All 100 Wimbledon Championship points from the Open Era

[tented]

 

[Federberg]

I hate to go all DarthFed … but I watch that and feel regret. My 3 boys Mac, Edberg and Federer, left a lot of stuff on the table! Sigh...

 

[brokenshoelace]

I hate to go all DarthFed … but I watch that and feel regret. My 3 boys Mac, Edberg and Federer, left a lot of stuff on the table! Sigh...

That's almost literally every great player though. I don't want to hijack the conversation but it's an interesting one. I think if you look at the top 3, you can point out to quite a few slams they "should" have won, and quite a few which they were somewhat "fortunate" to win (using both terms loosely but you get my point).

I realize the difference is that this is Wimbledon, Fed's backyard, so the ones he "left on the table" feel bigger, while Nadal didn't leave anything on the table in his own backyard in Paris, but I actually believe Fed's biggest missed opportunities came at other slams, not Wimbledon. Off the top of my head, I really don't see which Wimbledon you can point to and say Fed "should have won it." Darth will point to 2008 but his argument itself is so inconsistent. On one hand he'll tell you that Fed didn't even play all that well in that match. Fine, so why should he have won? Nadal was clearly the better player that match and it probably shouldn't have gone to 5. Meanwhile, Fed did great to take it to 5 vs. Novak in 2014 but I'd argue Novak was the better player in that match too and easily the better player the following year. I'd also argue that you can just as easily point out to the 2007 and 2009 finals as ones Fed could have lost, so these things tend to balance themselves out when you're a great player who constantly reaches finals. You'll win some close ones you could have lost and lose some other ones you could/should have won. He's played a dozen finals or so, after all.

If Roger left a lot on the table by losing to Stakhovsky in the first week, Berdych, Anderson and Tsonga in the QF's and so on, then OK, but it's rich to say that in tournaments where he didn't even make the semis.

Meanwhile, I think Roger definitely left a couple of US Opens on the table (the Del Potro loss is the most inexcusable of his career and if that had been Nadal who beat him that way Fed fans would be lamenting it till the end of time) and should be kicking himself for the 2009 AO final and how lame his fifth set effort was.

 

[Federberg]

It's misrepresentations like this that make me loathe the media. I'm no Rafa fan but the Daily Mail editor should go f--k himself quite frankly...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/t...t-place-womens-world-No-1-Ashleigh-Barty.html

That's almost literally every great player though. I don't want to hijack the conversation but it's an interesting one. I think if you look at the top 3, you can point out to quite a few slams they "should" have won, and quite a few which they were somewhat "fortunate" to win (using both terms loosely but you get my point).

I realize the difference is that this is Wimbledon, Fed's backyard, so the ones he "left on the table" feel bigger, while Nadal didn't leave anything on the table in his own backyard in Paris, but I actually believe Fed's biggest missed opportunities came at other slams, not Wimbledon. Off the top of my head, I really don't see which Wimbledon you can point to and say Fed "should have won it." Darth will point to 2008 but his argument itself is so inconsistent. On one hand he'll tell you that Fed didn't even play all that well in that match. Fine, so why should he have won? Nadal was clearly the better player that match and it probably shouldn't have gone to 5. Meanwhile, Fed did great to take it to 5 vs. Novak in 2014 but I'd argue Novak was the better player in that match too and easily the better player the following year. I'd also argue that you can just as easily point out to the 2007 and 2009 finals as ones Fed could have lost, so these things tend to balance themselves out when you're a great player who constantly reaches finals. You'll win some close ones you could have lost and lose some other ones you could/should have won. He's played a dozen finals or so, after all.

If Roger left a lot on the table by losing to Stakhovsky in the first week, Berdych, Anderson and Tsonga in the QF's and so on, then OK, but it's rich to say that in tournaments where he didn't even make the semis.

Meanwhile, I think Roger definitely left a couple of US Opens on the table (the Del Potro loss is the most inexcusable of his career and if that had been Nadal who beat him that way Fed fans would be lamenting it till the end of time) and should be kicking himself for the 2009 AO final and how lame his fifth set effort was.

largely agree with you. Bear in mind that I'm just as much of a Mac and Edberg fan as a Fedfan. Where Wimbledon is concerned nothing bites me more than Edberg losing in the semi-final to Stich without dropping serve. Stich had crucial flukes in every tie-break. It was written in the stars for him that year. No way was he the better player in that semi-final, and it was pretty obvious Stefan would have marmalised Boris in the final The absolute worst ones for Roger are definitely AO 09 and US 09. And I do agree that Wimbledon 09 was extremely unfortunate for Roddick. Still don't know how Andy lost that 2nd set tie break!

 

[DarthFed]

That's almost literally every great player though. I don't want to hijack the conversation but it's an interesting one. I think if you look at the top 3, you can point out to quite a few slams they "should" have won, and quite a few which they were somewhat "fortunate" to win (using both terms loosely but you get my point).

I realize the difference is that this is Wimbledon, Fed's backyard, so the ones he "left on the table" feel bigger, while Nadal didn't leave anything on the table in his own backyard in Paris, but I actually believe Fed's biggest missed opportunities came at other slams, not Wimbledon. Off the top of my head, I really don't see which Wimbledon you can point to and say Fed "should have won it." Darth will point to 2008 but his argument itself is so inconsistent. On one hand he'll tell you that Fed didn't even play all that well in that match. Fine, so why should he have won? Nadal was clearly the better player that match and it probably shouldn't have gone to 5. Meanwhile, Fed did great to take it to 5 vs. Novak in 2014 but I'd argue Novak was the better player in that match too and easily the better player the following year. I'd also argue that you can just as easily point out to the 2007 and 2009 finals as ones Fed could have lost, so these things tend to balance themselves out when you're a great player who constantly reaches finals. You'll win some close ones you could have lost and lose some other ones you could/should have won. He's played a dozen finals or so, after all.

If Roger left a lot on the table by losing to Stakhovsky in the first week, Berdych, Anderson and Tsonga in the QF's and so on, then OK, but it's rich to say that in tournaments where he didn't even make the semis.

Meanwhile, I think Roger definitely left a couple of US Opens on the table (the Del Potro loss is the most inexcusable of his career and if that had been Nadal who beat him that way Fed fans would be lamenting it till the end of time) and should be kicking himself for the 2009 AO final and how lame his fifth set effort was.

Roger had a lot more "crazy" inexcusable losses than the other 2. I mean that is just fact. I've never said Roger deserved to win 2008 Wimbledon but yeah he didn't play well for the vast majority of that match. As you said it could have easily been done before the 5th and then what would the narrative been? 2015 was also just a terrible performance and a lopsided loss. 2016 and 2018 were huge misses. Yes, the Anderson loss was QF's but he would've had Isner and a Novak way below his best. It wasn't a sure thing of course but that was a huge miss. 2016 he threw the semi away vs Raonic. He would have had Murray which usually would be a sure thing but maybe not that year.

AO 2005 got away badly. Great match and all but one he should have won vs a mental midget. Aside from that, USO has seen the most disasters. 2009-2011. Awful losses in 2012 and 2014 when he would have had a good shot at the title. If you compare Nole and Nadal in this way it isn't even close to the same. How many majors have those guys lost from 1 set up, 2-1 sets up and 2 sets up? I bet not as many combined as Roger. Also Fed is now something like 5-9 in 5th sets in SF and Finals stages. It was 2-9 before 2017.

 

[tented]

Meanwhile, I think Roger definitely left a couple of US Opens on the table (the Del Potro loss is the most inexcusable of his career

He would agree. He was recently asked if he could have a redo, which one would it be, and it was that one.

 

[britbox]

Nice trip down memory lane, and a reminder of some exquisite grass court volleying.
My first memories of Wimbledon were Goolagong, but Chrissie Evert was my first tennis love. Steffi and Stefan Edberg, favourite players ever and nice to recall their triumphs.

 

[britbox]

That's almost literally every great player though. I don't want to hijack the conversation but it's an interesting one. I think if you look at the top 3, you can point out to quite a few slams they "should" have won, and quite a few which they were somewhat "fortunate" to win (using both terms loosely but you get my point).

I realize the difference is that this is Wimbledon, Fed's backyard, so the ones he "left on the table" feel bigger, while Nadal didn't leave anything on the table in his own backyard in Paris, but I actually believe Fed's biggest missed opportunities came at other slams, not Wimbledon. Off the top of my head, I really don't see which Wimbledon you can point to and say Fed "should have won it." Darth will point to 2008 but his argument itself is so inconsistent. On one hand he'll tell you that Fed didn't even play all that well in that match. Fine, so why should he have won? Nadal was clearly the better player that match and it probably shouldn't have gone to 5. Meanwhile, Fed did great to take it to 5 vs. Novak in 2014 but I'd argue Novak was the better player in that match too and easily the better player the following year. I'd also argue that you can just as easily point out to the 2007 and 2009 finals as ones Fed could have lost, so these things tend to balance themselves out when you're a great player who constantly reaches finals. You'll win some close ones you could have lost and lose some other ones you could/should have won. He's played a dozen finals or so, after all.

If Roger left a lot on the table by losing to Stakhovsky in the first week, Berdych, Anderson and Tsonga in the QF's and so on, then OK, but it's rich to say that in tournaments where he didn't even make the semis.

Meanwhile, I think Roger definitely left a couple of US Opens on the table (the Del Potro loss is the most inexcusable of his career and if that had been Nadal who beat him that way Fed fans would be lamenting it till the end of time) and should be kicking himself for the 2009 AO final and how lame his fifth set effort was.

Agree with most of this. The Delpo loss was bad, as was the AO final 2009. I actually thought Nadal was there for the taking at the FO in 2011... but these things tend to even themselves out, and if you can't get over the line then you don't deserve to win anyway. One word... Coria.

 

[DarthFed]

Agree with most of this. The Delpo loss was bad, as was the AO final 2009. I actually thought Nadal was there for the taking at the FO in 2011... but these things tend to even themselves out, and if you can't get over the line then you don't deserve to win anyway. One word... Coria.

I agree, one thing I don't like is when people say "the better player lost". I don't think that can happen unless there was such an obvious linesmen/chair ump screwup that it clearly changed the result of the match. Roger didn't end up being the better player in the 2009-2011 USO losses. Those were just matches he should've won because he had complete control. But if you snatch defeat from the jaws of victory that doesn't mean you were the better player.

 

[Moxie]

I agree, one thing I don't like is when people say "the better player lost". I don't think that can happen unless there was such an obvious linesmen/chair ump screwup that it clearly changed the result of the match. Roger didn't end up being the better player in the 2009-2011 USO losses. Those were just matches he should've won because he had complete control. But if you snatch defeat from the jaws of victory that doesn't mean you were the better player.

This is quite evolved for you. I thought you were still moaning over matches that Roger lost, as the "better" player. Well-realized.

 

[DarthFed]

This is quite evolved for you. I thought you were still moaning over matches that Roger lost, as the "better" player. Well-realized.

I moan over matches he blew and/or badly underperformed. He's had quite a few in both categories.

 

[mrzz]

I agree, one thing I don't like is when people say "the better player lost". I don't think that can happen unless there was such an obvious linesmen/chair ump screwup that it clearly changed the result of the match. Roger didn't end up being the better player in the 2009-2011 USO losses. Those were just matches he should've won because he had complete control. But if you snatch defeat from the jaws of victory that doesn't mean you were the better player.

Finally someone said it. I always had shivers reading people write that the "better player lost" (though I might have written something like that in past myself...). He was the better player until... he wasn't. And that was precisely the business end of the match. That is something I like about tennis (letting alone the cases you mention and other external factors), the better player always wins.

 

[Moxie]

Does this mean we can stop talking about the AO '05 and '09, USO '09, and (please, God!) W '08? Because that would be excellent!

 

[tented]

Does this mean we can stop talking about the AO '05 and '09, USO '09, and (please, God!) W '08? Because that would be excellent!

[Shh! We’d have to close the site.]

 

[Moxie]

[Shh! We’d have to close the site.]

Oh, no, because like Bogart and Bergman have Paris, we'll always have the Fedal wars. And the Fedalovic ones.

 

[brokenshoelace]

"The better player always wins" thing is a tough one for me. As a general rule of thumb, I am against dogmatic views that don't take nuance into account. However, I do believe tennis is a sport where the better player will win a laaaaaaaaaarge amount of the time (unlike say, soccer, or combat sports where one punch/kick can change everything).

Problem is when people say "the better player lost" they're looking at it generally one sidedly. What they really mean is "the guy who dictated more rallies lost." Except, there's more to tennis than that and keeping the ball in play (rather than netting it or hitting it out) is part of being good at tennis.

The other bias tends to be towards serving vs. baseline play. There's been plenty of matches where someone is clearly getting the better of his opponent from behind the baseline but the other guy hangs in there with his serve and eventually wins the match. This one is a little tricky. Serving is a major part of the game. Reading serves/returning is another major part. The extreme cases where say, Karlovic wins a match against some top 20 player despite barely winning a point on his opponent's serve are perhaps obvious cases of :the better player losing (though if you want to be an absolutist about this you can still argue to the contrary).