Which id were the most painful losses to fellow Fed fans from his group of losses?

Which of these losses was the most painful to you Fed fans?

  • Total voters
    40
Pheasant said:
2008 WI: this one was the toughest for me to take. Nadal had now caught up to Fed on grass. I was now seriously worried about Fed hitting 14 slam titles.
Click to expand...

I know you've been following tennis for a long time, so let me ask you a question
Can you identify precisely when you started thinking like this? (that is, Slam count concsiousness?)

Did you ever think about McEnroe's prospects of reaching Borg's 11 or Emerson's 12 Slams in a similar way?

---
To your question... I think it depends on at what point in time the disppointment hit and how it relates to expectactions

Going into '19 Wimby final - at best, moderate expectations, probably anticipating a loss. So no reason for strong disappointment
But at 40-15, double match point.... yeah that's a kick in the nuts that's hard to top
A kick in the nuts with steel toed shoes

Going into match, I'd say 2009 US Open final - expecting a win, a 3 Slam season, a 3 Slam season coming off being toppled from the top previous year, 6th straight title at event etc.
Mostly, expecting a win
Hairline stuff in aftermath to it too
Failed to serve out second set, 30-0 up and having cruised on serve all match
There was a crucial Hawkeye overrule for a Delpo pass that had been called out late in the game
Hawkeye is hawkeye - no arguing against it - but I still say, sans hawkeye and just having to make the call from watching slow mo replays - I'd have called that ball out
All other things in match remaining the same, probably the expected straight sets win
All other things in aftermatch remaining the same, 4 Slams in a row
 
Martin J said:
Regarding 2019 vs 2008 Wimbledon, I am with the posters who find the 2019 more devastating simply because Federer wasn't an inferior player against Djokovic, as the matter of fact he very much outplayed him in sets 2 and 4, while being equally competitive in 1, 3 and 5 (just not as clutch).
Against Ned, he was obviously the worse player (except during a brief period in the second set) and was getting outplayed, but remained clutch (which is usually overlooked) enough, especially in the tie-breaks, to push the match into the fifth set and give us the classic.

In the same sense, I was much more pissed off when he lost the 2006 Rome final because I never felt he was in a subordinate position until the very last couple of points. The difference is that by the time the 2019 Wimbledon happened, I was already old enough/too old to feel "devastated", it was like "damn, it could've been a nice final run, but it is what it is".
Click to expand...
Federer outplayed Djokovic up to 5-1 in the fourth set of the 2019 Wimbledon final, let's be honest. It got complicated after that, but what cost Federer was the 3 tiebreaks (blowing the first set tiebreak from ahead, and was flat in the other two).

First set: I thought Federer was the better player, but blew a tiebreak lead
Second set: Federer dominates it 6-1
Third set: Like the first set, Federer was the better player, but played a poor tiebreak
Fourth set: Federer leads 5-1, Djokovic reduces that to 5-4, Federer wins it 6-4
Fifth set: Djokovic breaks for 4-2, Federer breaks right back, Federer breaks for 8-7, hits 2 aces in a row for 40-15 and 2 championship points and fails, Djokovic breaks back, Federer has another 2 break points at 11-11 (missing one by a fraction). Tiebreak at 12-12, and Federer plays another poor tiebreak.
 
2008 WB easily for me. Nadal clearly shows then a complete game. And on Fed’s home turf. Slapped him in the face and took his lunch that day.

Though Fed kind of deserved it for that f…..g gold plated outfit he wore. He learned a good life lesson that day.
 
Waspsting said:
I know you've been following tennis for a long time, so let me ask you a question
Can you identify precisely when you started thinking like this? (that is, Slam count concsiousness?)

Did you ever think about McEnroe's prospects of reaching Borg's 11 or Emerson's 12 Slams in a similar way?

---
To your question... I think it depends on at what point in time the disppointment hit and how it relates to expectactions

Going into '19 Wimby final - at best, moderate expectations, probably anticipating a loss. So no reason for strong disappointment
But at 40-15, double match point.... yeah that's a kick in the nuts that's hard to top
A kick in the nuts with steel toed shoes

Going into match, I'd say 2009 US Open final - expecting a win, a 3 Slam season, a 3 Slam season coming off being toppled from the top previous year, 6th straight title at event etc.
Mostly, expecting a win
Hairline stuff in aftermath to it too
Failed to serve out second set, 30-0 up and having cruised on serve all match
There was a crucial Hawkeye overrule for a Delpo pass that had been called out late in the game
Hawkeye is hawkeye - no arguing against it - but I still say, sans hawkeye and just having to make the call from watching slow mo replays - I'd have called that ball out
All other things in match remaining the same, probably the expected straight sets win
All other things in aftermatch remaining the same, 4 Slams in a row
Click to expand...
That’s a great question. I became a little worried after the 2008 AO semi. But I was seriously worried after the 2008 Wimby final. I still thought that Fed was going to win that in 5; even before the match started. But he didn’t. So now, Federer had Djokovic and Nadal that had just stopped him on 3 straight surfaces. And he was pushing 27; which seemed kind of old back then. Thankfully, I was dead wrong. Looking back to 2008, I am now grateful that Fed got to 20 slams. That is amazing.

As for McEnroe, I was more worried about him staying #1 by racking up big tourney wins at Wimby, the USO, and on carpet. That was a huge deal back then. That 1984 FO final knocked the wind out of my sails. I hated Lendl more than any other player before or since. That’s the way it was. And now, he was a massive threat. I for some reason was convinced as a teenager that my hero was going to win the CYGS. He slaughtered Lendl in straights in their 2 previous clay meetings in 1984. MAC was undefeated that year heading into the FO final. He surely had that match won. Whoops!!
 
Pheasant said:
That’s a great question. I became a little worried after the 2008 AO semi. But I was seriously worried after the 2008 Wimby final. I still thought that Fed was going to win that in 5; even before the match started. But he didn’t. So now, Federer had Djokovic and Nadal that had just stopped him on 3 straight surfaces. And he was pushing 27; which seemed kind of old back then. Thankfully, I was dead wrong. Looking back to 2008, I am now grateful that Fed got to 20 slams. That is amazing.

As for McEnroe, I was more worried about him staying #1 by racking up big tourney wins at Wimby, the USO, and on carpet. That was a huge deal back then. That 1984 FO final knocked the wind out of my sails. I hated Lendl more than any other player before or since. That’s the way it was. And now, he was a massive threat. I for some reason was convinced as a teenager that my hero was going to win the CYGS. He slaughtered Lendl in straights in their 2 previous clay meetings in 1984. MAC was undefeated that year heading into the FO final. He surely had that match won. Whoops!!
Click to expand...
McEnroe was silly for wasting all that energy having a go at the cameramen while he was dominating in the 1984 French Open final. As the match wore on, McEnroe's first serve percentage started to dip alarmingly, and Lendl had superior fitness. McEnroe also had spats with the umpire during the match.

I can understand why McEnroe is hugely bothered by this loss, and I do think that it was a winnable match, but he didn't choke at all. McEnroe failed to keep his focus and intensity up when it mattered most.
 
Mustard said:
> McEnroe was silly for wasting all that energy having a go at the cameramen while he was dominating in the 1984 French Open final.

> I can understand why McEnroe is hugely bothered by this loss, and I do think that it was a winnable match, but he didn't choke at all. McEnroe failed to keep his focus and intensity up when it mattered most.
Click to expand...
Strongly disagree on both points.

1) Mac's tirade against the cameraman was tactical- as so often with him. He felt Ivan coming on, and was trying
desperately to push the incoming tide back out, to no avail. And I'm about the biggest JMac fan you'll ever find..

2) Mac said he choked; it looked like he choked to me, watching live att; and Lendl was just starting to feel his
oats (and greatly improved fitness) at the end of the second. Mac saw that freight train a-comin..

The better player won that day. Big credit to Mac for taking it to 7-5 in the fifth, fighting all the way
to that last FH volley he pushed wide. Alas..
 
Last edited:
Vincent-C said:
Strongly disagree on both points.

1) Mac's tirade against the cameraman was tactical- as so often with him. He felt Ivan coming on, and was trying
desperately to push the incoming tide back out, to no avail. And I'm about the biggest JMac fan you'll ever find..
Click to expand...
It was early in the third set, wasn't it, when McEnroe had his biggest tirade against the cameramen?

Vincent-C said:
2) Mac said he choked; it looked like he choked to me, watching live att; and Lendl was just starting to feel his
oats (and greatly improved fitness) at the end of the second. Mac saw that freight train a-comin..
Click to expand...
How did McEnroe choke? As Lendl came back into the match, McEnroe's first serve percentage went way down, and McEnroe was looking more and more fatigued, i.e. because he had been wasting energy.
 
Mustard said:
It was early in the third set, wasn't it, when McEnroe had his biggest tirade against the cameramen?


How did McEnroe choke? As Lendl came back into the match, McEnroe's first serve percentage went way down, and McEnroe was looking more and more fatigued, i.e. because he had been wasting energy.
Click to expand...
In how many hundreds of matches did we see Mac create a [fake] controversy for 5-10 minutes, then- from break points
down- serve (say) service winner- ace- ace, totally revitalizing himself and his position in the match? Many..
He's said it himself, in print: "I'd do that stuff to get fired up" (paraphrasing). He's Irish, fer Chrissakes..
 
Vincent-C said:
In how many hundreds of matches did we see Mac create a [fake] controversy for 5-10 minutes, then- from break points
down- serve (say) service winner- ace- ace, totally revitalizing himself and his position in the match? Many..
He's said it himself, in print: "I'd do that stuff to get fired up" (paraphrasing). He's Irish, fer Chrissakes..
Click to expand...
Not a smart move when you're later fatigued in the latter stages of the match, and your first serve percentage has plummeted. Wasn't it at 30% later on?
 
Mustard said:
Not a smart move when you're later fatigued in the latter stages of the match, and your first serve percentage has plummeted. Wasn't it at 30% later on?
Click to expand...

Maybe the least-bad option, when one's choices are slipping away? As I said, this was his M.O. What was the alternative: say "No Mas!", per Roberto Duran? Not Mac's style.. but "stir up some ****" certainly was.
 
messiahrobins said:
Federer exorcised the demons though at W2018. That was a big win over Nadal to at least preserve a winning h2h at one of the slams.

I dont think anything in the Big 3 Era is as painful as Djokovic's loses to Nadal at RG 2022 and Alcaraz at W2023. Both of those were legacy changers in hindsight. W2008 was huge for Nadal, but ultimately not damaging for Federer after W2019.
Click to expand...


There are bad losses, but Nole's 2021 uso loss to med is a combination of the worst choke and strategic planning ever. The cie tour had been setting him up for years with statistical records. Here, it again wanting to hand him the cygs, but he self sabotaged and choked it away.

Nothing even comes close to this.
 
Vincent-C said:
Maybe the least-bad option, when one's choices are slipping away? As I said, this was his M.O. What was the alternative: say "No Mas!", per Roberto Duran? Not Mac's style.. but "stir up some ****" certainly was.
Click to expand...
McEnroe was stirring things up when he was dominating the match, and thus wasting energy.
 
I can still remember it quite vividly. Getting ready to post the grand slam man song one more time, baby. Since I didn't get to do it then, I'll do it here.

That's why he turns up at the events. Bro still ain't just working on his tan. :cool:
 
Im in the camp that if WB '19 didn't have the new 5th set TB rule (think this was implemented the very same year too), Fed might just have outlasted djokovic and won eventually. It kinda felt this way til Djokovic survived the 11-11 situation.

Was extra painful knowing that it would have been a 9th Wimby, 2-2 h2h on grass with Nole, beats both Nad/Nole b2b at 38years old which is crazy. Wouldve been the perfect way to end his career had he won.
 
Pheasant said:
That’s a great question. I became a little worried after the 2008 AO semi. But I was seriously worried after the 2008 Wimby final. I still thought that Fed was going to win that in 5; even before the match started. But he didn’t. So now, Federer had Djokovic and Nadal that had just stopped him on 3 straight surfaces. And he was pushing 27; which seemed kind of old back then. Thankfully, I was dead wrong. Looking back to 2008, I am now grateful that Fed got to 20 slams. That is amazing.

As for McEnroe, I was more worried about him staying #1 by racking up big tourney wins at Wimby, the USO, and on carpet. That was a huge deal back then. That 1984 FO final knocked the wind out of my sails. I hated Lendl more than any other player before or since. That’s the way it was. And now, he was a massive threat. I for some reason was convinced as a teenager that my hero was going to win the CYGS. He slaughtered Lendl in straights in their 2 previous clay meetings in 1984. MAC was undefeated that year heading into the FO final. He surely had that match won. Whoops!!
Click to expand...

Amplyfing my question - about what time did you as a tennis fan start being mindful of a players Slam count?

From your answer here, I gather you weren't too mindful of McEnroe? but you were for Federer
Around what year did that shift happen?

Its something I'm curious about, because there's so much revisionist stuff going on with tennis history

I watched total 5 matches of Bjorn Borg from Wimby and US Open 1981
At both events, he was playing for a record equalling 12th Slam title
Not once does commentary mention it, not once do they show a table about Slam leaders
I have doubts if it was even generally known, let alone cared about

Compare to non stop prattling about it and tables presented about the leaders as Sampras was approaching - let alone on 11 Slams and playing for record equalling 12th

In 1999, everyone who followed tennis knew of top of their head how many Slams Borg, Connors, Mac, Lendl, Emerson etc. had because they kept showing it on TV and talking about on commentary
In 1984, would corresponding fans have known Slam counts of leading players of top of your heads in this way?
Would you have been able to give number of Slams Connors, Mac, Borg etc. had without thinking about it, counting it up?
 
Last edited:
sportsfan1 said:
There are bad losses, but Nole's 2021 uso loss to med is a combination of the worst choke and strategic planning ever. The cie tour had been setting him up for years with statistical records. Here, it again wanting to hand him the cygs, but he self sabotaged and choked it away.

Nothing even comes close to this.
Click to expand...
Yes and he actually cried during the match for some bizarre reason. And his fans say he was mentally tough lmao
 
messiahrobins said:
Yes and he actually cried during the match for some bizarre reason. And his fans say he was mentally tough lmao
Click to expand...
Djokovic handled the whole occasion of the 2021 US Open final HORRIBLY, knowing that he was 1 match away from the Grand Slam. The pressure got to him very badly indeed on the day.
 
Not a huge fan, but still a fan - definitely 2019 Wimbledon.

First, it was a last (or almost last) gasp at a Slam and he had a concrete opportunity to win.

Second, the way in which he lost the match points in the fifth and ultimately the game to be broken - some routine errors, no interesting back and forth, no struggle - just up 40-15 and loses four points in a row.

Third, the once-in-a-lifetime absurd (IMO) format. Obviously, he could have lost anyway, but it's just icing on the disgusting cake that he lost while playing a format (tiebreak at 12-12 in the fifth) that was never played before and hasn't been played since. The fifth should have been played out completely or a tiebreak at 6-6 (7 or 10 point).
 
Last edited:
bluetrain4 said:
Third, the once-in-a-lifetime absurd (IMO) format. Obviously, he could have lost anyway, but it's just icing on the disgusting cake that he lost while playing a format (tiebreak at 12-12 in the fifth) that was never played before and hasn't been played since.
Click to expand...
It was only in place at 2019 and 2021 Wimbledons.

From 2019 to 2021, the 4 different majors had different ways with fifth sets. Then in early 2022, all 4 majors switched to the Australian Open system (i.e. a tiebreak in the fifth set at 6-6, first to 10 points with at least 2 clear).

bluetrain4 said:
The fifth should have been played out completely or a tiebreak at 6-6 (7 or 10 point).
Click to expand...
It was played as a first to 7 points tiebreak (with at least 2 clear), but at 12-12 in the fifth set.

The French Open stuck with traditional fifth sets up to, and including, the 2021 tournament.
The US Open stuck with tiebreaks at first 7 points (with at least 2 clear), at 6-6 in the fifth set, up to and including the 2021 tournament.
 
Mustard said:
It was only in place at 2019 and 2021 Wimbledons.

From 2019 to 2021, the 4 different majors had different ways with fifth sets. Then in early 2022, all 4 majors switched to the Australian Open system (i.e. a tiebreak in the fifth set at 6-6, first to 10 points with at least 2 clear).


It was played as a first to 7 points tiebreak (with at least 2 clear), but at 12-12 in the fifth set.

The French Open stuck with traditional fifth sets up to, and including, the 2021 tournament.
The US Open stuck with tiebreaks at first 7 points (with at least 2 clear), at 6-6 in the fifth set, up to and including the 2021 tournament.
Click to expand...
l know, that's why I said tiebreak at 6-6 or fully played out. Tiebreak at 12-12 seemed like a stupid bargain between playing it out and a tiebreak at the traditional time.
 
bluetrain4 said:
l know, that's why I said tiebreak at 6-6 or fully played out. Tiebreak at 12-12 seemed like a stupid bargain between playing it out and a tiebreak at the traditional time.
Click to expand...
That's literally what it was. I remember Tim Henman explaining it at the start of 2019 Wimbledon. They wanted to stop another Isner situation happening (i.e. fifth set scores like 70-68 and 26-24), but they also didn't want to fully get rid of the longer fifth sets, so they bought in a tiebreak in the fifth set at 12-12 in 2019.

If I remember right, soon after Wimbledon announced this change (around September 2018, I think), the Australian Open announced their own change of a fifth set tiebreak at 6-6 but a champions tiebreak of first to 10 points with at least 2 clear. The French Open and US Open just carried on with what they had since the 1970s. Until, that is, around February 2022, when it was announced that all 4 majors had agreed to switch to the Australian Open system in regards to fifth set tiebreaks.
 
Last edited:
Waspsting said:
Amplyfing my question - about what time did you as a tennis fan start being mindful of a players Slam count?

From your answer here, I gather you weren't too mindful of McEnroe? but you were for Federer
Around what year did that shift happen?

Its something I'm curious about, because there's so much revisionist stuff going on with tennis history

I watched total 5 matches of Bjorn Borg from Wimby and US Open 1981
At both events, he was playing for a record equalling 12th Slam title
Not once does commentary mention it, not once do they show a table about Slam leaders
I have doubts if it was even generally known, let alone cared about

Compare to non stop prattling about it and tables presented about the leaders as Sampras was approaching - let alone on 11 Slams and playing for record equalling 12th

In 1999, everyone who followed tennis knew of top of their head how many Slams Borg, Connors, Mac, Lendl, Emerson etc. had because they kept showing it on TV and talking about on commentary
In 1984, would corresponding fans have known Slam counts of leading players of top of your heads in this way?
Would you have been able to give number of Slams Connors, Mac, Borg etc. had without thinking about it, counting it up?
Click to expand...
Sometime in the mid-to-late 1990s is when I remember hearing and caring about the slam count. The CYGS is a different story. We all knew Laver for this, even in the 1980s. I remember Martina’s chase of the CYGS. And I really remember Steffi’s successful chase of the CYGS. This was one of my favorite moments of tennis in my lifetime(McEnroe winning Wimbledon in 1981 was my finest memory).

I remember players chasing world #1 much more than the slam count until Sampras started closing in. In 1988, Sports Illustrated had a very long article about how Lendl fell 3 weeks short of breaking Connors’ consecutive weeks at #1. This was the biggest article in that addition(it was either the November or December edition of S.I. In 19889). It detailed Lendl’s extensive list of injuries(fractured foot in Winter, pulled pec muscle at the FO(I remember him icing it during changeover, pulled quad at Wimbledon, and a severely damaged shoulder that was operated on after the USO. Wilander was interviewed and he said that “we all know who the real #1 is”.

I don’t recall the slam count ever being mentioned during the Borg/Lendl 1981 FO final either, or during the 1981 season at all.
 
messiahrobins said:
Federer exorcised the demons though at W2018. That was a big win over Nadal to at least preserve a winning h2h at one of the slams.

I dont think anything in the Big 3 Era is as painful as Djokovic's loses to Nadal at RG 2022 and Alcaraz at W2023. Both of those were legacy changers in hindsight. W2008 was huge for Nadal, but ultimately not damaging for Federer after W2019.
Click to expand...

It's baffling how after years you want to make this a thing and nobody catches up because it's a completely irrelevant and forgotten match by almost everyone.

Their match from the previous year is far bigger because it was only the 3rd time that Nadal lost at the FO, and he hadn't lost since 2015.

It was a Big 3 player in his pet slam winning a match that wasn't a final, it'd be like Djokovic fans glorifying him beating Federer at AO 2020.

Wimbledon 2023 was also not that big of a deal, given the age gap, but at least it was a changing of the guard at the event from Djokovic to Alcaraz and it ended his unbeaten streak there.
 
BauerAlmeida said:
It's baffling how after years you want to make this a thing and nobody catches up because it's a completely irrelevant and forgotten match by almost everyone.

Their match from the previous year is far bigger because it was only the 3rd time that Nadal lost at the FO, and he hadn't lost since 2015.

It was a Big 3 player in his pet slam winning a match that wasn't a final, it'd be like Djokovic fans glorifying him beating Federer at AO 2020.

Wimbledon 2023 was also not that big of a deal, given the age gap, but at least it was a changing of the guard at the event from Djokovic to Alcaraz and it ended his unbeaten streak there.
Click to expand...
Nadal beating Djokovic at the French Open again certainly wasn't in the script after the 2021 result.
 
Mustard said:
Nadal beating Djokovic at the French Open again certainly wasn't in the script after the 2021 result.
Click to expand...

Nadal beating anyone at RG can never be considered a surprise. Yeah, Djokovic had won in 2021, but Nadal had SP in the 3rd and he likely wins the match if he wins that. And also won in straights in late 2020.
 
BauerAlmeida said:
It's baffling how after years you want to make this a thing and nobody catches up because it's a completely irrelevant and forgotten match by almost everyone.

Their match from the previous year is far bigger because it was only the 3rd time that Nadal lost at the FO, and he hadn't lost since 2015.

It was a Big 3 player in his pet slam winning a match that wasn't a final, it'd be like Djokovic fans glorifying him beating Federer at AO 2020.

Wimbledon 2023 was also not that big of a deal, given the age gap, but at least it was a changing of the guard at the event from Djokovic to Alcaraz and it ended his unbeaten streak there.
Click to expand...
:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D
 
Mustard said:
Nadal beating Djokovic at the French Open again certainly wasn't in the script after the 2021 result.
Click to expand...
Too many Novak fans got it their heads that Nadal would win RG indefinitely until he was 50 years old so literally thought 35/36 year old Nadal was the same force as 25/26 year old Nadal, its actually a huge compliment to Nadal as it seems to sort of confirm rival fans also see him as GOAT of that Era.

I also adore the way they seek to dismiss W2023 as Djokovic was too old yet celebrate W2019 as legacy defining and Federer's most painful defeat...when Federer was older in 2019 than Djokovic was in 2023. They are the gifts that keep on giving tbh.
 
Mustard said:
Federer outplayed Djokovic up to 5-1 in the fourth set of the 2019 Wimbledon final, let's be honest. It got complicated after that, but what cost Federer was the 3 tiebreaks (blowing the first set tiebreak from ahead, and was flat in the other two).

First set: I thought Federer was the better player, but blew a tiebreak lead
Second set: Federer dominates it 6-1
Third set: Like the first set, Federer was the better player, but played a poor tiebreak
Fourth set: Federer leads 5-1, Djokovic reduces that to 5-4, Federer wins it 6-4
Fifth set: Djokovic breaks for 4-2, Federer breaks right back, Federer breaks for 8-7, hits 2 aces in a row for 40-15 and 2 championship points and fails, Djokovic breaks back, Federer has another 2 break points at 11-11 (missing one by a fraction). Tiebreak at 12-12, and Federer plays another poor tiebreak.
Click to expand...
Playing tiebreaks poorly is very un-Federer like, but today’s revisionism will call it typical Federer
 
Pheasant said:
2008 WI: this one was the toughest for me to take. Nadal had now caught up to Fed on grass. I was now seriously worried about Fed hitting 14 slam titles.
Click to expand...
There was absolutely no way Fed was not hitting 14 majors at that time when he was only 2 away unless he was his by a meteor
 
mike danny said:
There was absolutely no way Fed was not hitting 14 majors at that time when he was only 2 away unless he was his by a meteor
Click to expand...
There was a suggestion from some people at the time that Federer's reaction to the 2009 Australian Open final (i.e. the post-match tears), was due to fears that he might not match Sampras' major total, and that Nadal's comforting of Federer was almost like "Of course you will match and overtake Sampras' total". I do think this was the moment when Federer went from the depression to acceptance part of his grief in regards to Nadal. Once Federer accepted it, and that he wasn't necessarily the invincible one, he could change his perspective and be more relaxed going forward.
 
Mustard said:
Aye. That revisionism exists precisely because Federer played 3 poor tiebreaks in the 2019 Wimbledon final, and Djokovic fanatics mention that match a lot.
Click to expand...
Fed was 19-2 in tiebreaks at Wimb in QF and beyond from 2003-2009. The 2 lost were against Hewitt in 2004 and Nadal in 2006.
 
Mustard said:
There was a suggestion from some people at the time that Federer's reaction to the 2009 Australian Open final (i.e. the post-match tears), was due to fears that he might not match Sampras' major total, and that Nadal's comforting of Federer was almost like "Of course you will match and overtake Sampras' total". I do think this was the moment when Federer went from the depression to acceptance part of his grief in regards to Nadal. Once Federer accepted it, and that he wasn't necessarily the invincible one, he could change his perspective and be more relaxed going forward.
Click to expand...
Fed cried because he had once again lost to Nadal and on every surface and felt like his time at the top was over
 
Most painful at the time and most painful in hindsight are different things.

I have no problem believing that losing the 08 Wimbledon final to Nadal pained Federer the most; losing his invincibility in the most heralded slam tournament after five consecutive victories there; and a month after being battered in the final of Roland Garros by the same guy...‘There's a new man at the helm of men's tennis’ as Andrew Castle's line went. Obviously the fact that he wins four of the next six slam tournaments makes that result look less decisive but Federer clearly valued the aura and acclaim of being on the top plinth, and that result felt like him being finally thrown off. AO09 similar.

With hindsight, I don't think either of those results is that devastating in the totality of his career. WI19 feels more dissatisfying because of how close he was to the outstanding crowning moment. But most painful at the time I'm still going Wimbledon 08.
 
2019 Wim was a close loss that hurts a lot, but Federer was on his last legs and a finals loss is still a creditable achievement given his age at that time and the opponent he was facing. For me the 2008 loss hurts the most. Federer losing on his own turf, missing out on the chance to break Borg's 5 in a row record is too painful to accept. This loss had an impact far beyond a single loss. While Nadal won 14 majors at his pet slam, Federer lost his dominance after a mere 5 titles. His aura was badly dented and he was able to add only 3 more titles in the rest of his career.
 
serengetisunset said:
2019 Wim was a close loss that hurts a lot, but Federer was on his last legs and a finals loss is still a creditable achievement given his age at that time and the opponent he was facing. For me the 2008 loss hurts the most. Federer losing on his own turf, missing out on the chance to break Borg's 5 in a row record is too painful to accept. This loss had an impact far beyond a single loss. While Nadal won 14 majors at his pet slam, Federer lost his dominance after a mere 5 titles. His aura was badly dented and he was able to add only 3 more titles in the rest of his career.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the 2008 loss was far more painful. Fed lost at the height of his powers against his main rival after failing to make a dent in the latter’s fortress. In terms of legacy, nothing beats that one.

I think if Fed wins that, then there are no 40-15’s in his career.
 
mike danny said:
Yeah, the 2008 loss was far more painful. Fed lost at the height of his powers against his main rival after failing to make a dent in the latter’s fortress. In terms of legacy, nothing beats that one.

I think if Fed wins that, then there are no 40-15’s in his career.
Click to expand...
Federer losing 2008 was unacceptable as he was playing in his territory.
Nadal winning was amazing but that was painful at that time .
 
gamelovergold said:
Federer losing 2008 was unacceptable as he was playing in his territory.
Nadal winning was amazing but that was painful at that time .
Click to expand...
Easy to say unacceptable, but he’s not as good as Nadal at RG to asm him to win all the time.

Even Djokovic didn’t play 3 straight years vs Nadal at the AO. And didn’t even beat Stan every time they played
 
In hindsight, I look at 08 Wimbledon as the tennis gods scrounging together to stop Federer winning Wimbledon seven years in a row. (It's not necessarily true that he would have still won in '09 had he won in '08, but let's say he did.)

In order to stop Federer winning Wimbledon seven years in a row, they had to pick out another of the three best players of all time, playing at his peak level on grass, having been encroaching on victory at Wimbledon the two previous years, and having landed a huge psychological blow on Federer at Roland Garros a month earlier; all of that it took to overcome Federer 9-7 in a fifth set when it was clearly too dark to be playing. A lot of things coalesced in order to temporarily knock Federer off his Wimbledon perch.
 
mike danny said:
Yeah, the 2008 loss was far more painful. Fed lost at the height of his powers against his main rival after failing to make a dent in the latter’s fortress. In terms of legacy, nothing beats that one.

I think if Fed wins that, then there are no 40-15’s in his career.
Click to expand...
There already was at 2006 Rome ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Pheasant
As a fan, what were the worst losses that you felt?
2
Replies
58
Views
3K
swish41
S
Pheasant
  • Poll Poll
Fed fans, how many of you miss Nadal?
Replies
17
Views
785
jrepac
J
lud
Roger Federer's Top 10 Most Heartbreaking losses of all Time.
Replies
31
Views
3K
Fedforever
F
C
Heroic losses
Replies
9
Views
2K
matchmaker
matchmaker
noeledmonds
Incomprihensible Grand Slam Losses
2
Replies
84
Views
10K
mjane777
M
Back
Top