Whose career was most disappointing after defeating Federer at a Grand Slam?

[McEnroeisanartist]

Whose career was most disappointing after defeating Federer at a Grand Slam?

2013 Wimbledon - 2nd Round Sergiy Stakhovsky - reached 2 3rd rounds in the rest of his career
2013 US Open - 4th Round Tommy Robredo - would never reach another quarterfinal, reached 3 4th rounds
2014 French Open - 4th Round - Ernests Gulbis - would never reach another quarterfinal, reached 2 4th rounds
2015 Australian Open - 3rd Round - Andreas Seppi - would reach 2 4th rounds
2016 Wimbledon - Semifinal - Milos Raonic - would never reach another semifinal, reached 5 Quarterfinals
2018 Wimbledon - Quarterfinal - Kevin Anderson - would never reach another quarterfinal, reached 1 4th Round
2018 US Open - 4th Round - John Millman - would never reach another 4th round,
2019 US Open - Quarterfinal - Grigor Dimitro - would reach 3 quarterfinals
2021 Wimbledon - Quarterfinal - Hubert Hurkacz - reached another quarterfinal

 

[nolefam_2024]

Milos Raonic for sure. He looked like a slam champion in 2016. Had tough match vs Andy in AO going five sets and in ATP finals where Murray probably saved match points. Was in final vs Murray and did not even take a set. Didn't make another slam semis.

 

[Pheasant]

Guga, after he beat peak Fed at the 2004 FO, was the most disappointing. Statisically, 2004 was right there with Fed's best clay court season, His 16-2, .889 record on clay in 2004 was only topped by his 2009 record of 18-2, .900. His clay Dominance Ratio of 1.33 was only topped by 2005 and 2009, which were at 1.34. And yet, Guga buried Fed in 3 straight sets. After that tourney, Guga never again reached R3 of a major.

 

[buscemi]

Milos Raonic for sure. He looked like a slam champion in 2016. Had tough match vs Andy in AO going five sets and in ATP finals where Murray probably saved match points. Was in final vs Murray and did not even take a set. Didn't make another slam semis.

Agreed. Plus, at that point:

-Federer hadn't won a Major since 2012 Wimbledon, and it was unclear whether he'd recover from his injury/surgery;​

-Nadal hadn't won a Major since the 2014 French Open, and it was unclear whether he'd ever become a top player again;​

-it seemed like Djokovic was beginning to crash after winning the NCYGS​

In other words, it was looking like there wasn't much more than Murray in Raonic's way. Of course, we now know what happened with the re-emergence of Federer and Nadal (in 2017) and Djokovic (in 2018), plus injuries starting to catch up with Raonic as well. But no one knew any of that in July 2016.

 

[ttwarrior1]

will be hurk in due time

 

[DropWideShot]

will be hurk in due time

YIKES!!

 

[MissileBackHand99]

Dimitrov has already reached at least 2 Grand Slam SFs before 2019 USO, and has had a bit of a resurgence in play in 2024. Robredo was already past 30 and had been playing for over a decade on tour when he beat Fed in 2013

 

[Mustard]

Guga, after he beat peak Fed at the 2004 FO, was the most disappointing. Statisically, 2004 was right there with Fed's best clay court season, His 16-2, .889 record on clay in 2004 was only topped by his 2009 record of 18-2, .900. His clay Dominance Ratio of 1.33 was only topped by 2005 and 2009, which were at 1.34. And yet, Guga buried Fed in 3 straight sets. After that tourney, Guga never again reached R3 of a major.

Kuerten basically rolled the clock back 3 years when he beat Federer at the 2004 French Open.

 

[Galvermegs]

will be hurk in due time

Never been his fan. Effective at his best but one of the most ungainly players ive seen in big events/matches.

 

[jrepac]

Milos Raonic for sure. He looked like a slam champion in 2016. Had tough match vs Andy in AO going five sets and in ATP finals where Murray probably saved match points. Was in final vs Murray and did not even take a set. Didn't make another slam semis.

but didn't he have a lot of injuries down the road? agree, he looked like a future GS winner...

 

[nolefam_2024]

but didn't he have a lot of injuries down the road? agree, he looked like a future GS winner...

Yes. He maximized his game in 2016 but the injuries sidelined him.

 

[Musterrific]

Guga, after he beat peak Fed at the 2004 FO, was the most disappointing. Statisically, 2004 was right there with Fed's best clay court season, His 16-2, .889 record on clay in 2004 was only topped by his 2009 record of 18-2, .900. His clay Dominance Ratio of 1.33 was only topped by 2005 and 2009, which were at 1.34. And yet, Guga buried Fed in 3 straight sets. After that tourney, Guga never again reached R3 of a major.

That result is utterly mystifying to me. As the last pre-Nadal era RG, the 2004 edition was Federer's to lose. It's shocking how badly he fumbled that golden opportunity against a cripple.

 

[Mustard]

That result is utterly mystifying to me. As the last pre-Nadal era RG, the 2004 edition was Federer's to lose. It's shocking how badly he fumbled that golden opportunity against a cripple.

On that particular day, Kuerten played like his 2001 self.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

That result is utterly mystifying to me. As the last pre-Nadal era RG, the 2004 edition was Federer's to lose. It's shocking how badly he fumbled that golden opportunity against a cripple.

Federer wasn't that great on clay yet, he lost to Costa in the 1st round in Rome and he had lost in the R1 at RG the previous year to Horna. Outside Hamburg he hadn't had great results. He would have to beat Feliciano, Nalbandian, Gaudio and Coria in a row. Quite a tough road, especially Nalbandian who was troubling him a lot at the time. The 2004 edition was Coria's to lose, not Federer.

 

[Mustard]

Federer wasn't that great on clay yet. The 2004 edition was Coria's to lose, not Federer.

That wasn't the narrative at the time. Federer had just beaten Coria in the 2004 Hamburg final in 4 sets, coming from behind to win. That ended a 31 match winning streak on clay for Coria. Federer's win over Coria seemed to prove that he had conquered all surfaces, and Federer was more favoured than Coria going into the 2004 French Open, because of Federer's past experience of actually winning majors (2 at the time).

 

[BauerAlmeida]

That wasn't the narrative at the time. Federer had just beaten Coria in the 2004 Hamburg final in 4 sets, coming from behind to win. That ended a 31 match winning streak on clay for Coria. Federer's win over Coria seemed to prove that he had conquered all surfaces, and Federer was more favoured than Coria going into the 2004 French Open, because of Federer's past experience of actually winning majors (2 at the time).

Nah, I remember at the time Coria was the huge favorite for the event. They were asking him how he was gonna celebrate after the first match. Coria lost to Federer at Hamburg but he was carrying a 30+ winning streak before that on clay. Many without dropping a set and he won Montecarlo aside from making the Hamburg final.

Federer won Hamburg but he had already done so in 2002 and that didn't translate into good results at RG or other big clay events (except for the Rome final in 2003).

He was ONE of the favorites, probably with Moya they were the biggest favorites after Coria, but before the event Coria was seen by most as #1 favorite and before the cramps in the final it was clear why it was the case.

 

[MissileBackHand99]

That wasn't the narrative at the time. Federer had just beaten Coria in the 2004 Hamburg final in 4 sets, coming from behind to win. That ended a 31 match winning streak on clay for Coria. Federer's win over Coria seemed to prove that he had conquered all surfaces, and Federer was more favoured than Coria going into the 2004 French Open, because of Federer's past experience of actually winning majors (2 at the time).

Fed's win over defending champion Coria was huge, and Fed was firmly the #1 player overall in the world...but the 2004 French was still seen as Coria's coronation moment. He and been fantastic on the dirt for 2-3 years and everyone expected 2004 to finally be his year. The Hamburg final was seen as a blip on the radar, even though it was to Fed. I vividly remember that timeframe

 

[Angrybirdstar]

he had lost in the R1 at RG the previous year to Horna

i'm quite curious if anyone here has seen this match, because Horna would proceed to get match points against peaking Verkerk, so the former was likely in very good form right

 

[Gizo]

i'm quite curious if anyone here has seen this match, because Horna would proceed to get match points against peaking Verkerk, so the former was likely in very good form right

My memory is a bit hazy there, but Federer hit a lot of UEs, with the timing of his groundstrokes looking completely off at times and him shanking them left, right and centre. And after he failed to convert a set point in the 1st set tiebreak, his head seemed to drop.

On the other side of the net, Horna was tenacious and persistent, chasing things down and made him himself a 'nuisance' to play against, with Federer getting more and more frustrated and hitting more errors - it seemed to be very similar to Federer's defeat against Mantilla (one of the biggest fighters I've ever seen on a tennis court) a few weeks earlier.

Federer seemed pretty downbeat after that defeat (having also lost in R1 at RG the previous year), but of course a few weeks later that despair turned to joy as his big breakthrough came.

Ahead of Wimbledon in 2003, with Federer's huge and abundant talent alongside his poor grand slam results up to that point, the likes of McEnroe and Cash when working for the BBC were asking 'when's this Federer guy finally going to deliver? We're still waiting?'. He was still younger at that time than Sinner was during the 2023 US Open (before even getting to his Australian Open title run this year) for perspective. It's safe to say that he well and truly did that. In his opening match against Hyung-Taik Lee, he needed 8 match points to finally put it to bed, clearly looking nervous at the end and then relieved to have avoided any risk of yet another 1st round defeat. He would then go from strength to strength.

 

[Hitman]

Nalbandian. That guy should have been a slam champion.

 

[Galvermegs]

i'm quite curious if anyone here has seen this match, because Horna would proceed to get match points against peaking Verkerk, so the former was likely in very good form right

Ive seen some highlights with foreign commentary recently. Horna was very consistent and looked at ease moving on a slippery court. Federer seeked unable to outmanoevre or overpower the peruvian.

 

[Mustard]

Nalbandian. That guy should have been a slam champion.

Nalbandian had an uncanny knack for self-destruction.

 

[Rosstour]

Dimitrov has already reached at least 2 Grand Slam SFs before 2019 USO, and has had a bit of a resurgence in play in 2024. Robredo was already past 30 and had been playing for over a decade on tour when he beat Fed in 2013

Yeah Grigor isn't the answer here. He's in the QFs of Paris 2024 lol

 

[Galvermegs]

Yeah Grigor isn't the answer here. He's in the QFs of Paris 2024 lol

Khachanov... man what a dull player with so little charisma. Dimitrov, almost too much.


I've seen nalbandian in person fight till the end (underdog) and collapse when facing someone half the crowd dont know (favorite). Difficult to bet on.

 

[Donkus_Reborn]

the correct answer is Roddick after W04.

Compare the Roddick at W04 to the Roddick that was losing to megadonks like Pusher 06 Murray, Tipsarevic, Gasquet, Ferrer, Lu and Lopez and you actually get quite a sad tennis story of a guy who tried to play like Nadal to beat a guy who matches up bad, only to lose to honestly toilet opponents (sorry but most of them are bog standard players). Even his 05 run was unconvincing, 09 was good but he was serving 85% which was OP.

I still think if Roddick kept his 04 forehand, and improved his BH like he did, as well as making the % increase on serve with Stefanki, whilst staying away from the net, he wins 2-4 slams between 05-10. He proved he could beat Nadal and Djokovic, and Federer would have been beatable by 07.

I know there's ifs up top, but everyone knew Roddick was a donkey with his approaches and his volleys. It's not an if, it's a reasonable observation. Oh well, it just meant it took Djokovic longer to pass Fed.

 

[Mustard]

the correct answer is Roddick after W04.

Compare the Roddick at W04 to the Roddick that was losing to megadonks like Pusher 06 Murray, Tipsarevic, Gasquet, Ferrer, Lu and Lopez and you actually get quite a sad tennis story of a guy who tried to play like Nadal to beat a guy who matches up bad, only to lose to honestly toilet opponents (sorry but most of them are bog standard players). Even his 05 run was unconvincing, 09 was good but he was serving 85% which was OP.

I still think if Roddick kept his 04 forehand, and improved his BH like he did, as well as making the % increase on serve with Stefanki, whilst staying away from the net, he wins 2-4 slams between 05-10. He proved he could beat Nadal and Djokovic, and Federer would have been beatable by 07.

I know there's ifs up top, but everyone knew Roddick was a donkey with his approaches and his volleys. It's not an if, it's a reasonable observation. Oh well, it just meant it took Djokovic longer to pass Fed.

Roddick in late 2004 was in a dilemma. He had fallen much further behind Federer as the year went on, and even Hewitt had battered Roddick at the 2004 YEC in winning 20 points in a row to end their semi final.

Roddick had to decide whether to stick with the plan that he was already on with Brad Gilbert, which focused on accentuating Roddick's strengths as a tennis player and hiding the negatives as much as possible, or to try a new approach that would focus on making Roddick a more well-rounded player. Roddick chose the latter, so fired Brad Gilbert and brought in Dean Goldfine as his new coach. Under Goldfine, Roddick started improving things like his backhand and getting more consistent in his overall game, but his strengths became lesser strengths, especially the forehand, so Roddick's gamble basically backfired.

Jimmy Connors' brought some of the fire back to Roddick's game for a time, but less so than 2003-2004. Later in his career, with Larry Stefanki, Roddick focused more on fitness to try to get an edge.

Roddick probably would have been better off sticking with Gilbert's approach into 2005 and beyond, but that's easy to say with hindsight, and it would have been the easy option at the time too. Roddick took the gamble, and it didn't pay off.

 

[Donkus_Reborn]

Roddick in late 2004 was in a dilemma. He had fallen much further behind Federer as the year went on, and even Hewitt had battered Roddick at the 2004 YEC in winning 20 points in a row to end their semi final.

Roddick had to decide whether to stick with the plan that he was already on with Brad Gilbert, which focused on accentuating Roddick's strengths as a tennis player and hiding the negatives as much as possible, or to try a new approach that would focus on making Roddick a more well-rounded player. Roddick chose the latter, so fired Brad Gilbert and brought in Dean Goldfine as his new coach. Under Goldfine, Roddick started improving things like his backhand and getting more consistent in his overall game, but his strengths became lesser strengths, especially the forehand, so Roddick's gamble basically backfired.

Jimmy Connors' brought some of the fire back to Roddick's game for a time, but less so than 2003-2004. Later in his career, with Larry Stefanki, Roddick focused more on fitness to try to get an edge.

Roddick probably would have been better off sticking with Gilbert's approach into 2005 and beyond, but that's easy to say with hindsight, and it would have been the easy option at the time too. Roddick took the gamble, and it didn't pay off.

yeah but falling behind hewitt isn't optimal but hewitt isn't the type of bog crap I would scratch my head about Roddick losing to. Safin yes (Safin really should never be losing to Hewitt level players). Hewitt is a good player. The names Roddick was losing to after 05 Wimbledon were like, kinda crap. No one will remember any of the names I mentioned, even Murray - he puts people to sleep and even he's the best player Rod lost to after 05 outside of federer - lol.

I keep going onto Roddick's youtube channel asking him what the blue phuck and hell was he thinking about on his forehand side when it was evident that was his best shot (see his match v's Nadal at Miami 2010 on a slow court). I never get an answer. I get replies from comments but nothing from the man himself.

Let's move on though from roddick - too many parts of his game were world class at different parts of his career and he never put it together because he was too dumb to put it together - let's leave it at that. Not worth pondering tbh.

 

[MissileBackHand99]

Roddick in late 2004 was in a dilemma. He had fallen much further behind Federer as the year went on, and even Hewitt had battered Roddick at the 2004 YEC in winning 20 points in a row to end their semi final.

Roddick had to decide whether to stick with the plan that he was already on with Brad Gilbert, which focused on accentuating Roddick's strengths as a tennis player and hiding the negatives as much as possible, or to try a new approach that would focus on making Roddick a more well-rounded player. Roddick chose the latter, so fired Brad Gilbert and brought in Dean Goldfine as his new coach. Under Goldfine, Roddick started improving things like his backhand and getting more consistent in his overall game, but his strengths became lesser strengths, especially the forehand, so Roddick's gamble basically backfired.

Jimmy Connors' brought some of the fire back to Roddick's game for a time, but less so than 2003-2004. Later in his career, with Larry Stefanki, Roddick focused more on fitness to try to get an edge.

Roddick probably would have been better off sticking with Gilbert's approach into 2005 and beyond, but that's easy to say with hindsight, and it would have been the easy option at the time too. Roddick took the gamble, and it didn't pay off.

I've always thought he should've stuck with Gilbert longer. Gilbert had improved Roddick's movement/footwork, his serve became even more of a weapon due to how varied it became, and he was mentally tougher in matches IMO. Fed's 2004 is one of the best seasons ever, but I thought Roddick had a real chance to beat him at Wimbledon. The rain delays really helped Fed in that Final IMO. And yup, Roddick gambled and lost upon firing Gilbert

 

[Gizo]

I believe that Gilbert clashed with Roddick's father Jerry, over money (a financial contract) and scheduling.

Jerry Roddick apparently didn't get involved with tactics and match strategies, knowing that he was completely out of his depth there, but had a major influence in other areas, notably when it came to finances, coaches and contracts with them, scheduling etc. And apparently Gilbert wanted Roddick to spend December 2004 training intensely instead of entering charity events and exhibitions, which was a major source of disagreement. Gilbert previously wasn't happy that they only worked together for something like 4 days during the 2003 off-season.

In 2004, Roddick won a lot of matches and generally played excellently (he had a 80% W/L record) but ultimately lost a lot of high quality matches against in-form/in the zone opponents, whether it was Safin at the AO, giving Federer all he could handle at Wimbledon, Agassi at Cincinnati, González at the Olympics, Johansson at the USO and Nadal (who hit over 50 winners in 4 sets on slow clay) in the Davis Cup final. Even his R2 defeat to Mutis at RG, which I was courtside for, was an outstanding match with some breathtaking shot-making from Mutis winning the day.

 

[ChrisRF]

That wasn't the narrative at the time. Federer had just beaten Coria in the 2004 Hamburg final in 4 sets, coming from behind to win. That ended a 31 match winning streak on clay for Coria. Federer's win over Coria seemed to prove that he had conquered all surfaces, and Federer was more favoured than Coria going into the 2004 French Open, because of Federer's past experience of actually winning majors (2 at the time).

I agree here. At least here in German TV Federer was seen as the favorite, and Coria as the one who would win if Federer again goes out early for some reason. But Coria wasn't given much chances in a direct H2H match with Federer himself. It was a bit like with Hewitt, people didn't really knew how he should hit through Federer. And I tend to agree. In the end Federer won every match against Coria, be it on clay or not.

Nalbandian was a really bad matchup though, and Federer's nerves were never the best when it was close. And yet, if Kuerten only would have been somewhere else in the draw (because he wasn't consistent enough to reach the late rounds), then it would have been quite likely that already in 2004 we would have seen a CYGS.

 

[MissileBackHand99]

I know at least here in America, I remember Coria being seen as the best clay courter going into the 2004 French Open (even over defending champ Ferrero, who had a mess of injuries that season) Even Fed snapping Coria's win streak on clay at Hamburg, didn't stop Coria from being seen as the man to beat at RG. Fed was clearly the #1 player in the world, but I don't recall what the talk was if there was a Coria/Fed showdown at RG

 

[d-quik]

He looked like a slam champion

No he didn't

It has gotta br Gulbis or Dimitrov imo