Another option would be USO07. How much would a win there have changed narratives?
Del Potro though...Everyone wants to take away the ones Nadal won lol
Can't believe no one is choosing USO 09, how was that not a big blow in the most winnable match for Federer? At least with Wimb 08 Nadal was 2 sets up and AO 09 he played the good tennis
I'd be fuming with USO 09 - 6th USO in a row, Open Era record, 4 in a row too...3 slams won on 3 diff surfaces in 09
Well, she did lose one set 0-6 and could have lost another one had Hawkeye been around at the time to overturn the out call of Monica’s serve at 6-5 in the tiebreaker. Soooo……not hard to visualize, unless one is the blindest of partisans.
Djokovic honestly doesn't need to change any result LOL he's more than enough compensated since 2018
Everyone wants to take away the ones Nadal won lol
Can't believe no one is choosing USO 09, how was that not a big blow in the most winnable match for Federer? At least with Wimb 08 Nadal was 2 sets up and AO 09 he played the good tennis
I'd be fuming with USO 09 - 6th USO in a row, Open Era record, 4 in a row too...3 slams won on 3 diff surfaces in 09
RG13 SF?
FRENCH OPEN 1984. Mcenroe should have won that match.
Great shoutEdberg - Chang FO final. Had Edberg won that one, which he was heavily tipped of doing he’d be the only one with a career slam in both junior and senior. And his 10th overall senior slam.
Torn between that one and 40-15.Edberg - Chang FO final. Had Edberg won that one, which he was heavily tipped of doing he’d be the only one with a career slam in both junior and senior. And his 10th overall senior slam.
Oof I had to take back my like there. I’m all or nothing in this hypothetical situation2012 AO final.
Djokovic gets the 2013 semi final win in return (but loses to Ferrer in the final).
Seles vs Graf in her comeback Slam USO 95
Or vs Sanchez Vicaro in the 98 FO right after her father passed away.
Would only need to change, I believe, a single point in each match to change the outcome.
2004 Wimbledon final
These are great choices. If Seles had taken that 1995 U.S. Open, it may have made a difference in her comeback. Her mental game was never the same after the stabbing, but if she had beaten Graf in her comeback tournament, who knows?
Rome 2006 final, Fed vs Nadal
In hindsight I wouldn't change any of those frustrating 2014-16 losses because then AO 17 wouldn't feel as satisfying.I'm assuming that changing one match from tennis history means all else stays the same.
So, 2015 USO final.
AO 2009 final
This result gives Fed a really good win over a really good Nadal and probably tips the scales a bit in the rivalry.
People think I'd choose one of the AOs for Nadal but it's Wimb 18 SF vs Djokovic for me
If you're a Roddick fan, the 04 pick is much easier to make because the difference is winning that match could've very likely changed his career trajectory potentially making him more successful down the road. It would've also made him number 1 in the world again. The confidence and the mental gain from that can't be discounted. He might have stuck with Gilbert, developed his game differently, etc.I'd rather give Roddick the 2009 Wimbledon final. He fought like hell for that one. That's my #9.
AO12 final, easily
AO? Not USO?AO 2009 final
This result gives Fed a really good win over a really good Nadal and probably tips the scales a bit in the rivalry. Look at it as Fed "halting" Nadal's momentum that he'd gained in 2008.
It also likely gives Fed a NCYGS from US Open 2008 to Wimbledon 2009, though I do wonder how the very tight Wimbledon 2009 final would play out with Fed playing for four Slams in a row. I'd assume not that differently because he did have the weight of the Slam record on his shoulders on him and still eked out the win, but it's worth debating at least.
The downside would be Nadal never getting his AO which would be incredibly unlucky for someone with that many good runs at the tournament.
In hindsight I wouldn't change any of those frustrating 2014-16 losses because then AO 17 wouldn't feel as satisfying.
AO would have been a more legacy-defining win given the nature of the opponent.AO? Not USO?
Only downside of taking away Ned's only AO title would be having to put up with the incessant whining from the VB that Australia is actually the exo of slams that no one cares about. Because you know that's what would happen.AO would have been a more legacy-defining win given the nature of the opponent.
Plus, it feels wrong to deny Delpo his only Slam title. Even if we are taking away Nadal's only AO, he's still got 19 other Slams.