what if Roger federer had won 7 straight wimbledon titles from 2003-2009?

[Amy Foster]

This off course is a what if question. Roger Federer is arguably one the greatest tennis players on a grass surface because he has won seven Wimbledon tiles a joint all time record in the mens singles shared with Pete Sampras and William Renshaw . but what if he won the epic 5 set 2008 Wimbledon final to Rafael Nadal that he had lost in a tie break , he would have won seven consecutive
titles in 2009, obviously as Federer won again in 2012 where he beat Andy Murray that would have been his 8th title you think that would have placed Federer the greatest grass court player ever over Pete Sampras , because he would have had a record 8 titles one more than Sampras

 

[TripleATeam]

He would be the grass GOAT, as he is already, and his place as actual GOAT would be cemented with a 19th Grand Slam.

 

[helterskelter]

Had he won in 2008, he would have had six straight. He might have gone on to win in 2009, too, but he might not have done. He also might have won in 2010 for eight straight. Each match changes the course of history.

 

[JohnnyMac Fan!]

Why?

 

[StanTheMan]

It would've been pretty cool.

 

[Sentinel]

It would have been declared to be a totally dead era by one fan base.

 

[every7]

This off course is a what if question. Roger Federer is arguably one the greatest tennis players on a grass surface because he has won seven Wimbledon tiles a joint all time record in the mens singles shared with Pete Sampras and William Renshaw . but what if he won the epic 5 set 2008 Wimbledon final to Rafael Nadal that he had lost in a tie break , he would have won seven consecutive
titles in 2009, obviously as Federer won again in 2012 where he beat Andy Murray that would have been his 8th title you think that would have placed Federer the greatest grass court player ever over Pete Sampras , because he would have had a record 8 titles one more than Sampras

Interesting question. I think it would've had a huge impact. It would have cemented Federer's greatness on the surface, and also provided a circuit breaker in 2008, which was otherwise dominated by Nadal.

History was made in that arguably the greatest match of all-time between two of the greatest players ever was won by Nadal, who has gone on to dominate the head to head.

 

[Gary Duane]

It would have been declared to be a totally dead era by one fan base.

Weak era. It would have been the weakest ever.

 

[Sentinel]

Weak era. It would have been the weakest ever.

Fed's era has already been declared to be a weak era. Fed just has to win a title for that month or year to be declared weak.
So it would have to be something well beyond weak (even if, in all those seven year Nadal was winning each FO!).

 

[Gary Duane]

but what if he won the epic 5 set 2008 Wimbledon final to Rafael Nadal that he had lost in a tie break , he would have won seven consecutive.

This match is very fresh in my mind because TC showed it this week under classic matches. By coincidence I saw it from set two, where Fed was up 4-2. He choked away that set just the way Nadal choked away the 5th set this year at the AO.

That's where he lost the match.

And he did not lose the TB. He won both TBs. He lost the 5th set 7-9.

The reversal from 4-2 to 4-6 was shocking. Nadal broke him twice in a row to win that set.

The weather was awful. A roof might have changed the result.

Fed only broke 1/13 of his BPs. This is the match that most likely gave him the reputation (unfair) of being poor in BP conversions.

 

[Gary Duane]

Fed's era has already been declared to be a weak era. Fed just has to win a title for that month or year to be declared weak.
So it would have to be something well beyond weak (even if, in all those seven year Nadal was winning each FO!).

Nah, let's be fair. Never were the so many claims of weak era as during Novak's NCYGS.

It's just sour grapes.

The nice thing about the decline of players is that their fans mostly disappear.

Which means Fedal fans have never been more obnoxious than right now.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Nadal fans have always claimed that Roger winning five straight Wimbledon's and five straight USO's aren't enhanced because they were "five straight in a row." Using their logic, it's immaterial whether the victories are in a row or punctuated by losses.

 

[Noleberic123]

He would have won 7 straight wimbledon titles between 2003 and 2009

 

[70後]

It would have meant nobody else won wim between 2003 and 2009.

 

[jaggy]

What if I was attractive as well as hilarious?

 

[Deleted member 743561]

"...And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!"

 

[Rosstour]

Had he won in 2008, he would have had six straight. He might have gone on to win in 2009, too, but he might not have done. He also might have won in 2010 for eight straight. Each match changes the course of history.

Yeah you just never know.

After the humiliation of W08 he went on to make six straight Finals and won 4 of them, including his 1st RG and #15 at Wimbledon the very next year. He then 'avenged' losing AO09 in 2010 and after that was basically spent for the better part of two seasons. IMO this is the finest, most defining stretch of his career ("what you do after you get knocked down").

 

[Rosstour]

After writing that and thinking about it a little, I had never stopped to think that in that 20-month span after W08...Fed won a complete Career Grand Slam. Needing only six Slams to do it. Insane.

 

[Big_Dangerous]

It would have been declared to be a totally dead era by one fan base.

I have something for this:

 

[Sentinel]

Nadal fans have always claimed that Roger winning five straight Wimbledon's and five straight USO's aren't enhanced because they were "five straight in a row." Using their logic, it's immaterial whether the victories are in a row or punctuated by losses.

Meaningless poast.

Using "logic" wrt Nadal fans.
I suspect some laptops and smart-phones exploded when opening this page.

 

[Sentinel]

He would have won 7 straight wimbledon titles between 2003 and 2009

It would have meant nobody else won wim between 2003 and 2009.

Now now, don't go jumping to outlandish conclusions.

Spoiler: :) [USER=24034]@5555[/USER]

This is like @5555's thread which said something like "Nole is the greatest because if he wins 7 YE#1 then he will have more YE #1 than Roger".

Later supported by "That is a fact" and "You have lost the argument"

 

[tennis_pro]

It wouldve changed the course of tennis. For example I dont think 2009 AO wouldve happened.

 

[underground]

Then this thread wouldn't have existed.