2014 Wimbledon Draw

[tented]

Shame is often felt when you aren't good enough to achieve something. I think it's normal. Those who don't have that aren't great competitors. Losses can prove to lead to better things, mostly the case for upcoming players but even for established greats. But it might be the shame they felt from a certain loss or losses that does it.

I've always maintained that Roger's 2012 was kickstarted by the really bad losses at Wimbledon and USO that year. Those losses to Tsonga and Nole from 2 sets up ticked him off and that helped lead to a much better year in 2012. But those were certainly losses he should have been VERY ashamed of and the reaction to them makes me think he was.

No, no, no. "Shame" is a emotion of guilt. There's no need for shame once you've done your best in competition. For example, Nadal lost the 2006 Wimbledon final - he wasn't good enough to win it, yet, but he did his best. It was progress from 2005, and progress towards 2007, from which he continually progressed until winning it.

At no stage would he have felt shame. Disappointment - yes. But that's a natural response to defeat. And he used that disappointment as a springboard to eventual success.

But he had no reason to feel shame...

Shame also means to feel embarrassed...

I don't think you'll find "shame", "ashamed", or even "embarrassed" in any interview with Roger. That's not how they think. "Mad", "angry", "pissed off", "disappointed" -- I'm sure you'll find them.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Shame is often felt when you aren't good enough to achieve something. I think it's normal. Those who don't have that aren't great competitors. Losses can prove to lead to better things, mostly the case for upcoming players but even for established greats. But it might be the shame they felt from a certain loss or losses that does it.

I've always maintained that Roger's 2012 was kickstarted by the really bad losses at Wimbledon and USO that year. Those losses to Tsonga and Nole from 2 sets up ticked him off and that helped lead to a much better year in 2012. But those were certainly losses he should have been VERY ashamed of and the reaction to them makes me think he was.

No, no, no. "Shame" is a emotion of guilt. There's no need for shame once you've done your best in competition. For example, Nadal lost the 2006 Wimbledon final - he wasn't good enough to win it, yet, but he did his best. It was progress from 2005, and progress towards 2007, from which he continually progressed until winning it.

At no stage would he have felt shame. Disappointment - yes. But that's a natural response to defeat. And he used that disappointment as a springboard to eventual success.

But he had no reason to feel shame...

Shame also means to feel embarrassed...

I don't think you'll find "shame", "ashamed", or even "embarrassed" in any interview with Roger. That's not how they think. "Mad", "angry", "pissed off", "disappointed" -- I'm sure you'll find them.

Tented and Kirean you two are correct, not even Roger puts it set his expectations as high as our good friend Darth does. Maybe one day those two will meet over a beer and Darth will finally say, it's alright Rog, you my dawg. I know you gave it your all.:clap

 

[tenisplayrla08]

I think losing a final (ie the biggest stage in the sport) is a dent against a player's greatness. Obviously a player in the final has a chance to win the prize everyone wants most but you also risk more legacy wise. I think the hypothetical player who goes 8-0 in finals but loses the occasional QF, Semis, or earlier is greater than someone who is 8-8 in finals. JMO.

I'm going to have to disagree with your logic here and it mainly has to do with context. Look at Ivan Lendl - 8-11 in Finals, but his career span was perhaps the hardest in terms of competition of any player in the history of the game. He played against a peak Borg, Connors and McEnroe, as well as Wilander, Edberg, and Becker, and then Sampras, Agassi, and Courier.

Another example is Roger Federer at the French Open. There is no shame in his 1-4 record in Finals and it is certainly better than if he had been 1-0. 1-4 means he was better than every other player on clay except for the greatest clay court player the world has ever seen. 1-0 means he would have had one great tournament.

That depends on whether you consider making a final a good tournament for someone who has made 20+ finals and won 17 slams. IMO, Roger's career absolutely is greater if he is 1-0 in RG finals. Better H2H vs. Nadal and 17-3 in GS finals. That's definitely greater IMO.

Lendl won enough to be an all time great but his place is a little lower than it should have been due to that laughable record in GS finals.

So you're saying Lendl's legacy would be stronger if he got knocked out in the first round of Wimbledon rather than being a losing finalist?

Don't agree at all. 8-11 is a better record than 8-0 for me, because he made 11 other finals rather than losing earlier... the points awarded would also suggest the same.

That one is a grayer area I will admit since Llendl never won Wimbledon. It at least makes him more respectable on grass than if he was routinely bounced in the 1st week. So making 1 and only 1 final there adds a little to his resume. Different scenario for the likes of Roger on grass where he has won a ton. Making the final and losing in 08 certainly didn't add to his resume and as you see IMO I think it subtracted a bit (Not much of course but I still think he looks greater at 7-0).

And I know you watch the NFL. So as another example in comparing Montana and Brady I'd say the former is a greater QB based on how they played in the Super Bowls. Brady has been to an extra Super Bowl, will finish with better stats, but on the biggest stage Montana was impeccable. Same with Jordan in NBA. No way you can really compare guys like Lebron and Kobe as great as they are.

You're one of the people I respect the most on this forum, but I think you're just wrong here Darth. Consistency has to be better/greater than a lack of consistency. I think, you're looking at this matter in a very black and white manner. When you know and we all know it's rather complicated. There are so many issues that are part of it. So many specifics that are as varied as the match ups. Because that's what it comes down to. Match ups. And match ups on different surfaces. So there have to be some principles. And your principle that it's better if someone loses before a final where they lose to another great player just doesn't work.

But I THINK I understand why you're saying it. I think you're focusing on the oh so wonderful quality that is "clutchness." And I think I guess I just think that you can't really do that. You have to look at the whole record. Therefore, winning more matches and going further in tournaments is better than not, in my book. And obviously I think my book should be the standard. Mostly because I don't think your book can work. It's too exclusionary. It oversimplifies. But obviously, I'm probably missing something as well. But, making a conscious effort to keep this short (I already wrote out a really long piece and this is me editing), Fed's consecutive semifinal and consecutive quarterfinal streaks are out of this world amazing. Lendl's streak from the '81 US Open to '91 Wimbledon, in which he didn't lose before the fourth round at all is great and better than anyone else in his era. During that time including the '81 US Open, he lost in the fourth round 5 times, the QFs just 3 times, the SF 9 times and the final 10 times. And he won all 8 of his slams in this period. Straight up consistency. In this era, it's hard to say he doesn't come out on top, because no one was that consistent everywhere.

I guess I'm making it into a black and white thing as well. But, I definitely mentioned the gray above. The match ups. The surfaces. Making a transition from clay to grass.

 

[britbox]

I think losing a final (ie the biggest stage in the sport) is a dent against a player's greatness. Obviously a player in the final has a chance to win the prize everyone wants most but you also risk more legacy wise. I think the hypothetical player who goes 8-0 in finals but loses the occasional QF, Semis, or earlier is greater than someone who is 8-8 in finals. JMO.

I'm going to have to disagree with your logic here and it mainly has to do with context. Look at Ivan Lendl - 8-11 in Finals, but his career span was perhaps the hardest in terms of competition of any player in the history of the game. He played against a peak Borg, Connors and McEnroe, as well as Wilander, Edberg, and Becker, and then Sampras, Agassi, and Courier.

Another example is Roger Federer at the French Open. There is no shame in his 1-4 record in Finals and it is certainly better than if he had been 1-0. 1-4 means he was better than every other player on clay except for the greatest clay court player the world has ever seen. 1-0 means he would have had one great tournament.

That depends on whether you consider making a final a good tournament for someone who has made 20+ finals and won 17 slams. IMO, Roger's career absolutely is greater if he is 1-0 in RG finals. Better H2H vs. Nadal and 17-3 in GS finals. That's definitely greater IMO.

Lendl won enough to be an all time great but his place is a little lower than it should have been due to that laughable record in GS finals.

So you're saying Lendl's legacy would be stronger if he got knocked out in the first round of Wimbledon rather than being a losing finalist?

Don't agree at all. 8-11 is a better record than 8-0 for me, because he made 11 other finals rather than losing earlier... the points awarded would also suggest the same.

That one is a grayer area I will admit since Llendl never won Wimbledon. It at least makes him more respectable on grass than if he was routinely bounced in the 1st week. So making 1 and only 1 final there adds a little to his resume. Different scenario for the likes of Roger on grass where he has won a ton. Making the final and losing in 08 certainly didn't add to his resume and as you see IMO I think it subtracted a bit (Not much of course but I still think he looks greater at 7-0).

And I know you watch the NFL. So as another example in comparing Montana and Brady I'd say the former is a greater QB based on how they played in the Super Bowls. Brady has been to an extra Super Bowl, will finish with better stats, but on the biggest stage Montana was impeccable. Same with Jordan in NBA. No way you can really compare guys like Lebron and Kobe as great as they are.

Well Montana is the greatest QB of all time in my book, but it's not an opinion just based on Super Bowls.... and I also remember the 49-3 loss to the Giants (or some scoreline like that) in the playoffs.

Put it this way, I'd rather a team played 10 Super Bowls and won 5 over a team that won 3 Super Bowls (out of 3) and missed the playoffs seven times.

You nailed it when you said you had to be in it to win it. I put being in it and losing above not being in at all.

 

[Kieran]

Shame is often felt when you aren't good enough to achieve something. I think it's normal. Those who don't have that aren't great competitors. Losses can prove to lead to better things, mostly the case for upcoming players but even for established greats. But it might be the shame they felt from a certain loss or losses that does it.

I've always maintained that Roger's 2012 was kickstarted by the really bad losses at Wimbledon and USO that year. Those losses to Tsonga and Nole from 2 sets up ticked him off and that helped lead to a much better year in 2012. But those were certainly losses he should have been VERY ashamed of and the reaction to them makes me think he was.

No, no, no. "Shame" is a emotion of guilt. There's no need for shame once you've done your best in competition. For example, Nadal lost the 2006 Wimbledon final - he wasn't good enough to win it, yet, but he did his best. It was progress from 2005, and progress towards 2007, from which he continually progressed until winning it.

At no stage would he have felt shame. Disappointment - yes. But that's a natural response to defeat. And he used that disappointment as a springboard to eventual success.

But he had no reason to feel shame...

Shame also means to feel embarrassed...

Yes, another negative emotion. But if you try 100% and lose to the better player, what's to be embarrassed about?

 

[Fiero425]

I'm going to have to disagree with your logic here and it mainly has to do with context. Look at Ivan Lendl - 8-11 in Finals, but his career span was perhaps the hardest in terms of competition of any player in the history of the game. He played against a peak Borg, Connors and McEnroe, as well as Wilander, Edberg, and Becker, and then Sampras, Agassi, and Courier.

Another example is Roger Federer at the French Open. There is no shame in his 1-4 record in Finals and it is certainly better than if he had been 1-0. 1-4 means he was better than every other player on clay except for the greatest clay court player the world has ever seen. 1-0 means he would have had one great tournament.

That depends on whether you consider making a final a good tournament for someone who has made 20+ finals and won 17 slams. IMO, Roger's career absolutely is greater if he is 1-0 in RG finals. Better H2H vs. Nadal and 17-3 in GS finals. That's definitely greater IMO.

Lendl won enough to be an all time great but his place is a little lower than it should have been due to that laughable record in GS finals.

So you're saying Lendl's legacy would be stronger if he got knocked out in the first round of Wimbledon rather than being a losing finalist?

Don't agree at all. 8-11 is a better record than 8-0 for me, because he made 11 other finals rather than losing earlier... the points awarded would also suggest the same.

That one is a grayer area I will admit since Llendl never won Wimbledon. It at least makes him more respectable on grass than if he was routinely bounced in the 1st week. So making 1 and only 1 final there adds a little to his resume. Different scenario for the likes of Roger on grass where he has won a ton. Making the final and losing in 08 certainly didn't add to his resume and as you see IMO I think it subtracted a bit (Not much of course but I still think he looks greater at 7-0).

And I know you watch the NFL. So as another example in comparing Montana and Brady I'd say the former is a greater QB based on how they played in the Super Bowls. Brady has been to an extra Super Bowl, will finish with better stats, but on the biggest stage Montana was impeccable. Same with Jordan in NBA. No way you can really compare guys like Lebron and Kobe as great as they are.

Well Montana is the greatest QB of all time in my book, but it's not an opinion just based on Super Bowls.... and I also remember the 49-3 loss to the Giants (or some scoreline like that) in the playoffs.

Put it this way, I'd rather a team played 10 Super Bowls and won 5 over a team that won 3 Super Bowls (out of 3) and missed the playoffs seven times.

You nailed it when you said you had to be in it to win it. I put being in it and losing above not being in at all.

You got it! These so called losers still have more memories to go back to than others who never make it! I'll take being in the finals anytime over never making an impression by getting there at all! Undermining Lendl's record is a fool's errand in my book and I appreciate his hard work who didn't underachieve half as much as those who were a lot more gifted! :clap :clap :clap

 

[DarthFed]

I'm going to have to disagree with your logic here and it mainly has to do with context. Look at Ivan Lendl - 8-11 in Finals, but his career span was perhaps the hardest in terms of competition of any player in the history of the game. He played against a peak Borg, Connors and McEnroe, as well as Wilander, Edberg, and Becker, and then Sampras, Agassi, and Courier.

Another example is Roger Federer at the French Open. There is no shame in his 1-4 record in Finals and it is certainly better than if he had been 1-0. 1-4 means he was better than every other player on clay except for the greatest clay court player the world has ever seen. 1-0 means he would have had one great tournament.

That depends on whether you consider making a final a good tournament for someone who has made 20+ finals and won 17 slams. IMO, Roger's career absolutely is greater if he is 1-0 in RG finals. Better H2H vs. Nadal and 17-3 in GS finals. That's definitely greater IMO.

Lendl won enough to be an all time great but his place is a little lower than it should have been due to that laughable record in GS finals.

So you're saying Lendl's legacy would be stronger if he got knocked out in the first round of Wimbledon rather than being a losing finalist?

Don't agree at all. 8-11 is a better record than 8-0 for me, because he made 11 other finals rather than losing earlier... the points awarded would also suggest the same.

That one is a grayer area I will admit since Llendl never won Wimbledon. It at least makes him more respectable on grass than if he was routinely bounced in the 1st week. So making 1 and only 1 final there adds a little to his resume. Different scenario for the likes of Roger on grass where he has won a ton. Making the final and losing in 08 certainly didn't add to his resume and as you see IMO I think it subtracted a bit (Not much of course but I still think he looks greater at 7-0).

And I know you watch the NFL. So as another example in comparing Montana and Brady I'd say the former is a greater QB based on how they played in the Super Bowls. Brady has been to an extra Super Bowl, will finish with better stats, but on the biggest stage Montana was impeccable. Same with Jordan in NBA. No way you can really compare guys like Lebron and Kobe as great as they are.

You're one of the people I respect the most on this forum, but I think you're just wrong here Darth. Consistency has to be better/greater than a lack of consistency. I think, you're looking at this matter in a very black and white manner. When you know and we all know it's rather complicated. There are so many issues that are part of it. So many specifics that are as varied as the match ups. Because that's what it comes down to. Match ups. And match ups on different surfaces. So there have to be some principles. And your principle that it's better if someone loses before a final where they lose to another great player just doesn't work.

But I THINK I understand why you're saying it. I think you're focusing on the oh so wonderful quality that is "clutchness." And I think I guess I just think that you can't really do that. You have to look at the whole record. Therefore, winning more matches and going further in tournaments is better than not, in my book. And obviously I think my book should be the standard. Mostly because I don't think your book can work. It's too exclusionary. It oversimplifies. But obviously, I'm probably missing something as well. But, making a conscious effort to keep this short (I already wrote out a really long piece and this is me editing), Fed's consecutive semifinal and consecutive quarterfinal streaks are out of this world amazing. Lendl's streak from the '81 US Open to '91 Wimbledon, in which he didn't lose before the fourth round at all is great and better than anyone else in his era. During that time including the '81 US Open, he lost in the fourth round 5 times, the QFs just 3 times, the SF 9 times and the final 10 times. And he won all 8 of his slams in this period. Straight up consistency. In this era, it's hard to say he doesn't come out on top, because no one was that consistent everywhere.

I guess I'm making it into a black and white thing as well. But, I definitely mentioned the gray above. The match ups. The surfaces. Making a transition from clay to grass.

Great post. I just see it as a difference of opinion. Obviously making the finals means more points, more money than losing earlier. That is not the argument. The question I pose is should there be extra value/greatness for those who are just insanely good with all the chips on the table?

Part of Rafa's insane clay prowess is the fact he is 9-0 in the finals at RG. Obviously this makes him greater on clay than anyone has been on any surface. But if he does lose 1 in the final it gets just a bit worse (still better than anything we've seen but a worse record than 9-0 in the finals). So yes, to answer Moxie from before, from a "greatness" perspective I believe falling to Sod in the 4th is less a dent than having a blemish in the final against Roger or Novak. Similar with MJ (greatest athlete I've seen by far), part of his legend is that he was 6-0 in Finals, and never even faced a game 7 there. With all the chips on the table you knew he was going to drag his team to a win even as a 35 year old. If he had made 7 finals and lost just 1 I think that'd have subtracted a bit from him.

 

[britbox]

^ The thing is mate, this isn't a 300 zillion match regular season. In grand slam tennis, the chips are ALWAYS on the table. If you lose you go home. You don't have seventy matches to put things right or come back for Game 3,4,5,6 or 7 the next day.

It's win or bust. The chips are always on the table and it's mano mano - 1 on 1. Unlike team sports, there is no place to hide on an off day.

 

[Kieran]

See, there's a flaw in your reasoning, Darth, and I don't follow basketball but you can apply it to tennis: if Federer reaches the final of Wimbledon in five years time and he's 37 years old, he gets only praise for doing this. It means that even as a 37 year old, his standards are high.

The defeat there (to a 32 year old Rafa, no doubt ) doesn't reflect badly on his prime years at all. They're already in the bank. You're saying that it's better not to go there if you're going to lose, but who knows if you're going to lose?

Also, Lendl to me was an over-achiever, given that he wasn't as naturally talented as Becker or McEnroe. He worked hard, lost a bunch of finals, won a load too, and I think he did more than a lot of men with much more talent did...

 

[atttomole]

I wouldn't say Roger's any less a player, but during his reign, he could have been more offensive out there and avoided some of those upsets; esp. when leading 2-0 or 2-1 in sets! Federer was fortunate Andy choked having him on the ropes in '09! So I give Sampras a little more credit for his 7 wins with the grass being more challenging to win on! It's a baseline haven now and not half as entertaining to watch! These long points with little net play is so boring! Borg and Connors were baseliners, but they knew they had to come into the net more than to shake hands and collect the check! :angel:

I also remember Roger beating Pete in 2001 playing offensive tennis. It is well known that the grass changed, and Roger won playing from the baseline, so he did not need to be offensive when he was winning from the base line. Roger's play changed with the change of the grass conditions. I think if he was forced to play offensive, he who would have. And you could make the same argument about Goran choking against Pete.

Unfortunately Goran choked against Agassi in '92 as well! At least he was able to come back as a "wildcard" and win Wimbledon in 2001! :clap :angel:

I was happy for Goran in 2001 because I think his game deserved at least a Wimbledon. Tough luck that he had to face the great Sampras a few times at Wimbledon.

 

[Fiero425]

See, there's a flaw in your reasoning, Darth, and I don't follow basketball but you can apply it to tennis: if Federer reaches the final of Wimbledon in five years time and he's 37 years old, he gets only praise for doing this. It means that even as a 37 year old, his standards are high.

The defeat there (to a 32 year old Rafa, no doubt ) doesn't reflect badly on his prime years at all. They're already in the bank. You're saying that it's better not to go there if you're going to lose, but who knows if you're going to lose?

Also, Lendl to me was an over-achiever, given that he wasn't as naturally talented as Becker or McEnroe. He worked hard, lost a bunch of finals, won a load too, and I think he did more than a lot of men with much more talent did...

Lendl, like Hingis on the ladies' side got as much out of their limited ability; more cerebral players! :angel:

 

[DarthFed]

^ The thing is mate, this isn't a 300 zillion match regular season. In grand slam tennis, the chips are ALWAYS on the table. If you lose you go home. You don't have seventy matches to put things right or come back for Game 3,4,5,6 or 7 the next day.

It's win or bust. The chips are always on the table and it's mano mano - 1 on 1. Unlike team sports, there is no place to hide on an off day.

Can't argue anything there. It is one of the reasons it's hard to compare a team sport to an individual one.

 

[atttomole]

I think it is not a fair comparison because Hingis played breathtaking tennis, while Lendl was kind of mechanical in my opinion.

 

[Fiero425]

I think it is not a fair comparison because Hingis played breathtaking tennis, while Lendl was kind of mechanical in my opinion.

Hingis got more accolades because of her youth, but Lendl performed and won a lot more! He's definitely in the top 10 "all time" while even though Hingis is one of my faves, I can only give her top 20 billing! She was too easily overpowered there at the end! She was pretty much done in 2002, but will continue to watch her until she retires "again!" She's in the final of Eastbourne doubles I heard! Too bad it won't be televised! :nono :angel:

 

[tented]

She's in the final of Eastbourne doubles I heard! Too bad it won't be televised! :nono :angel:

You might be able to find that online. I could provide links if you're interested.

 

[tenisplayrla08]

That depends on whether you consider making a final a good tournament for someone who has made 20+ finals and won 17 slams. IMO, Roger's career absolutely is greater if he is 1-0 in RG finals. Better H2H vs. Nadal and 17-3 in GS finals. That's definitely greater IMO.

Lendl won enough to be an all time great but his place is a little lower than it should have been due to that laughable record in GS finals.

So you're saying Lendl's legacy would be stronger if he got knocked out in the first round of Wimbledon rather than being a losing finalist?

Don't agree at all. 8-11 is a better record than 8-0 for me, because he made 11 other finals rather than losing earlier... the points awarded would also suggest the same.

That one is a grayer area I will admit since Llendl never won Wimbledon. It at least makes him more respectable on grass than if he was routinely bounced in the 1st week. So making 1 and only 1 final there adds a little to his resume. Different scenario for the likes of Roger on grass where he has won a ton. Making the final and losing in 08 certainly didn't add to his resume and as you see IMO I think it subtracted a bit (Not much of course but I still think he looks greater at 7-0).

And I know you watch the NFL. So as another example in comparing Montana and Brady I'd say the former is a greater QB based on how they played in the Super Bowls. Brady has been to an extra Super Bowl, will finish with better stats, but on the biggest stage Montana was impeccable. Same with Jordan in NBA. No way you can really compare guys like Lebron and Kobe as great as they are.

You're one of the people I respect the most on this forum, but I think you're just wrong here Darth. Consistency has to be better/greater than a lack of consistency. I think, you're looking at this matter in a very black and white manner. When you know and we all know it's rather complicated. There are so many issues that are part of it. So many specifics that are as varied as the match ups. Because that's what it comes down to. Match ups. And match ups on different surfaces. So there have to be some principles. And your principle that it's better if someone loses before a final where they lose to another great player just doesn't work.

But I THINK I understand why you're saying it. I think you're focusing on the oh so wonderful quality that is "clutchness." And I think I guess I just think that you can't really do that. You have to look at the whole record. Therefore, winning more matches and going further in tournaments is better than not, in my book. And obviously I think my book should be the standard. Mostly because I don't think your book can work. It's too exclusionary. It oversimplifies. But obviously, I'm probably missing something as well. But, making a conscious effort to keep this short (I already wrote out a really long piece and this is me editing), Fed's consecutive semifinal and consecutive quarterfinal streaks are out of this world amazing. Lendl's streak from the '81 US Open to '91 Wimbledon, in which he didn't lose before the fourth round at all is great and better than anyone else in his era. During that time including the '81 US Open, he lost in the fourth round 5 times, the QFs just 3 times, the SF 9 times and the final 10 times. And he won all 8 of his slams in this period. Straight up consistency. In this era, it's hard to say he doesn't come out on top, because no one was that consistent everywhere.

I guess I'm making it into a black and white thing as well. But, I definitely mentioned the gray above. The match ups. The surfaces. Making a transition from clay to grass.

Great post. I just see it as a difference of opinion. Obviously making the finals means more points, more money than losing earlier. That is not the argument. The question I pose is should there be extra value/greatness for those who are just insanely good with all the chips on the table?

Part of Rafa's insane clay prowess is the fact he is 9-0 in the finals at RG. Obviously this makes him greater on clay than anyone has been on any surface. But if he does lose 1 in the final it gets just a bit worse (still better than anything we've seen but a worse record than 9-0 in the finals). So yes, to answer Moxie from before, from a "greatness" perspective I believe falling to Sod in the 4th is less a dent than having a blemish in the final against Roger or Novak. Similar with MJ (greatest athlete I've seen by far), part of his legend is that he was 6-0 in Finals, and never even faced a game 7 there. With all the chips on the table you knew he was going to drag his team to a win even as a 35 year old. If he had made 7 finals and lost just 1 I think that'd have subtracted a bit from him.

I think we just have to remember that an 8-11 record in finals means that player went 19 and something in semifinals. In Lendl's case it's 19-9 in SFs and 28-6 in QFs. No one else in his era could say that. But, those players could still make the finals of slams more than occasionally and 11 times they were able to beat Lendl who was there more than they were. Because they too were amazing players. They just didn't have "it" as often as Lendl did. But... their "it" may have been better than Lendl's. But he somehow still managed to beat their "it" in 5 of those finals (3 of his wins were against nobodys).

Rafa is 9-0 in finals at RG. But he's not 10-0 in the ten times he's made the trip to RG. In this particular case, he may or may not have been significantly hampered by knee problems. But he does have the 1 loss. He's still not perfect there. And that's life. That's not just the point. It's a fact of life. We're human. We fail. It has to be part of our legacy because it is absolutely inevitable. I think going farther before you fail helps your legacy. If one only looks at the finals record then it looks like it hurts their legacy. But you can't just look at the finals record. Stuff happened before the finals. I mean, what was Fed supposed to do? Quit after 5 Wimbledons? Fed lost his 6th try, but went to 7 straight finals at Wimbledon. Not even Rafa can say that about RG. No one can say that at any slam anywhere ever. And only Rafa can say it at any tournament ever (Monte Carlo 8 titles in a row and I think 9 finals in a row... right? Not looking that up.) And Fed lost that 6th try to one of the other all time greats. A man who has a weapon that he can use against Fed that Fed simply can't deal with because he learned to use a one handed backhand as a child.

But yes, always winning on the big stage, one gets points for that. But losing before getting to the big stage takes points away. You get points for big stage greatness because mental toughness is a category. Rafa's is arguably the greatest of all time. Maybe behind Borg. But Fed's is right up there. He's crumbled as he's gotten older. But, he's still done better after 28 than most players ever do. And that is because of better medicine and training. Duh. But what it means is that Fed is the first to make this tread. And guess what, Nadal hasn't made that trek yet. It's just beginning. We're seeing this back problem this year. That's part of life.

Fed has a ton of grass court wins. He wouldn't have that many if he didn't keep going to the final and trying to go to the final. And then there is the fact that Nadal isn't perfect in finals everywhere. He's the best on clay. But Fed's legacy is great on two surfaces. And his legacy on clay is right up there with the greats. Because he went to 5 finals. There are just so many nuances to it all. And you can't leave them out. And this post would be way to long (as if it isn't already) if I kept talking about them.

 

[tenisplayrla08]

Can't wait for this tournament though. Hoping Fed can find a way through. Would love to see Fed have to play Nadal to get through. But I'm not sure we will. And I'm of course not sure that is what I want because I'm not sure Fed can beat Nadal. But of course he has a better chance here than at French or even the AO. And he's been working on his game all year and getting better. So he really could play with Nadal I think. I think. Anyways, at this point, I'm tired of doing predictions. I did the women yesterday. But even that I was sort of like, what's gonna happen is gonna happen. Here's to Federer! Or a new champion. If Fed can't have it, I definitely don't want to see Nadal, Djokovic, or Murray get it. But of course I would want to see whoever it is have to go through at least one of them. If Kei is healthy.... I still don't think grass is going to be his best place, but until Fed, he didn't have any problems in Halle. I'm still baffled how he blew Nadal off the court in Madrid. Nadal had no chance until Kei couldn't move. And by baffled I mean pleasantly astounded. He was so good that day.

One thing I'm ticked about.... Ryan Harrison managed to qualify and got Dimitrov in the first round. He has the absolute worst draw luck. Obviously, it wouldn't look like that if he were better and won some of those tough matches he's been given. But I do believe he's top 100 level and top 50 level. But I mean, he's had Nadal and other amazing players in the first and second round of most of his majors and big tournaments. Can't catch a break. But in this match I'm mad because I want to see Dimitrov do well. I'm a bigger fan of his. But I was hoping Harrison could just get to a third round or something to add some points. But... nope. I'd be rather unhappy if he upset Dimitrov. So I'm still pulling for Dimitrov and he's the better player, so it should be all good. But you never know. Obviously, that's how these things role. Somebody has to lose for another to get anywhere.

 

[Fiero425]

Can't wait for this tournament though. Hoping Fed can find a way through. Would love to see Fed have to play Nadal to get through. But I'm not sure we will. And I'm of course not sure that is what I want because I'm not sure Fed can beat Nadal. But of course he has a better chance here than at French or even the AO. And he's been working on his game all year and getting better. So he really could play with Nadal I think. I think. Anyways, at this point, I'm tired of doing predictions. I did the women yesterday. But even that I was sort of like, what's gonna happen is gonna happen. Here's to Federer! Or a new champion. If Fed can't have it, I definitely don't want to see Nadal, Djokovic, or Murray get it. But of course I would want to see whoever it is have to go through at least one of them. If Kei is healthy.... I still don't think grass is going to be his best place, but until Fed, he didn't have any problems in Halle. I'm still baffled how he blew Nadal off the court in Madrid. Nadal had no chance until Kei couldn't move. And by baffled I mean pleasantly astounded. He was so good that day.

One thing I'm ticked about.... Ryan Harrison managed to qualify and got Dimitrov in the first round. He has the absolute worst draw luck. Obviously, it wouldn't look like that if he were better and won some of those tough matches he's been given. But I do believe he's top 100 level and top 50 level. But I mean, he's had Nadal and other amazing players in the first and second round of most of his majors and big tournaments. Can't catch a break. But in this match I'm mad because I want to see Dimitrov do well. I'm a bigger fan of his. But I was hoping Harrison could just get to a third round or something to add some points. But... nope. I'd be rather unhappy if he upset Dimitrov. So I'm still pulling for Dimitrov and he's the better player, so it should be all good. But you never know. Obviously, that's how these things role. Somebody has to lose for another to get anywhere.

I should come up with a thread reminiscent of how some players' careers are misdirected because of unfortunate draws! I still sorta remember a left-handed NCAA champion who ran into McEnroe at both the FO and Wimbledon over 30 years ago, taking him to the limit both times, but was never heard from again! It happens a lot! :nono :s

 

[rafanoy1992]

As for the rankings are concerned:

Djokovic needs to win the title and Nadal lose before the finals to become the new number 1 player.

Meanwhile, if Murray can't defend his title, he might drop to 6-8 rankings.

 

[Front242]

Murray's number 9 now with the points from last year off.