. Give up a Wimbledon or two to adapt a constructive style more beneficial for RG?
PETE's answer: ROFLMAO no.

With the bazooka rackets and telepath strings of today PETE would likely have a way better chance everywhere (including RG)
 
Top